Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWASHINGTON - When a federal jury in Alaska in 1994 ordered Exxon to pay $5 billion to thousands of people who had their lives disrupted by the massive Exxon Valdez oil spill, an appeal of the nation's largest punitive damages award was inevitable.
But almost no one could have predicted the incredible round of legal ping-pong that only this week will reach the Supreme Court.
In the time span of the battle - 14 years after the verdict, nearly two decades since the spill itself - claimants' lawyers say there is a new statistic to add to the grim legacy of the disaster in Prince William Sound: Nearly 20 percent of the 33,000 fishermen, Native Alaskans, cannery workers, and others who triumphed in court that day are dead.
"That's the most upsetting thing, that more than 6,000 people have passed and this still isn't finished," said Mike Webber, a Native Alaskan artistic carver and former fisherman in the Prince William Sound community of Cordova. "Our sound is not healthy, and neither are the people. Everything is still on the surface, just as it was."
The high court is scheduled to hear arguments Wednesday on whether punishment is excessive or even permitted under maritime law. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. owns Exxon stock and has recused himself from the case. That leaves eight justices to hear it, and an even split would mean that the award stands. In the eyes of the justices, the case may turn on an 1818 Supreme Court decision that restricts the liability of ship owners for the conduct of their crews, or the more recent damage provisions of the Clean Water Act.
But in Alaska, the lawsuit is seen as a test of justice and corporate responsibility, and its resolution is seen as critical to healing the scars left by an epic event that defines the state's modern history, Governor Sarah Palin, a Republican, said in an interview.
"Every Alaskan life was affected by this," said Palin, elected in 2006. "When I got in here, that was one of the first orders of business: to find out how in the world can this administration speak on behalf of all Alaskans who have been so adversely affected by this spill." Exxon officials contend that such sentiments ignore the facts of the case and note that the company already has spent more than $3.4 billion in compensation for losses, cleanup, and fines.
"This case is about whether further punishment is warranted," Exxon spokesman Tony Cudmore said. "We've spent $3.5 billion, which is a significant sum of money we think is adequate to deter anyone" from future wrongdoing. But that figure no longer impresses Palin and others. When the jury awarded $5 billion in 1994, that represented a year of Exxon profits. An appeals court subsequently reduced the damages to $2.5 billion - "about three weeks of Exxon's current net profits," the plaintiffs told the Supreme Court in their brief.
The award has been reviewed three times by a district judge and twice by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with more than four years elapsing between one appeal and a decision.
Jeffrey Fisher, a Stanford law professor who will argue the case for plaintiffs, has sent the court a video of Exxon executives acknowledging fault, and an audiotape of the distress call made by what plaintiffs assert to be a drunk Captain Joseph Hazelwood reporting that the Exxon Valdez had hit Bligh Reef.
Fisher said it is important to remind the justices of the events of 19 years ago, and that the jury was punishing Exxon for "socially outrageous behavior."
The Exxon Valdez was loaded with 53 million gallons of crude oil on March 23, 1989, when it strayed out of the shipping lane to avoid ice. Hazelwood instructed the third mate on when to make the turn back into the lane, and then left the bridge, a violation of regulations.
Just after midnight, the crewman ran the nearly 1,000-foot tanker aground, spilling 11 million gallons of oil.
Exxon's lawyer in the case, Walter Dellinger, told the court in his brief that it is "hotly disputed" whether Hazelwood was drunk at the time of the accident, and points out that Hazelwood was acquitted by a state court jury of operating a vessel under the influence. Whatever misdeeds were committed by the captain, Dellinger said, they were not the misdeeds of Exxon.
© 2008 The Washington Post
15 Comments so far
Show AllI think Exxon has paid out a lot already. However, if their own $3.5 billion figure is correct, that is just over one month of Exxon's current net profits. The disputed $5 billion compensation award represents an additional six weeks of current net profits. Neither amount is enough to deter Exxon-Mobil from continuing their reckless behavior.
The article doesn't mention that many of the people hired to clean up the spill have since died horrible deaths from cancers, etc. caused by exposure to the toxic oil.
We're all outraged and saddened by all of this, but who among our current crop of presidential candidates will lift a finger to stop this kind of corporate abuse in the future? None of the big three, based on their voting records in the Senate, that's for sure. The ongoing saga of the Alaska oil spill is one more good reason to support Ralph Nader's candidacy.
"Exxon officials . . .note that the company already has spent more than $3.4 billion in compensation for losses, cleanup, and fines."
I have a hunch they're including their legal fees in that figure. Exclude that and it's probably more like $500,000 in compensation, cleanup, etc.
Justice Samuel Alito Jr. owns Exxon stock
Superhilarious! Supercourt Superjesters pick Superstocks for Superwealth!! Supelites gain Supersuccess to Superrule over the rabble! Superspills, Superthrills, Superplunder and Superprofits are US!!!!
For more information about this case, past litigation and history, and how you can get invovled and help, please go to the Whole Truth campaign's website: http://www.wholetruth.net
This should never have gone on this long. It is unjust to allow the legal system to keep going on a case like this for so long with no resolution. This has destroyed fishing and the muck that remains under the rocks will be there for a very long time. The clean up was just the beginning, now justice has to clean house at Exxon.
If Exxon were treated like every other tax paying citizen that ship would be community property siezed and salvaged the way any other act of terror on planet earth and billions would be paid back in clean up and community service as an act of good will towards the public who allowed them to reside there products in OUR country "NOT Washigton's country" Personally I never bought the products of Exxon never will.
The problems in Alaska are only one of many situations around the world involving Exxon.
Exxon Mobil is waiting to "privatize", or in other words, steal, a large portion of Iraq's oil if the occupation is ever successful.
The taxpayer is subsidizing Exxon's access to Iraqi oil through illegal and unconsitutional military action.
I stopped buying Exxon products long ago. And why the peace and environmental communities do not organize a global boycott of Exxon is a mystery to me ?
a website to visit: http://www.exxposeexxon.com/
My favorite tee shirt, circa 1990(?)has a picture of a water fowl covered in black, gooey oil.
Message underneath:
WE DON'T CARE.
WE DON'T HAVE TO.
WE'RE EXXON.
To this day, I will drive miles to the next anything gas station just to pass up an Exxon.
US "Agent Orange" Ruling Disappoints Vietnamese; Pleases Monsanto, Dow Chemical -- Friday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York concluded the plaintiffs could not pursue claims against Dow Chemical Co, Monsanto Co and nearly 30 other companies.
Didn't expect justice from the U.S. overnment did you?
The Exxon Valdez disaster is a perfect case in point for a constitutional amendment that revokes 14th Amendment protections from corporate entities, and for the entire concept of corporate structures (INC's, LLC's, etc.) where their liability is solely limited to the assets of the corporation, and criminal behavior on the part of the people within and acting for the corporation has more legal armor than a private person. All too often, the only difference between a corporation and the Mafia is that their corporate charter is filed with the government.
I simply want to reduce each and every corporation to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
I just had to say it again.
i await to see which justices are total fascists, but here is my guess, 5-3 with stevens, ginsburg, breyer, soulter, and kennedy, vs. scalia, thomas, and roberts, but it should be interesting to see how Soulter and Kennedy vote.
The goal is to run this as long as possible until all are dead, then there won't be anyone left to pay. Sounds like our own military/government and corporations -- take the cases of Agent Orange, Gulf Syndrome on the military government side, and corporations like Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto, mining companies, and many others that have dumped neurotoxins into waters and lands that cause cancers and kill people and the environment. They all drag out these matters for years -- people die off before reaching any satisfaction, and then the appeals courts or the Supreme Courts vote in favor of the corporations or the government anyway. This is an example of our wonderful enforcement of the laws to protect us.
If we'd just let the corporations police themselves, this would have been finished years ago.
American justice.
How many survived Bhopal?
How many of our grandchildren will survive the Chevronlisa Rice disaster?