While much attention today has been paid to the Supreme Court's Guns 4 Everyone! decision, we would be remiss if we didn't point out that yesterday the Not So Judicial Activist firm of Souter, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy & Thomas struck a blow against punitive damages run amok:
After a 14-year battle, the final verdict has left plaintiffs reeling.
WHEN the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, Andrew Wills was a successful herring fisherman in Alaska and the owner of three canneries.
The oil spill, caused when the supertanker piloted by a drunken captain ran aground in Prince William Sound, sent a cascade of about 41 million litres of crude oil into Arctic waters. The huge spill destroyed the rich herring fishery and Mr Wills' fishing career, so he borrowed money to open a bookshop, a cafe and the Mermaid Bed and Breakfast in downtown Homer, Alaska.
Mr Wills had expected to use his $US85,000 ($A88,000) share of the $US2.5 billion punitive damage settlement against Exxon to pay off some of his debts, but a US Supreme Court decision on Wednesday cut the damages to about $US500 million.
With soaring world oil prices, that sum represents two days' earnings for Exxon, which last year posted record profits of $US40.6 billion.
Mr Wills will now only receive $US15,000 as his share of the revised damages. "After everything we've been through, that's barely enough to cover payroll for a month," he said. "This is a knife in the gut."
Across Alaska, plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Exxon reacted to the decision with sorrow and rage. "I'm expecting a call that someone I know has jumped out of a building," said Evan Beedle, who lost his boat-cleaning business in Cordova after the spill.
During the long-running legal battle, there have been bankruptcies and suicides.
The average payment to the 33,000 plaintiffs was to be $US76,500 before Wednesday's ruling. Now it's down to about $US15,000.
Needless to say, counsel is none too happy with this development either:
The Minneapolis attorney who represented plaintiffs harmed in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster said he was "shocked" by today's Supreme Court ruling to slash punitive damages in the case.
In a 5-3 ruling, the court said that Exxon Mobil Corp. should pay punitive damages in the case of $507.5 million, which is roughly one-fifth of the amount that a federal appeals court in 2006 said the company should pay.
That 2006 ruling cut in half the original $5 billion punitive award for fishermen, landowners and others who said they were harmed by the massive oil spill. The Minneapolis law firm of Faegre & Benson represented the single largest group of the roughly 32,000 plaintiffs in the case.
"There are 32,000 Alaska fishermen and natives who don't have access to the money that they deserve to put their lives back together again," said Brian O'Neill, the lead trial attorney in the case and a partner with the locally based law firm. "There are 32,000 Alaska fishermen and natives who no longer believe in the justice system.
"And the Supreme Court essentially made law up out of whole cloth to help Exxon Mobil Corporation," O'Neill said.
I imagine that today is probably a pretty grim day for the partners at Faegre & Benson, but for some, it's a lesson in being careful what you wish for.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight


Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Watch those bastards file another suit looking to have the $507 million reduced.
Its a made up law they reference in the ruling. They just want to advance the corporate agenda, they dont care about the law or justice. Shorter ruling: jack em and smack em. The sheriff is out of town.
I wonder how many Alaskans will realize that this decision is the result of Republican appointees to SCOTUS.
C’mon, Alaskans, time to start voting for Democrats!
.
I love that Hinderaker’s firm got screwed over by Hinderaker’s own dear leader. Oh, poor assrocket. Its poetic. Thank you for that bit of poetry mr. bogg.
No. The verdict is correct. The application is wrong. The simple explanation is that in maritime law, where a plaintiff bases a complaint on a cause of action that is more than negligence but less than criminal negligence, the measure of punitive damages to actual damages generally runs about 1:1. Under tort law, the measure of punitive damages to actual or special damages is more in the range of 2:1 to 4:1 in federal courts, and may be as high as 10:1 in many state courts.
Here is the problem:
A fish packing plant in Alaska sits beside Prince William sound, and is fronted by a major freeway.
Now, consider the following scenarios:
(1) Exxon Corp. officials, despite having knowledge of their employee’s alcohol problem, permitted a captain to pilot an oil tanker, the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound while under the influence. The captain ran the tanker Valdez into an ice floe. The ensuing oil spill ruined the herring industry and caused over $100,000 damage to the packing plant.
(2) XYZ Chemical Corp., despite having knowledge of their employee’s alcohol problem, permitted a trucker to drive one of their tanker trucks while under the influence. The trucker ran off the icy highway into a snowbank, causing the hitch of the trailer full of ammonium nitrate to break free and roll into the packing plant, where it exploded. The ensuing chemical spill killed off all the herring in the bay, and the fire caused over $100,000 damage to the packing plant.
From a legal standpoint, the damages are the same: The fish are dead; the packing plant is gone; the damages are $100,000. The primary cause of action is the same (negligence–to some degree). The real issues here are:
1. Is it equitable that punitive damages for the same or similar causes of actions to be pegged at different ratios based on subject matter jurisdiction? (Maritime/tort)
2. If the answer to the above is yes–which turned out to be the case in Exxon–should the rare victorious plaintiffs be able to claim enhanced punitive dmages for corporate negligence where Sub-Q corporations, foreign registry, and similar devices are used as a shields against liability by depriving them of a subject matter jurisdiction that is more favorable?
Of course there is no stare decisis (Translation: Stupid legal term.) to support a Supreme Court decision favoring issue number two. And since Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution has vested Congress with dictating the limits of power of federal courts, we can expect this to happen after Exxon has spent the billions they’ve saved in damages from this case to purchase politicians.
Ice cubes would freeze faster in hell.
Et tu, Fat Tony?
I love that Hinderaker’s firm got screwed over by Hinderaker’s own dear leader.
Hindraker is an attorney?!!! Jeebue, but the standards for the State Bar in Minnesota must have taken a dive.
Yeah, but…McDONALD’S COFFEE!! Frivilous lawsuits an’…stuff…y’know?
If everyone who is really PO’d about this verdict boycotted Exxon how muuch of a dent could we make in their profit margin? Seriously. The verdict that most Alaskans were expecting would have taken about 4 days of their currently obscene profits. How many of us are willing to spend a buck or more each time we fill up our tanks to send a message by driving less and buying fuel from other sources? I’m in.