Exxon oil spill punitive damages reduced.

[old school]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91881285&ft=1&f=1001

The massive multi-billion dollar fine was basically cancelled in leu of what Exxon has already paid to date - roughly 500 million. I don't know what the clean-up costed and It was so long ago I can't remember the amount of negiligence that was involved, but the timing of this decision certainly inspires some questions.

What do you all think?

[stevelyn]

Commercial fishermen were looking screw Exxon for a big pay out for basically one lost season. People who lost nothing as a result of the spill were also trying to hitch a ride on the money train as well.

Exxon paid for the clean up, took responsibility and axed Joe Hazelwood, and took steps to prevent or mitigate any future spills.

I think the reduction in punitive damages is fair.

[Sergeant Bob]

Commercial fishermen were looking screw Exxon for a big pay out for basically one lost season. People who lost nothing as a result of the spill were also trying to hitch a ride on the money train as well.

Exxon paid for the clean up, took responsibility and axed Joe Hazelwood, and took steps to prevent or mitigate any future spills.

I think the reduction in punitive damages is fair.

I have to agree with stevelyn. The punitive damages serve no real purpose than to enrich a bunch of bottom feeders.

[roo_ster]

That wailing & gnashing of teeth is the tort lawyers reaction to the ruling.

[old school]

I have to agree with stevelyn. The punitive damages serve no real purpose than to enrich a bunch of bottom feeders.

I definately don't see it that way at all. If the actual cost of damages aren't enough to detour wrongdoers from doing harm, then we have to have more laws and more government oversight to stop them. Civil courts are an excellent place to smack down powerful companies who would do harm.

The Pinto gas tank cases of the 70's and the Jimmie Ray vs. Greatwestern Insurance leukemia case are prime examples.

[El Tejon]

I can't remember the amount of negiligence that was involved

That amount would be none.  Exxon did nothing wrong, other than having a heavy checkbook.

Exxon was a LST (large, slow target) and did the right thing and as a matter of law did not deserve punitive damages.  The "powerful corporations" give you gasoline for your car, bring food to your table and bring you medicine.

What do tort lawyers bring you?

[De Selby]

I can't remember the amount of negiligence that was involved

That amount would be none.  Exxon did nothing wrong, other than having a heavy checkbook.

Exxon was a LST (large, slow target) and did the right thing and as a matter of law did not deserve punitive damages.  The "powerful corporations" give you gasoline for your car, bring food to your table and bring you medicine.

What do tort lawyers bring you?

What do tort lawyers bring you? Are you serious?

The US runs on private enforcement-the reason European countries don't have the tort systems we do is that they regulate the hell out of everything.  Here, we leave the regulation up to private parties-if you complain, you enforce the right yourself at your own expense. 

Exxon got busted because they had a drunken sea captain piloting the Valdez. 

[old school]

That amount would be none.  Exxon did nothing wrong, other than having a heavy checkbook.

Wow, that is quite a statement.
If I recall the captain was drunk. That is pretty wrong don't you think. Do you suggest that a drunk driver that kills another person should only be responsible for fixing the car and burial expenses for the victim?

[RaspberrySurprise]

Yes the captain was drunk. The company itself was not negligent unless it knew the captain was an alcoholic or had good cause to believe he was. Thats not to say Exxon should get off scott free on the cleanup but the captain should be responsible for the punitive portion, of course Exxon has deeper pockets so they get the bullseye. The captain is the master of his vessel and is responsible for it at all times, at least that what the coast guard and years of admiralty tradition say.

[old school]

Thats not to say Exxon should get off scott free on the cleanup but the captain should be responsible for the punitive portion, of course Exxon has deeper pockets so they get the bullseye.

Well, that is an interesting theory. Tell me, how many multi billionaires out there do you think are lining up to be a oil tanker captain? Because that is what it would take for the captain himself to have the resources to accept that responsibility. Since that is not feasible, Exxon accepts the burden of responsibility for the Captian they place in control of something as potentially dangerous as an oil tanker.

The 2nd part of that theory that doesn't work is that if the Captain is the only person responsible for punitive damages, that offers no deterant to Exxon not to be negligent in choosing quality and responsible captains. It also does not detour them from overworking and over stressing the captains as well as not evaluating them at regular intervals for mental stability, drug and alchohol use.

[mtnbkr]

Yes the captain was drunk. The company itself was not negligent unless it knew the captain was an alcoholic or had good cause to believe he was. Thats not to say Exxon should get off scott free on the cleanup but the captain should be responsible for the punitive portion, of course Exxon has deeper pockets so they get the bullseye. The captain is the master of his vessel and is responsible for it at all times, at least that what the coast guard and years of admiralty tradition say.

It's been a while since my business law classes, but I do recall that if an agent of the corporation, while acting on behalf of that corporation, does something "wrong", the corporation is just as liable. 

Chris

[De Selby]

Yes the captain was drunk. The company itself was not negligent unless it knew the captain was an alcoholic or had good cause to believe he was. Thats not to say Exxon should get off scott free on the cleanup but the captain should be responsible for the punitive portion, of course Exxon has deeper pockets so they get the bullseye. The captain is the master of his vessel and is responsible for it at all times, at least that what the coast guard and years of admiralty tradition say.

mtnbkr has it right-if you benefit from the activities of the employee, you are liable for the damage he causes.  This makes sense especially when applied to corporations.  If you couldn't impute employees' actions to corporations, how would you ever have a corporation that could enter into a contract?

This was an admiralty law case, btw.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Why does Exxon need to be assessed punitive damages?  Is there any reason to think that Exxon didn't have enough incentive to do whatever they could to prevent a spill?

I haven't studied the spill or the litigation in any depth, but on the surface it looks like Exxon acted reasonably to prevent a spill.  It was the negligence of the captain, acting against the policies and wishes of the company, that led to the spill. 

Now of course Exxon is liable for the damages resulting from the spill.  They've paid those, I believe.  But punitive damages?  Exxon didn't want the spill any more than anybody else did.  What does anyone hope to gain by punitive damages, other than a windfall payout?

[old school]

That is a logical arguement Thompson Gunner. Just for the fact that was a damn expensive tanker filled with product. Why would they want to loose that?

Here is what I will offer for an answer. Look at the changes that have taken place since that wreck. Oil tankers have improved with many safety and spill containment features. Exxon has likely changed their captains testing and evaluation standards and employment practices. Other companies took immediate notice of that massive punitive smack down and likely immediately tightened up the standards aggressively.

This probably would not have happened if the only loss to Exxon was the tanker and the product. In fact they probably would have just adjusted their 5 year financial projection and went on about business as usual.

I hate scumbag lawsuit happy shysters too. But, in this case, I think punitive damages are definately appropriate. The only question I have is was the amount reasonable and did Exxon being let off the hook or was it enough to make them clean up their act.

[De Selby]

Why does Exxon need to be assessed punitive damages?  Is there any reason to think that Exxon didn't have enough incentive to do whatever they could to prevent a spill?

I would say having a known drunk piloting the vessel would count as evidence that there wasn't enough incentive to get Exxon to be careful about this.

I'm confused as to people believing that the individual's negligence shouldn't count towards the corporation.  How exactly does a corporation do anything except through individual employees??? It's not a real person; 100 percent of whatever a corporation does, it does through real people.  So why would tortious acts not be imputed to the corporation when profitable ones are?

Usually people argue for punitive damages only in cases of conduct that goes beyond negligent-like, say, having someone who was known to be habitually drunk on the job piloting an oil tanker.

I think cutting down the punitive damages was fair in this case, though-but certainly I can see why they were assessed.

[MicroBalrog]

The US runs on private enforcement-the reason European countries don't have the tort systems we do is that they regulate the hell out of everything. Here, we leave the regulation up to private parties-if you complain, you enforce the right yourself at your own expense.

Check. It's either lawyers or government bureaucrats. I'd rather have lawyers.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Why does Exxon need to be assessed punitive damages?  Is there any reason to think that Exxon didn't have enough incentive to do whatever they could to prevent a spill?

I would say having a known drunk piloting the vessel would count as evidence that there wasn't enough incentive to get Exxon to be careful about this.

Is it proven that Exxon as a company knew the captain drank while on duty?

[De Selby]

Why does Exxon need to be assessed punitive damages?  Is there any reason to think that Exxon didn't have enough incentive to do whatever they could to prevent a spill?

I would say having a known drunk piloting the vessel would count as evidence that there wasn't enough incentive to get Exxon to be careful about this.

Is it proven that Exxon as a company knew the captain drank while on duty?

Yes.

But even if they hadn't known...how come only profitable activities should be imputed to the corporation, and not negligent harm?

[MicroBalrog]

From Wiki:

The cause of the incident was investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board, which identified the four following factors as contributing to the grounding of the vessel:

  * The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue and excessive workload.
    * The master failed to provide navigation watch, possibly due to impairment under the influence of alcohol.
    * Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for the Exxon Valdez.
    * The United States Coast Guard failed to provide an effective vessel traffic system.[4]

[MechAg94]

Exxon essentially did get hit with punitive damages.  Other than clean up, didn't they take steps to upgrade their fleet and upgrade spill response services?  When it comes to environmental spills, companies are normally allowed to offset punitive fines with the cost of improvements and upgrades that address the problem.  Companies like this since it helps them down the road.

In this case, I thought the punitive damages weren't eliminated, just reduced. 

[Manedwolf]

That amount would be none.  Exxon did nothing wrong, other than having a heavy checkbook.

Wow, that is quite a statement.
If I recall the captain was drunk. That is pretty wrong don't you think. Do you suggest that a drunk driver that kills another person should only be responsible for fixing the car and burial expenses for the victim?

Did the Exxon board of directors climb on the ship, tie down the captain and put the bottle in his mouth?