CNN Money: Supreme Court to review Exxon Valdez damages

[heyholetsgogrant]

Supreme Court to review Exxon Valdez damages

The high court will determine if the $2.5 billion in punitive damages owed for the 1989 Alaska oil spill is excessive.

October 29 2007: 10:53 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether Exxon Mobil Corp. should pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages in connection with the huge Exxon Valdez oil spill that fouled more than 1,200 miles of Alaskan coastline in 1989.

The high court stepped into the long-running battle over the damages that Exxon Mobil owes in the spillage of 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound, the worst oil spill in U.S. in 1994.

The justices said they would consider whether the company should have to pay any punitive damages at all. If the court decides some money is due, Exxon is arguing that $2.5 billion is excessive under laws governing shipping and prior high court decisions limiting punitive damages.

The damages were, by far, the largest ever approved by federal appeals judges, the company said in its brief to the court.

The case probably will be heard in the spring. The court's last ruling on punitive damages, in February, set aside a nearly $80 million judgment against Altria Group's (Charts, Fortune 500) Philip Morris USA. The money was awarded to the widow of a smoker in Oregon.

Justice Samuel Alito, who owns between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock, recused himself from the case.

Exxon said it already has paid $3.4 billion in clean-up costs and other penalties resulting from the oil spill, which killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, some of whom are deceased, said the damages award is "barely more than three weeks of Exxon's net profits." The plaintiffs still living include about 33,000 commercial fishermen, cannery workers, landowners, Native Alaskans, local governments and businesses.

The Irving, Texas-based oil company marshaled more than a dozen organizations ranging from groups of shippers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to support its bid for Supreme Court review.

The company argued it should not be held responsible for the mistakes of the ship's captain, Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who violated clear company rules when the Exxon Valdez ran aground with 53 million gallons of crude oil in its hold on March 23, 1989.....

Source: CNN Money

Full Article Click Here

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/29/news/companies/bc.scotus.exxonvaldez.ap/index.htm?cnn=yes

[heyholetsgogrant]

Supreme Court to review Exxon Valdez damages

The high court will determine if the $2.5 billion in punitive damages owed for the 1989 Alaska oil spill is excessive.

October 29 2007: 10:53 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether Exxon Mobil Corp. should pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages in connection with the huge Exxon Valdez oil spill that fouled more than 1,200 miles of Alaskan coastline in 1989.

The high court stepped into the long-running battle over the damages that Exxon Mobil owes in the spillage of 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound, the worst oil spill in U.S. in 1994.

The justices said they would consider whether the company should have to pay any punitive damages at all. If the court decides some money is due, Exxon is arguing that $2.5 billion is excessive under laws governing shipping and prior high court decisions limiting punitive damages.

The damages were, by far, the largest ever approved by federal appeals judges, the company said in its brief to the court.

The case probably will be heard in the spring. The court's last ruling on punitive damages, in February, set aside a nearly $80 million judgment against Altria Group's (Charts, Fortune 500) Philip Morris USA. The money was awarded to the widow of a smoker in Oregon.

Justice Samuel Alito, who owns between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock, recused himself from the case.

Exxon said it already has paid $3.4 billion in clean-up costs and other penalties resulting from the oil spill, which killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, some of whom are deceased, said the damages award is "barely more than three weeks of Exxon's net profits." The plaintiffs still living include about 33,000 commercial fishermen, cannery workers, landowners, Native Alaskans, local governments and businesses.

The Irving, Texas-based oil company marshaled more than a dozen organizations ranging from groups of shippers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to support its bid for Supreme Court review.

The company argued it should not be held responsible for the mistakes of the ship's captain, Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who violated clear company rules when the Exxon Valdez ran aground with 53 million gallons of crude oil in its hold on March 23, 1989.....

Source: CNN Money

Full Article Click Here

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/29/news/companies/bc.scotus.exxonvaldez.ap/index.htm?cnn=yes

[Midnight Judges]

Who breaks the tie with no Alito?

[Midnight Judges]

Who breaks the tie with no Alito?

[Kilmer17]

No one. It would still require 5 votes to "win".

[Kilmer17]

No one. It would still require 5 votes to "win".

[DjTj]

No one. It would still require 5 votes to "win".

but a 4-4 tie in this case would go against Exxon, since the Ninth Circuit approved the $2.5 billion verdict (actually reduced from the $5 billion awarded by an Alaska jury).

[DjTj]

No one. It would still require 5 votes to "win".

but a 4-4 tie in this case would go against Exxon, since the Ninth Circuit approved the $2.5 billion verdict (actually reduced from the $5 billion awarded by an Alaska jury).

[Kilmer17]

but a 4-4 tie in this case would go against Exxon, since the Ninth Circuit approved the $2.5 billion verdict (actually reduced from the $5 billion awarded by an Alaska jury).

That's correct, at least I think so. Since Exxon appealed, to win, they would need 5 Justices to agree with them.

[Kilmer17]

but a 4-4 tie in this case would go against Exxon, since the Ninth Circuit approved the $2.5 billion verdict (actually reduced from the $5 billion awarded by an Alaska jury).

That's correct, at least I think so. Since Exxon appealed, to win, they would need 5 Justices to agree with them.

[stevenaa]

The company argued it should not be held responsible for the mistakes of the ship's captain, Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who violated clear company rules when the Exxon Valdez ran aground with 53 million gallons of crude oil in its hold on March 23, 1989.....

Interesting. Is a company de facto negligient due to the actions of one of it's employees if it has rules and regulations in place condeming and barring the activitiy that causes the accident?

[stevenaa]

The company argued it should not be held responsible for the mistakes of the ship's captain, Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who violated clear company rules when the Exxon Valdez ran aground with 53 million gallons of crude oil in its hold on March 23, 1989.....

Interesting. Is a company de facto negligient due to the actions of one of it's employees if it has rules and regulations in place condeming and barring the activitiy that causes the accident?

[Brad_Edwards_Fan]

Yes..."master" is always responsible for the actions of the "servant"

(i guess always is strong...lets just say most often).

This seems to be an interesting defense on the part of exxon

[Brad_Edwards_Fan]

Yes..."master" is always responsible for the actions of the "servant"

(i guess always is strong...lets just say most often).

This seems to be an interesting defense on the part of exxon

[heyholetsgogrant]

Interesting. Is a company de facto negligient due to the actions of one of it's employees if it has rules and regulations in place condeming and barring the activitiy that causes the accident?

I see what you are saying. but if that were true, would a company ever be responsible for anything? (other then maybe ERON, because top brass was involved).

-Grant

[heyholetsgogrant]

Interesting. Is a company de facto negligient due to the actions of one of it's employees if it has rules and regulations in place condeming and barring the activitiy that causes the accident?

I see what you are saying. but if that were true, would a company ever be responsible for anything? (other then maybe ERON, because top brass was involved).

-Grant

[zoony]

Interesting. Is a company de facto negligient due to the actions of one of it's employees if it has rules and regulations in place condeming and barring the activitiy that causes the accident?

With $2.5 billion at stake, you can bet that the lawyers will find something.

But overall I would say "yes"... Exxon is at fault. They had a drunk guy driving one of their tankers. Sorry, but "we have a policy against that" isn't good enough for me.

Maybe if we have ships, planes, or trucks filled with millions of gallons of toxic sludge, we might be

(a) a little more discrimantory in who we hire to safeguard the sludge

and

( more prone to having some checks and balances in place to ensure that safe passage is not all left up to one person.

[zoony]

Interesting. Is a company de facto negligient due to the actions of one of it's employees if it has rules and regulations in place condeming and barring the activitiy that causes the accident?

With $2.5 billion at stake, you can bet that the lawyers will find something.

But overall I would say "yes"... Exxon is at fault. They had a drunk guy driving one of their tankers. Sorry, but "we have a policy against that" isn't good enough for me.

Maybe if we have ships, planes, or trucks filled with millions of gallons of toxic sludge, we might be

(a) a little more discrimantory in who we hire to safeguard the sludge

and

( more prone to having some checks and balances in place to ensure that safe passage is not all left up to one person.

[Brad_Edwards_Fan]

With $2.5 billion at stake, you can bet that the lawyers will find something.

But overall I would say "yes"... Exxon is at fault. They had a drunk guy driving one of their tankers. Sorry, but "we have a policy against that" isn't good enough for me.

Maybe if we have ships, planes, or trucks filled with millions of gallons of toxic sludge, we might be

(a) a little more discrimantory in who we hire to safeguard the sludge

and

( more prone to having some checks and balances in place to ensure that safe passage is not all left up to one person.

100% Agree.

I think exxons only chance is the fact that the court will most likley consider the punitive damages excessive based on what they have alread paid.

[Brad_Edwards_Fan]

With $2.5 billion at stake, you can bet that the lawyers will find something.

But overall I would say "yes"... Exxon is at fault. They had a drunk guy driving one of their tankers. Sorry, but "we have a policy against that" isn't good enough for me.

Maybe if we have ships, planes, or trucks filled with millions of gallons of toxic sludge, we might be

(a) a little more discrimantory in who we hire to safeguard the sludge

and

( more prone to having some checks and balances in place to ensure that safe passage is not all left up to one person.

100% Agree.

I think exxons only chance is the fact that the court will most likley consider the punitive damages excessive based on what they have alread paid.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Interesting. Is a company de facto negligient due to the actions of one of it's employees if it has rules and regulations in place condeming and barring the activitiy that causes the accident?

Yes..."master" is always responsible for the actions of the "servant"

(i guess always is strong...lets just say most often).

This seems to be an interesting defense on the part of exxon

I think that blanket statement is a little too broad.

Generally speaking, an employer is liable for the negligence of his employees based upon the relationship, itself. However, the employer will not be liable for any actions that fall outside the scope of the employees duties, and the employer is generally not liable for intentional torts (as opposed to negligence).

I don't know what happened in this case, but there is also a different theory called Negligent Hiring. I just bring this up because I think I remember there being some sort of history with the guy driving the boat. Is that right? And does anyone know under what theory damages were awarded?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Interesting. Is a company de facto negligient due to the actions of one of it's employees if it has rules and regulations in place condeming and barring the activitiy that causes the accident?

Yes..."master" is always responsible for the actions of the "servant"

(i guess always is strong...lets just say most often).

This seems to be an interesting defense on the part of exxon

I think that blanket statement is a little too broad.

Generally speaking, an employer is liable for the negligence of his employees based upon the relationship, itself. However, the employer will not be liable for any actions that fall outside the scope of the employees duties, and the employer is generally not liable for intentional torts (as opposed to negligence).

I don't know what happened in this case, but there is also a different theory called Negligent Hiring. I just bring this up because I think I remember there being some sort of history with the guy driving the boat. Is that right? And does anyone know under what theory damages were awarded?

[Predicto]

Interesting. Is a company de facto negligient due to the actions of one of it's employees if it has rules and regulations in place condeming and barring the activitiy that causes the accident?

Of course, sometimes a company's stated rules and regulations are just empty words that are not enforced or expected to be enforced. Pointing to a paper rule is not going to be a complete defense to anything.

[Predicto]

Interesting. Is a company de facto negligient due to the actions of one of it's employees if it has rules and regulations in place condeming and barring the activitiy that causes the accident?

Of course, sometimes a company's stated rules and regulations are just empty words that are not enforced or expected to be enforced. Pointing to a paper rule is not going to be a complete defense to anything.

[stevenaa]

Of course, sometimes a company's stated rules and regulations are just empty words that are not enforced or expected to be enforced. Pointing to a paper rule is not going to be a complete defense to anything.

Agreed. Assuming that the rules are truly taught and enforced, they may have an argument to a degree. If the captain had simply flipped his wig and intentionally grounded the tanker, would they be responsible? Seems like there is a line where employee action is the sole resonsibility of the employee. Though there may be other factors besides the employees screw up, such as is not being a double hulled tanker, which, IIRC, would have prevented a spill.