Comments on: Exxon Saved From the Rocks: The Supreme Court Limits Punitive Damages

By: Professor Tracy Thomas

Professor Tracy Thomas — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:02:37 +0000

Exxon says plaintiffs not entitled to interest

Responding to a submission filed last week, lawyers for Exxon asked the Court to declare that the recent decision in Exxon v. Baker forbids the plaintiffs – a class of fisherman and other individuals affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill – from collecting some $488 million in interest on top of the $507.5 million punitive damage award resulting from the Court’s opinion last month

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/exxon-says-plaintiffs-not-entitled-to-interest/

By: Kristina

Kristina — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:06:37 +0000

So… should we be printing this entry out and adding it to our Remedies text next semester?

By: J.D.

J.D. — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:41:45 +0000

Dan – that fund is usually established through the massive fines levied against the offending company by the EPA.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:11:39 +0000

In the special situation of massive environmental damage, I believe there should be a separate punitive damages award allowed that goes directly into a fund established to provide long term rehabilitation of the affected portions of the natural environment. The award would be in addition to compensation and punitive damages awarded to direct victims of the event. Since Mother Nature cannot spar in the legal arena, the courts should act on 'her' behalf to protect and preserve the one part of our world that interacts with all of us.

By: Black Swan

Black Swan — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:46:19 +0000

My problem with this is the consideration of the corporation as an individual. Corporate responsibility too often masks the true crime or criminal and many times allows the perpetrators to simply buy their way out with investor’s money. The responsible individuals should be held responsible for the crime. If the president of the company or a supervisor knew that the captain was a drunk and incapable of performing his duty, they would be liable, not every employee and stockholder of the company. Put the blame where it belongs, on the individuals.

I am not sure I like the concept of punitive damages. Further if we were to cap anything it would be the legal fees.

By: frank

frank — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:51:36 +0000

Professor Thomas,
Thank you for your post and thanks to the ABJ for providing this forum. I think many of us have a poor understanding of the law and the ramifications of various rulings.
As it see it, the reason for punitive damages over and above the compensatory award is the abject failure to take actions prior and after the event. This was not an accident occuring despite all efforts. The lack of proper radar, failure to maintain cleanup equipment, training and manpower, were not only inexcusable but contractually illegal in their agreements with local people. This shows a reckless intent and an entirely different issue from the compensatory award. However, it does allow Exxon to be able to pay for Lee Raymond's retirement.