Supreme Court greatly reduces damages in Exxon Valdez spill

[jon1856]

Supreme Court greatly reduces damages in Exxon Valdez spill

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday brought to a close the 19-year legal battle over the Exxon Valdez oil spill by sharply reducing the punitive damages to be paid by Exxon Mobil Corp. The court ruled that the oil giant must pay $507 million -- about one-tenth of the original jury award -- to punish it for recklessly putting a known alcoholic in charge of a supertanker traveling a treacherous channel.

The justices described Exxon's conduct as "worse than negligent but less than malicious." Capt. Joseph Hazelwood had been drinking and was not on the bridge when the ship ran aground on a reef in March 1989, spilling almost 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound....
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,4581936.story

When this first occurred, the damages were about a years worth of profit.
Now, it is four days.

Another interesting point, given todays politics:
"Justice David H. Souter said the court decided the issue as a matter of maritime law. This in turn meant the justices themselves had to decide the law, because neither Congress nor the state has written laws to resolve disputes on the seas."


Justices Slash Damages for Exxon Oil Spill
Nearly two decades of legal battles over the Exxon Valdez oil spill came to an end yesterday when the Supreme Court slashed the punitive damages imposed against Exxon Mobil from $2.5 billion to $500 million.
The justices ruled 5 to 3 to limit Exxon Mobil's punishment to the same amount of money a lower court awarded to compensate for actual economic losses: $507.5 million. Lawyers on both sides parsed the decision to determine whether the court was sending a signal on how to resolve the contentious issue of punitive damages.
"Given the need to protect against the possibility (and the disruptive cost to the legal system) of awards that are unpredictable and unnecessary, either for deterrence or for measured retribution, we consider that a 1:1 ratio . . . is a fair upper limit in such maritime cases," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority. ......
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062500663.html

[RU OX Alum]

i'm surprised they even heard that one

[KSigkid]

PhiGam already started a thread on the series of cases coming down this week: http://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=97312

As for this one - not a huge surprise, what with the way the Court has gone in recent years related to damages. The decision itself is fairly limited in its scope, so I'm not sure what it really means for future cases involving punitive damages. I think the Court also carved out some exceptions in the opinion where damages could be higher in certain cases.