Top court debates Exxon Valdez damages

Environmental

Nearly 19 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill fouled Alaska's Prince William Sound, the Supreme Court debated Wednesday how much money the company responsible for the disaster should pay in punitive damages.

A jury in Alaska said $5 billion. An appeals court said $2.5 billion. And Exxon's answer Wednesday was nothing at all, because the company said it already had paid plenty.

Justices explored just about every possible alternative through intense questioning during 1 ½ hours of arguments before a packed courtroom. By the end, it seemed several held the view that the company could be found liable for punitive damages, but perhaps not as much as even the appeals court had found.

There were several unusual aspects to Wednesday's arguments in a case that has bounced through the legal system for 14 years.

Justice Samuel Alito is recused because of his Exxon stockholdings, so even a 4-to-4 tie on the court would affirm the lower court's decisions that punitive damages are owed to nearly 33,000 fishermen, native Alaskans, businessmen and others consolidated into the single suit against Exxon.

And, as Justice David Souter noted, the court for a decade has struggled with determining whether punitive damages awarded by state courts were excessive. Now, he suggested, it is the Supreme Court's turn to "come up with a number."

Exxon has acknowledged that the captain of the Exxon Valdez, Joseph Hazelwood, was drunk at the time of the March 24, 1989, accident, and the corporation has paid about $3.4 billion in fines, compensation and cleanup costs.

Maritime law has shielded ship owners from being punished for damage caused by their vessels. This made sense during the era of sailing ships, Souter said. "In those days, when a ship put to sea, the ship was sort of a floating world by itself," he said.

Walter Dellinger, representing Exxon, cited this principle of maritime law and urged the court to throw out the entire punitive verdict. He cited the case of the Amiable Nancy in 1818 as having a historic precedent shielding ship owners.

But his argument quickly ran aground. "It's rather, I think, an exaggeration to call it a long line of settled decisions in maritime law," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

As a fallback, Dellinger argued that the $2.5 billion verdict was too high. He cited several federal laws that, for example, fine those who pollute the environment. Typically, these legal fines may total millions of dollars but not billions, he said.

Related listings

  • High court to hear Exxon Valdez damages case

    High court to hear Exxon Valdez damages case

    Environmental 02/26/2008

    For many in this coastal town, the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster was an event so crushing that hard-bitten fishermen still get teary-eyed recalling ruined livelihoods, broken marriages and suicides.But mostly, people in Cordova talk about the discouragi...

  • Court Ruling May Delay Power Plant Mercury Clean-Up

    Court Ruling May Delay Power Plant Mercury Clean-Up

    Environmental 02/14/2008

    Clean-up of power plant mercury emissions may be slowed in the short run by a Feb. 8 federal appeals court ruling, but the market clearly believes the clean-up will be increased in the long run. Investors showed immediate enthusiasm for Pittsburgh-ba...

  • Court: EPA must rewrite utility mercury rule

    Court: EPA must rewrite utility mercury rule

    Environmental 02/11/2008

    In a victory for environmentalists and a setback for big U.S. coal-burning utilities, a federal court ruled on Friday that the Environmental Protection Agency must fundamentally rework its mercury rules for utilities.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the...

Victorville CA DUI defense Attorneys

The outcome of a DUI defense will have a long-term effect on anyone’s life, making the decision to receive legal representation an easy one. The fact is, most people accused of a DUI are first offenders with no criminal background. Whether this is your first run in with the law or you have had previous convictions, you are in need of a DUI defense attorney.

The charges you are facing for a DUI range from fines, a 12-month suspension on your license and worst-case scenario, prison time. Your attorney will be able to analyze your situation to decide the best way to go about your case.

Our attorneys know the tricky ways to challenge all of the DUI tests and know how to claim improper collection of evidence. We will be able to negotiate on your behalf and free you from charges and help you keep your drivers license. The DUI process can last up to several months, we can make this process easier on you. .

Business News

St Peters, MO Professional License Attorney Attorney John Lynch has been the go-to choice for many professionals facing administrative sanction. >> read