CNN Money: Supreme Court to review Exxon Valdez damages

[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.

[Predicto]

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.

Sure. Not being double hulled, prior problems with this captain or with this ship or with this route, not being adequately staffed on the ship overall, etc. I haven't followed this case for 15 years so I don't have any idea about the details anymore.

[Predicto]

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.

Sure. Not being double hulled, prior problems with this captain or with this ship or with this route, not being adequately staffed on the ship overall, etc. I haven't followed this case for 15 years so I don't have any idea about the details anymore.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

If you read my previous post, your comment falls within the bounds of an intentional tort, which an employer would not be responsible for.

However, if the captain had done something before, and the employer knew it, or should have known in, yet hired him to captain a ship anyway, then you may have a good claim for negligent hiring.

Again, anyone know the basis for liability in this case?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

If you read my previous post, your comment falls within the bounds of an intentional tort, which an employer would not be responsible for.

However, if the captain had done something before, and the employer knew it, or should have known in, yet hired him to captain a ship anyway, then you may have a good claim for negligent hiring.

Again, anyone know the basis for liability in this case?

[Larry]

All I can say is that, obviously, the jury thought Exxon was not only a fault, but was at fault enough to deserve punishment.

No doubt the jury heard a lot (likely, far more than they wanted to hear) about why it's the Captain's fault, and company policies, and who knew what, and can they prove it, until they were likely as sick of the case as the OJ jury was.

And yeah, it wouldn't be the first time that a jury just decided that Exxon "looked bad". Or that "well, they've got gobs of money". But unless I've seen strong evidence to the contrary, I'm gonna go with "what the jury said".

[Larry]

All I can say is that, obviously, the jury thought Exxon was not only a fault, but was at fault enough to deserve punishment.

No doubt the jury heard a lot (likely, far more than they wanted to hear) about why it's the Captain's fault, and company policies, and who knew what, and can they prove it, until they were likely as sick of the case as the OJ jury was.

And yeah, it wouldn't be the first time that a jury just decided that Exxon "looked bad". Or that "well, they've got gobs of money". But unless I've seen strong evidence to the contrary, I'm gonna go with "what the jury said".

[Tulane Skins Fan]

All I can say is that, obviously, the jury thought Exxon was not only a fault, but was at fault enough to deserve punishment.

No doubt the jury heard a lot (likely, far more than they wanted to hear) about why it's the Captain's fault, and company policies, and who knew what, and can they prove it, until they were likely as sick of the case as the OJ jury was.

And yeah, it wouldn't be the first time that a jury just decided that Exxon "looked bad". Or that "well, they've got gobs of money". But unless I've seen strong evidence to the contrary, I'm gonna go with "what the jury said".

I could not agree with this more. The jury had all the facts, they made the most informed decision of anyone.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

All I can say is that, obviously, the jury thought Exxon was not only a fault, but was at fault enough to deserve punishment.

No doubt the jury heard a lot (likely, far more than they wanted to hear) about why it's the Captain's fault, and company policies, and who knew what, and can they prove it, until they were likely as sick of the case as the OJ jury was.

And yeah, it wouldn't be the first time that a jury just decided that Exxon "looked bad". Or that "well, they've got gobs of money". But unless I've seen strong evidence to the contrary, I'm gonna go with "what the jury said".

I could not agree with this more. The jury had all the facts, they made the most informed decision of anyone.