Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Supreme Court Slashes Damages for Exxon Valdez Spill

By Chris Nolan, AlterNet. Posted June 25, 2008.


The incredible shrinking settlement: How a $5 billion jury award dwindled to $500 million in the courts.
exxon

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Chris Nolan

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 

The Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound in 1989, devastating thousands of miles of coastline. No one disputes that the accident was Exxon's fault. The question is how much the company should pay to compensate the people of the region for the massive environmental damage Exxon caused.

A jury thought that Exxon should pay $5 billion to make the region whole again, that figure was cut by a federal appeals judge, and again, yesterday by the Supreme Court:

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. [NYT; Continued...]

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: exxon, valdez

Lindsay Beyerstein a New York writer blogging at Majikthise.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This is WHY
Posted by: JSquercia on Jun 25, 2008 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is why the Presidency matters McCain Will pick more Corporatists to serve on the court

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

does it really matter that "fabulous deanna" is a woman?
Posted by: lexicon on Jun 25, 2008 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is the damn server up, or not? That's what makes her "fabulous".

Is the database backed up? are the webstats current? is the forum software patch done right? is the uptime stat five nines?

She's got a nice smile and a haircut that may or may not be better than mine...but you can't tell whether she manages to be a snarky condescending twit or a consummate nice-nick when you ask her to double check the build, just from a smile and a haircut, right?

Let's move past this old-millenium nonsense. She's either a hot techie, or not.

lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» dude, wtf? Posted by: hurricane hugo
Then, in all fairness...
Posted by: Xynyx on Jun 25, 2008 10:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then, in all fairness, people convicted of crimes or in civil courts may never be given punitive penalties of any sort that exceed the value of the economic damage they caused, either, right?

Am I mistaken here? Does it not seem to anyone else that corporations are being granted greater judicial protection than individuals receive?

Corporations are not people. They do not deserve the same rights as people. If a corporation commits a crime... and this certainly was one... you can't put the corporation in jail. They thrive on money and they suffer from loss of money. Money is their lifeblood. How do you show corporations that they can not simply trade in lives and natural resources at twice their market value? (That's what this amounts to... do $100M worth of damage, pay that and another $100M worth of punitive damages, and all is forgiven.)

You CAN go after the people that do wrong. But if they're in corporations, they are frequently much better protected that any individual would be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Then, in all fairness... Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: blah blah blah blah blah Posted by: cwilsondrum
» RE: blah blah blah blah blah Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Then, in all fairness... Posted by: the man with a dog
SC gone crazy!
Posted by: carbon-based on Jun 25, 2008 12:42 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is going on with our SC.. a child rapist gets off with no death penalty and Exxon gets a mega$$$ break - and as usual we the people get screwed!..

I can understand the punative damages decision only to the extent that Exxon already paid alot more in rehab for the area and it was an accident.

BUT... they are sitting on some nice cash reserves... I'm not sure punative damages is the answer but in the current climate of oil profits, this would have been a good time to have them pay into a trust to ensure future protection for the area.

BTW, that $2.4 billion is worth alot more today than it was in 1989

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: SC gone crazy! Posted by: EncinoM
More to come
Posted by: rafey on Jun 26, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As there will be a good many spills on the horizon (especially if McCain gets into the White House), I think a trust is actually a credible way to go as opposed to punitive awards, which are little more than spare change at any rate ans since the S.C. is entirely oblivious to devastation of life, liberty, property and pursuit thereof.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gang Members Hanging Tough And
Posted by: bc430 on Jun 26, 2008 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
looking out for each other like the true keeping it real band of brothers that they are.

End of story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

as I expected. rich and powerful rule for rich and powerful
Posted by: whealeydj on Jun 26, 2008 7:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will continue to boycott Exxon as I have for nearly 15 years. The long courtroom battle by deep pocket corporation meets my definition of punitive. Can I take some joy from the individual right to own a gun endorsed by most of the same justices? it is a very sad day giving the rich and powerful carte blanche; I see now why some of my friends are tempted by anarchism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is what is called Justice?
Posted by: Bearzerker on Jun 28, 2008 3:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...OK so this farce of justice is now 20 years old!
500 million from the original 5 billion awarded is a rather large reduction, they should settle on this plus interest though... interest from 1989 till the settlement date...
I'm sure the interest garnered from the original award held in trust all these years exceeds 500 million award so if no interest is charged I guess it will prove that it will eventually payoff to litigate for giant oil corporations while it is still untenable for those whom the laws are suppose to protect!

this is called justice?... the mess is still there?
eventually someone is going to have to clean this mess up... and then who is going to get stuck with paying the bill?

what about all the dwindling and collapsing fish stocks... this spill destroyed major herring spawning grounds reducing the supply of food for major salmon stocks of all the west coast salmon species...
hatchings and fry returning from the spawning beds near this spill still must endure the toxic sludge as well... plus the birds and other flora and fauna are victims dependent on human corrective action all along the west coast!

In case you don't already know...
the Pacific west coast is very sick and it all starts sometime around this spill... do the math!

and again I ask myself...
who's going to be held responsible to fix this again?

whats happening to America?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]