All or nothing
situation for Exxon plaintiffs
High court could toss punitive damages
(AP) It was like a kick in Alaskans’
collective gut, Governor Sarah Palin was
reported to have said upon hearing of the
Supreme Court’s decision 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 move also angered plaintiffs in the case
– fishermen, native groups and others who
claimed they were harmed during the spill.
“I know there are many fishermen, processors
and others throughout Prince William Sound who
were hoping for a final decision on this case
today, and who are, therefore, disappointed,’
said Representative John Harris, who represents
Valdez – and thus numerous plaintiffs in the
case. “ I share in that disappointment. With the
Court’s rejection of the appeals to change the
amount of the award, it looks like we have
entered an “all-or-nothing” phase.”
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. history.
The Exxon Valdez supertanker had run aground
on a reef. A federal appeals court already had
cut in half the $5 billion in damages awarded by
a jury 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 Inc.'s
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.
``This case has never been about compensating
people for actual damages,'' company spokesman
Tony Cudmore said in a statement. ``Rather it is
about whether further punishment is
warranted...We do not believe any punitive
damages are warranted in this case.''
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.
The plaintiffs said Exxon knew Hazelwood had
sought treatment for drinking, but had begun
drinking again. ``Exxon placed a relapsed
alcoholic, who it knew was drinking aboard its
ships, in command of an enormous vessel carrying
toxic cargo across treacherous and resource-rich
waters,'' they said.
The company has been battling the judgment
for over a decade. The company has managed to
get the award cut in half from the original $5
billion awarded in 1994 by an Anchorage jury in
the class-action suit.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reduced
the punitive damages because, in part, the
company tried to clean up the spill and didn't
spill oil from the tanker Exxon Valdez
deliberately.
The disaster prompted Congress in 1990 to
pass a law banning single-hulled tankers like
the Valdez from domestic waters by 2015.
Exxon Mobil shares were up $1.61, or about 2
percent, to $93.82 in morning trading.
The case is Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker,
07-219.
___________________________________
Capt
Richard, "I had a phone
call from Senator Hillary Clinton. What we
talked about was the Statutory time limits
and all the people that have been exposed to
the Chemicals , which I supplied to the
beach workers, I told her that I am 100%
disabled now and I really miss the sea.
Other wise she said that according to her
everyone was already taken care of. So like
a good Captain I filled her in with the
problem's we are having and that Exxon needs
to pay up, just how many appeals can one
company have?" 10-31-07
Richard D.
Nagel, Florida
PSA: Exxon
Appeal granted.
|
Update - Per lead
attorney, Dave Oesting
1-28-04 status
back up |
"The
punitive damages in the
Exxon Valdez case is very
just and well within the
limits of constitutional
propriety!"
11-6-03 |
|
? |
Who is Responsible? |
|