Exxon Valdez: An end to long trek through courts
Published Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Reaction to Wednesday's ruling in which the Supreme Court cut a $2.5 billion damage award to $500 million in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case in Alaska:
"We are extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court has chosen to reduce the punitive damages amount from $2.5 billion to $507.5 million. Three times previously, lower courts have ruled on the amount of damages and the Supreme Court, in our opinion, should have allowed the $2.5 billion judgment to stand. Today's ruling adds insult to injury to the fishermen, communities and Alaska natives who have been waiting nearly 20 years for proper compensation following the worst environmental disaster in our nation's history."
-Alaska Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, in a joint statement
"The court recognized the dangerous unpredictability of huge punitive damage awards, and the standards it established today under federal maritime law will be extremely helpful to state and federal courts around the country as they seek to set their own stricter standards for bringing these arbitrary awards under control."
-Attorney Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who has represented prominent defendants, including Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, challenging the constitutionality of punitive damages
"For the court to require a company that recorded a 2007 profit of $40.6 billion and that posted the highest quarterly results in U.S. corporate history in February to pay a mere $500 million in punitive damages to the affected Alaskans makes a mockery of justice. The worst environmental calamity in U.S. history will continue to haunt the Prince William Sound and those dependent upon it for their livelihoods. Crude oil still can be found under rocks along the sound's shores, and fishery scientists estimate that only 10 percent of the oil was ever cleaned up."
-John Passacantando, executive director, Greenpeace USA
"Exxon v. Baker was the epitome of a compromise verdict on a 4-4 Supreme Court. Four of the justices wanted no damages at all and at least three wanted $2.5 billion. The court ended up giving Exxon an 80 percent reduction, and permitting just over $500 million in punitive damages. The case reflects a combination of the court's pro-business willingness to cut punitive damages quite sharply, its disinclination to spare Exxon all punitive damages in today's political environment, and its occasional capacity to resolve disagreement by striking a bargain."
-Fordham Law Professor Benjamin Zipursky
"The court's elaborate and lengthy argument for the one-to-one ratio is troubling for several reasons. First, the whole discussion was largely unnecessary if the court really wanted to limit its decision to maritime cases. The court's majority appears to be trying to make the case for imposing the one-to-one ratio as a default rule in ordinary civil cases."
-Boston University law professor Keith Hylton
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
EXXOFF
$507,500,000 Devided by 32,744 plaintiffs = $15,499 per person devided by 20 yrs = $774.95 per year devided by 365 days/yr = $2.12 per day devided by 24 hrs per day = .o88 per hr
Now that is a real precident setting case. Oil companys are able to spill oil anywhere from this date and not worry about a thing. ...Daniel A. Berry
It just seems to me, some votes are bought and paid for.
A jury spoke, and some judges thew it out. Note "some", there were other judges that felt the system worked right and wished to leave it be.
To them, my thanks and respect on this matter.
PS: it's also VERY clear to me, where our republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, stand on issues of Alaskans vs Big Oil.
At a time of scandals and re-election, when they should be making their alliances, they have shown us where they side.
We will remember you.
That is a disgrace to the Alaskan people! These oil companies can do whatever they want to and at the end of the day, they have no worries because the US government will back them out of any mess they get into. Just think of the innocent people, businesses, governments and animals that was effected by this whole mess. Exxon should have to pay the 2.5 Billion dollars plus intrest from over the years. The amount they have to pay is terrible misjudged. They should be required to pay the Alaskans affected ten times that in my opinion. And they want the alaskan people to trust them when they want to drill for more oil? Alaskans, Please, DO NOT TRUST THEM!
Matthew, I think even the slimiest politicians would say something like that about their constituents in an election year, even if their loyalties secretly lay elsewhere. They have nothing to lose by saying it.
They can't do anything about the ruling anyway. Their statement is just a sympathy card--probably sincere, but not an Impressive Stand Against Big Oil.
Senator Stevens and Congressman Young: Elections are this fall. In siding with EXXON in the final decision is contrary to the brief the ALASKA Delegation presented to the US Supreme Court. As you were instrimental in drafting the Clean Water Act and specific Law on the movement of Alaska North Slope oil, you failed to protect ALASKANS.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.