Comments on: Court to rule on Exxon Valdez verdict

By: Dustin Kendall

Dustin Kendall — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:23:09 +0000

Legal experts can write their briefs and opine in a language that only other legal experts will understand. All this case boils down to, is another example of how in this country, if you have a big enough pocket book, you don’t have to held responsible for anything. And this example will be brought to you by the highest court in the land. If anyone, anywhere had any doubts about whether or not justice is for sale in this country, will likely have those doubts removed by the Supreme Court next year. I would love to be wrong about this, but I doubt I am.

By: Ned Isleib

Ned Isleib — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:44:07 +0000

Everyone points out what a big deal it is that the US Chamber of Commerce is with Exxon without looking at who the US Chamber of Commerce is.

The US Chamber of Commerce is headed by one Tom Donahue. For more information on Mr. Donohue please go to the following link.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/021805DonohueForPdf.pdf

They are hired guns, bought and paid for by big business. The link doesn’t tell us how much Exxon gives to the US Chamber of Commerce, but my hunch is their donations are substantial.

Exxon has a long history of hiring â€œexpertsâ€ to make their cases for them. Whether arguing that global warming is a myth or that punitive damages against Exxon would destroy the shipping industry, these experts all have one thing in common: Their opinions are what Exxon wants them to be.

We fishermen, and former fisherman, are outgunned by Exxon. We donâ€™t have the money or the manpower to have thirteen organizations file amicus briefs on our behalf.

By: Chris Berns

Chris Berns — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:50:18 +0000

It wasn’t the captains reckless action that the jury ruled on.The jury ruled against exxon with comprehensive instructions from judge Holland. The 9th agreed that the company knew for years that the captain had fallen off the wagon,thus the reprehinsibility on exxons part. Hopefully the court will bring these maritime laws into the modern era. It isn’t the 1800′s,where you couldn’t be as an owner expected to be in control of one of your vessels with no reliable communication,today as in 1989 there is state of the art radio and satellite communication, standard drug and alcohol
testing it is the age of communication.That aside 1989 wasn’t the dark ages, Hazelwood drank 5 double shots of vodka before piloting the ship away from the terminal,The company must not of been doing urine samples,the captain knew this or he would of waited to have a drink or the policy was weak and Hazelwood knew he could get away with drinking and driving as he entered the terminal and retook command of the vessel.Valdez is a small town keeping an eye on an employee isn’t that hard The shippers exxon rallied to support them as friends of the court may not like being brought into the 21st century by the supreme court.Mining interests love to work under 18th century law and lobby against entering into the modern era,as for the shippers maybe (let a sleeping dog lie) would have been a better tack.The chamber of commerce didn’t get any traction on this exxon case or on carbon black which is fine with me, why even be on a jury if you spend all that time weighing the facts, come to a decision and get overruled by a judge latter.Letting a drunk with impaired judgement operate your vessel you should be liable for punitive damage. Lets hope this will end up bringing the shipping industry into the 21st century, a renasaince not a falling into the dark ages.

By: alan stein

alan stein — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:42:46 +0000

The plaintiff’s brief made clear that Exxon was reckless by condoning Hazelwood’s employment on a supertanker capable of making a spill that would be unstoppable. The elements of a land based tort are certainly there.

Exxon the corporation acted with reckless disregard against damages to 35,000 fishermen and the NE Pacific eco system.

The 9th circuit allows torts against the owners of vessels for reckless acts of their captains.

The Supreme Court should vote to affirm the 9th’s decision on this issue. The policy of having sober captains in charge of navigation on all US waters will create a standard that any navigator on any ocean in the world will have to meet if they are to aspire to the role of navigation in US waters.

Who can be against safer navigation? Certainly not our Supreme Court?

By: mark munro

mark munro — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:28:27 +0000

This whole case has left me sick. I am a fisherman in Prince William Sound and witnessed first hand the devastation this spill caused.
My daughter was born that same year. She is going to college this year. It’s been a whole generation since this spill happened. The arrogance I witnessed from the oil companies during the spill was unmasked and unbelievable.
I have hope still that corporate greed and power will not run unchecked over comman humanity and decency.

As a side note the herring in Prince William sound have not rebounded from the spill. Despite what the Exxon funded studies state.

By: Chris Berns

Chris Berns — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:36:15 +0000

Richard,not being a lawyer myself,would you explain in language I can understand about what you think Thomas and Scalia might be thinking as to punitive damage as applied to maritime law.you wrote Scalia,Thomas,and Scalia would you clarify that for me,just trying to follow what you are getting at.

By: David Wade

David Wade — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:29:29 +0000

Is it possible that our justice system is not corrupt? I want to think so but when I look at this case without bias, I get a gut wrenching, nagging suspicion that to believe in something as wholesome as a group of judges, men and women that care about nothing but “doing the right thing” would be about the same as wanting to believe that our senators and congressmen aren’t beholdin to some special interest group. Ya, sure. I’m such a sap. Is it too much to believe that just because you are the biggest company in the world, you don’t run that world. Ya, right. I’m such a idiot. I want to beleive that money can’t always buy power. Ya, OK. What ya been smokin? This is a simple case of a drunk running a supertanker and after 18 years of legal mumbo jumbo they just might get away with it. Where is the MADD group on this one? If these “wise individuals” don’t get this one right, God help us all.

By: RichardSamp

RichardSamp — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:49:22 +0000

Exxon’s claim that it is not liable for punitive damages is based on federal maritime law and general federal common law. Past decisions imposing limits on punitive damages have been based on substantive due process grounds; Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Scalia have repeatedly opposed any recognition of such due process limitations. It will be interesting to see whether those three are more amenable to recognizing limitations based on the alternative grounds being pressed by Exxon Mobil. One can assume that they don’t have any federalism-based opposition to such limitations. Perhaps Justice Ginsburg will have Seventh Amendment-based concerns (given that the punitive damages were awarded by a jury). Full disclosure — I authored an amicus brief in support of the cert. petition.

By: Bryce Cardin

Bryce Cardin — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:24:24 +0000

Further more, how can the court agree to only hear exxon’s claim that they don’t think they should pay any punitive damgage, yet not hear the plantiffs claim to have our original punitive damage figure heard. Seems to me that the supreme court has already decided to give exxon anything they want and let them off with a mere hand slapping rather then give them what they need, true punishment for being the worst offender of the enviroment and alaskans. Things like this makes me wonder if there is some form of profit or kickbacks in it for the supreme court. Just have to love how they say one thing for years and then take a 180 when it comes time for them to stand up and do whats right for the people. Exxon is just a greedy money hungry company that wants to do anything they want whenever they want, no matter how many people they hurt of lives they destroy.

By: Bryce Cardin

Bryce Cardin — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:18:24 +0000

I for one can not believe that the court decided to hear this case. It is another example of huge companies like exxon using it’s money and power to push around the people that buy it’s products. Exxon ruined the fisheries in alaska, I know because i was a fisherman in alaska at the time of the spill. This just makes me sick to read. A company like exxon can do anything they want without any recourse is just sickening. It seems to me that the Supreme court that said for years they would not hear this case are just trying to make a name for themself of thier good friends at exxon get away with one of the worst enviromental crimes and in history. If exxon gets away scott free from the supreme court then they will have gotten away with enviromental damage and personal damage that makes them the worst offender to ever walk the face of the earth. The only good thing that can happen to exxon is to see its company fold and go bankrupt for good. maybe then the world will be a better place with criminals like them gone for good.