High court reduces Exxon oil spill damages

[Aviation Pro]

Source: CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday reduced a $2.5 billion punitive damages award against energy giant Exxon for its role in an infamous 1989 maritime oil spill off the coast of Alaska.



Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/25/news/companies/SCOTUS_exxon/index.htm?cnn=yes

---

Fucking amazing.

[daa]

1. So let me see if I understand this

Exxon makes 12 Billion profit in their last quarter and 508 million is punishment?

[livetohike]

2. This is sickening

I've boycotted Exxon since then and here's Alito who OWNS Exxon stock. I can't wait for Obama's chance to appoint some decent Justices.

This makes me very, very sad.

[GOPNotForMe]

8. For the record, Alito took no part in the case.

It was 5-3 because he recused himself and did not participate in oral arguments.

[livetohike]

9. I saw that.....it's how I knew Alito owned Exxon stock

:hi: His vote wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome anyway :-(.

[GOPNotForMe]

10. Likely would have just made it 6-3 anyway. Oh well.

[jespwrs]

3. Corporate Whores

The insanity continues.

[City Lights]

4. USA! USA! USA! Of, by, and for the corporations!

:argh:

Fuck.

[daggahead]

6. Blatant Plutocracy

We're quickly sliding into a Feudal state.

[daggahead]

5. I hope the good people of Alaska

start a civil suit against Exxon.

I stopped buying Exxon & Mobil fuels the day after Cpt Hazelwood spilled his Jack Daniels after running the Exxon Valdez aground.

[Blue_In_AK]

14. Read the comments of the good people of Alaska here

(after the article) http://www.adn.com/exxonvaldez/story/446057.html. This is really a slap in the face, kick in the gut, whatever. Of the three big oil companies doing business in Alaska (the other two being BP and Conoco-Phillips), Exxon has always been the most arrogant and obnoxious. I hope they get kicked out.

[LeftHander]

7. In Other NEWS - Exxon single day largest profit ever...

$2.5 Billion!

[OneBlueSky]

11. people, animals, birds, oceans, trees, rocks, flowers and bears . . .

(among others) have no fucking chance with any branch of the U.S. government . . . none . . .

this ruling is disgraceful . . . I wonder if these so-called "justices" have any idea how poorly they'll be remembered in history . . . not that they give a shit . . .

[Shoelace]

43. 11,000 sq. miles of ocean covered w/oil; up to 500,000 seabirds dead, more..

just a memory jogger here since many probably don't remember or are too young to know how horrible it really was:

Both the long- and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied comprehensively. Thousands of animals died immediately; the best estimates include 250,000 to as many as 500,000 seabirds, at least 1,000 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbour seals, 250 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, as well as the destruction of billions of salmon and herring eggs.<3><11> Due to a thorough cleanup, little visual evidence of the event remained in areas frequented by humans just 1 year later. However, the effects of the spill continue to be felt today. Overall reductions in population have been seen in various ocean animals, including stunted growth in pink salmon populations.<12> Sea otters and ducks also showed higher death rates in following years, partially because they ingested prey from contaminated soil and from ingestion of oil residues on hair due to grooming.<13>

Almost 15 years after the spill, a team of scientists at the University of North Carolina found that the effects are lasting far longer than expected.<12> The team estimates some shoreline habitats may take up to 30 years to recover.<3> Exxon Mobil denies any concerns over this, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of 350 peer-reviewed studies.<13> However, a study from scientists from NOAA concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the "wilderness character" of the area.<10>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill



A pool of saffron-colored oil paints swirls along Alaska's shoreline following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. Although it was not large compared to other spills, the Valdez oil spill was one of the world's most ecologically devastating disasters, spoiling more than 1,200 miles (1,931 kilometers) of shoreline, including three national parks, three national wildlife refuges, and one national forest.

[onehandle]

12. Conservative Activist Judges Steal 2 Billion Dollars from Taxpayers and Give it to the Rich.

That's about it.

[Megahurtz]

67. Exxon probably

paid off the Judges.

[boomerbust]

13. HERE

<<<<<<<<<<<<<< This ones for you ALASKA

[boomerbust]

15. Alaska was clearly in the Bush column in 2000 and 04

<<<<<<<<<<<<< And this is what they got for their loyalty

[debunkthelies]

16. Supremes batting 1000

Between letting Exxon off the hook and eliminating the death penalty for kiddie rapist, wow, no bad deed goes punished. Way to go at the Good ole Boys Club.:sarcasm:

[Megahurtz]

68. I second that. n/t

[Bozita]

17. SCOTUS throws out damages in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case

Source: CNN

looking for link

Still no link. Jeff Toobin coming up on CNN.

Just found this:


AP NewsAlert
21 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — US Supreme Court cuts $2.5 billion judgment to victims of Exxon Valdez disaster.AP NewsAlert

Read more: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijDA5bgxiHlTvS_r-SSjskS1Tq1wD91H51VG3

---

link coming

[davepc]

18. That's disheartening.

The Court has released the opinion in Exxon v. Baker (07-219), on the validity of the $2.5 billion punitive damages award to victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The ruling below, which upheld the award, is vacated and remanded.

Justice Souter wrote the opinion. All Justices concurred in the judgment, except Justice Alito, who took no part.
...

In Exxon, the judgment is vacated and remanded. The Court divided depending on the issues. The Court divided equally on whether maritime law permits punitives for the acts of agents (Alito not participating). The Court deemed the punitives excessive based on maritime common law, holding the punitives should be equal to the compensatories.

...

In Exxon, the Court holds that the punitives are limited to $507.5 million.



via scotusblog.com

[TBF]

20. Interesting that Alito recused himself (I assume?) What is his

connection to Exxon? Did he hear earlier cases??

[Shoelace]

26. Alito owns Exxon stock

oh this so pisses me off. Like Exxonmobil can't afford to compensate these people. I'd bet there's a very interesting backstory to all of this up there in AK, land of the crooked Oil boyz!

The Supreme Court divided on the decision, 5-3, with Justice Samuel Alito taking no part in the case because he owns Exxon stock.

Exxon has fought vigorously to reduce or erase the punitive damages verdict by a jury in Alaska four years ago for the accident that dumped 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound. The environmental disaster led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals.

Nearly 33,000 Alaskans are in line to share in the award, about $15,000 a person. They would have collected $75,000 each under the $2.5 billion judgment.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens supported the $2.5 billion figure for punitive damages, saying Congress has chosen not to impose restrictions in such circumstances.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented, saying the court was engaging in "lawmaking" by concluding that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses.

"The new law made by the court should have been left to Congress," wrote Ginsburg. Justice Stephen Breyer made a similar point, opposing a rigid 1 to 1 ratio of punitive damages to victim compensation.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-valdez26-2008jun26,0,3673626.story

[defendandprotect]

42. All due to a drunk driver . . . btw . . .

[Shoelace]

46. Greg Palast says it wasn't the Captain; the radar was broken for a year before the spill!!

he was up there investigating the spill for the native fishermen, etc:
Here's a blurb from his blog:

Don't Buy Exxon's Fable Of The Drunken Captain
by Greg Palast
Chicago Tribune (revised from 2003 article)
June 25, 2008

This story remains untold: the true cause of the Exxon Valdez catastrophe was the oil giants' breaking their promises to the Natives and Congress, cynically and disastrously, in the fifteen years leading up to the spill. As to Captain Joe Hazelwood, he was below decks, sleeping off his bender. At the helm, the third mate would never have collided with Bligh Reef had he looked at his Raycas radar. But the radar was not turned on. In fact, the tanker's radar was left broken and disabled for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon management knew it. It was just too expensive to fix and operate.

I learned of the senseless crippling of the ship's radar while working for the Natives as a spill investigator. For the Chugach, this discovery was poignantly ironic. On their list of safety demands in return for Valdez was "state-of-the-art" on-ship radar.
http://www.gregpalast.com/court-rewards-exxon-for-valdez-oil-spill/

[TroglodyteScholar]

52. I respect Palast and everything...

...But have you heard the radio transmission by Capt Hazelwood when he reported the incident? He sounds pretty hammered.

[Shoelace]

55. he probably was still drunk but it is shocking that the radar was broken

and Palast said he was in his bunker sleeping off his bender so it was a combo of both the non-working radar. Pretty damned careless and criminal for which they (Exxon) should have been thrown in jail!
One thing to be hammered, another to be a sleepy drunk!

Wasn't the captain of that oil tanker in the SF Bay spill last year, also drunk? Thought I heard that.

[Blue_In_AK]

48. And the immediate spill response was abysmal.

I don't think they really had a plan - they were flying by the seat of their pants.

[peacebird]

19. what next? Exxon suing for damages over oil lost in the cleanup effort?

:wtf:

[davepc]

21. The argument that the damages were excessive seems to have won out.

The ruling doesn't absolve Exxon of culpability.

[davepc]

22. AP has it now

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday cut the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million.
The court ruled that victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history may collect punitive damages from Exxon Mobil Corp., but not as much as a federal appeals court determined.

Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, about $500 million compensation.

Exxon asked the high court to reject the punitive damages judgment, saying it already has spent $3.4 billion in response to the accident that fouled 1,200 miles of Alaska coastline.

A jury decided Exxon should pay $5 billion in punitive damages. A federal appeals court cut that verdict in half.




http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91H55L00&show_article=1

[subsuelo]

25. un f-ing believable

where's the f-ing accountability?? :shrug:

[Blue_Tires]

29. and a few years from now, they will cut it in half again

and again and again...until everyone in the courtroom forgets what the whole thing was about in the first place...

[Hannah Bell]

54. & it's only 20 years later now...people die off, but corps are eternal...

they can keep it in court forever.

[davepc]

58. so are estates, as long as you have heirs or a trustee

[Hannah Bell]

63. not much comfort to the dead.

if i cut off your finger, you want to wait forty years for relief?

if exxon ruined my business 20 years ago, & my life chances & my kids' lifechances have gone downhill as a result, do you think it's helpful that in 20 more years they might get a piddly little settlement eaten up by inflation & court downgrades?

exxon caused damages, & for 20 years they've been able to make others suffer the cost.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

23. Surprise, surprise. Exxon wins.

How sad.

[TBF]

38. Exxon seems to be doing great under this administration ... record

high profits, court cases in their favor, new leases in Iraq. I'm starting to see a pattern...

:eyes:

[subsuelo]

24. SCOTUS is a sham

Corporate interests always take priority. Always.

[Tafiti]

30. It's more important than people think.

That's why it pisses me off so much when people talk about not voting for Obama because of some gripe or another they have with him. At the very least, vote D so the Supreme Court doesn't go completely to shit - it'll last a hell of a long time if it does (barring death). Stevens is waiting for a Democratic president so that he can retire, and probably Ginsburg, too. Is there another Brennan out there? Hopefully Obama finds him or her.

[subsuelo]

31. I agree

Creating apathy works in the interests of the corporate ruling elite - it's exactly what they want!

[TBF]

36. Heck, I'd settle for another Sandra Dee - at least she saved Roe

the last time it was seriously debated. This country is not going to know what hit it if they get their 5th facist. Kennedy is our moderate now and hanging by a limb. *sigh*

If we can get Obama in there he will not disappoint. The man understands Constitutional Law. That is why I haven't been as worried as some about the Telecom thing. Obama knows the 4th Amendment and he'll fix that bill when he gets into office. If he doesn't make it they'll pass something just as bad or worse anyway. We've got to have a little trust.

[Tafiti]

64. Re: O'Connor - not exactly.

You're right that Roe is not seriously debated anymore, but that's because it was seriously deflated way back in 1992 in part by O'Connor's joint opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which made the right to choose no longer a fundamental right (as it was under Roe), but only a "liberty interest," meaning that the standard for scrutinizing a law regulating or restricting abortion was much lower. So after that case, laws restricting abortion will pass Constitutional muster as long as they don't "unduly burden" the woman's right to choose, whereas under Roe, the Court would have had to apply a "strict scrutiny" standard in evaluating constitutionality. Ever since then, more and more restrictions have been allowed, eroding abortion rights further and further. However, it's a bit of a misconception that Roe v. Wade was this great women's rights victory. In actuality, the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy in that opinion was couched in terms of a physician's right to make such a determination and recommendation based on his expert medical opinion, not the woman's right to make that decision. But, in any case, the effective result was a fundamental right to abortion access for women.

Is there something even more precarious than a limb? If so, that's what Kennedy is hanging by. It was nice that we could count on him to at least recognize that global warming is a real threat (EPA v. Mass.), but he too often sides with those 4 RATS on the Court (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) :). I'd like to see Kennedy go, too. I'm not sure he deserves the title "moderate" - if so, only by comparison to ultra-conservative. Damn, if Obama gets to appoint 3 Justices, that'll be fantastic. And I agree with you, he would make excellent appointments. Exciting for a law geek like myself.

[sakabatou]

27. Seems that SCOTUS

in the words of the late Carlin: "... doesn't give a shit."

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. There's a big fucking surprise

:eyes:

[progressoid]

33. Hey I was going to post that sentiment as well.

[Steerpike]

32. Exxon has been fighting in the court for years on this...

But this was the end of the line...no more court...Exxon has to pay now...between 15000 to 20000 to each person left alive. At least it's over...about 600 people died waiting...

[riverdeep]

34. Reading up on punitive damages a little.

Because they usually compensate the plaintiff in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, where the defendant's conduct was egregiously insidious.

Punitive damages are a focal point of the "tort reform" debate in the United States, where numerous highly-publicized multi-million dollar verdicts have led to a fairly common perception that punitive damage awards tend to be excessive. However, statistical studies by law professors and the Department of Justice have found that punitive damages are only awarded in two percent of civil cases which go to trial, and that the median punitive damage award is between $38,000 and $50,000.

In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is broad enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety, and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages

So, now the ratio is 1:1, down from a possible 4:1. The insurance industry will be happy to hear this.

The spill happened in March of 1989. It decimated everything these people had. And now, 19 years later, they'll collect $17,000 or so. Big whup. People get more than that in slip and falls and car accidents.

[dysfunctional press]

35. personally, i don't think that punitive damages in any lawsuit should go to plaintiffs...

that's what compensatory damages are for.

punitive damages should go into some type of pool that's used to fund victim relief efforts nation/worldwide.

[TBF]

37. I would be for putting the punitives towards some type of fund for victims -

it would be the way to get around the company's arguments that people just sue to get rich. Tort Reform gets me so angry - it is the only way we've got to get at multi-nationals. The only thing they understand is being hit in the pocketbook.

[Megahurtz]

69. Not.

Their lawsuit, their damages.

[dysfunctional press]

70. that's what compensatory damages are for.

punitive damages should go to benefit the society at large.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. The ratio nonsense hides a basic fact: punitive damages improve YOUR LIFE

If these companies won't adapt their behavior to avoid the initial (i.e., provable) tort, then there's only one way they will adpat their behavior: the fear of massive punitive damages.

This decision is a blow to your existence.

[defendandprotect]

39. Took 20 years but they'll finally elminate it --

Meanwhile, the oil industry made more than 40 billion last year ---

so I can see the hardship on them -- !!!

That's what this Supreme Court is all about --- helping out corporations.

Wow -- are we in for it!!!

[defendandprotect]

40. ExxonMobil should be in jail for their lies/disinformation re Global Warming ---

they have to hope that the public never really wakes up and the GOP Congress is

working to make sure that they never do ---

[Javaman]

41. And so it goes...

oil sets the rules. all others have to abide by them.

[happyslug]

56. Here is the Opinion

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-219.pdf

"SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined

I.e. Five justice agreed with all five sections of the opinion, thus is the law as to punitive damages, but while

"GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined, as to Parts I, II, and III."
i.e. did NOT join in with the part covering Punitive Damages

"SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined."

"STEVENS, J., GINSBURG, J., and BREYER, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. " i.e. their dissent as to punitive damages

"ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case."

Part I, is just the history of the case.

Part II is the Court upheld the Ninth Circuit ruling as to Exxon being responsible for the Action of the Captain of the Tanker, but did NOT make it a final ruling on the issue.

Part III is a discussion of the Clean Water Act and whether Exxon brought it up to late on appeal. The court upheld the Ninth Circuit ruling that the Clean Water Act was brought up to late by Exxon on Appeal and then barely mention the issue that the Clean Water Act did or did not overrule Common Law Punitive damages.

Part IV is the deadly part, coming up with a new rule that punitive damages can NOT exceed the amount of compensatory damages.

[emad]

44. Statement by ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO, Rex W. Tillerson, Regarding the Valdez Supreme Court Rulin

The Supreme Court today ruled on legal questions relating to punitive damages and the Valdez oil spill. The Valdez oil spill was a tragic accident and one which the corporation deeply regrets. We know this has been a very difficult time for everyone involved. We have worked hard over many years to address the impacts of the spill and to prevent such accidents from happening in our company again. We took immediate responsibility for the spill and have spent over $3.4 billion as a result of the accident, including compensatory payments, cleanup payments, settlements and fines. The company cleaned up the spill and voluntarily compensated more than 11,000 Alaskans and businesses. The clean-up was declared complete by the State of Alaska and the United States Coast Guard in 1992. In the aftermath of the Valdez accident, we redoubled our long-time commitment to safeguard the environment, our employees and the communities in which we operate/

http://newsticker.welt.de/index.php?channel=fin&module=smarthouse&id=746025

[Shoelace]

47. Hey T-Rex, it took you 20 years to buy off the White House, SCOTUS, you succeeded beyond our wildest

nightmares!:grr:

[emad]

45. ExxonMobil now ripe for a take over by Chevron Corp.

Things probably hotting up in San Ramon right now.

But Chevron stock!

[Overseas]

49. That's why John Roberts was appointed to the court. He's doing his job

to help out poor little Exxon.

[Ian David]

50. If they remove the punative damages, Exxon actually makes a PROFIT on the spill. n/t

[fiamma mama]

62. yes. they put the original settlement money in escrow

where its been collecting interest for 20 years.

This payment won't even use up all of the interest they gained.

[yurbud]

51. paying just actual damages sounds like a "get out of jail free'' card

[Gidney N Cloyd]

53. OK, so now where does Exxon go to get it's reputation back?

:sarcasm:

[Theres-a]

59. Despicable. nt

[ToeBot]

60. Tell me again how saving the Supreme Court hinges on the next election...

I'm in the mood for a good laugh, well... not a laugh exactly.

[HiddenCSLib]

61. This is so wrong

Did they even cover the cost of the cleanup? The damage is still going on and Exxon will never have to cover that cost. The only thing that I can think of that may be a small benefit is now the ships have to be double hulled to try to prevent this but that still now help all of the human negligence involved.

[lakeguy]

65. inflation has already taken a huge chunck...

why not just give them the rest of the corporate welfare they want and let us pay for their fuck ups? we already pay for all the pollution the way it is, what's few billion more?

:sarcasm:

[Megahurtz]

66. Disgusting.

:puke: Just one more thing to disgust me about how bad this Country has gotten.

They care nothing about The People anymore. We mean nothing to them. They just spit on us.

Thoroughly disgusting. :puke: