Comments on: Cognitive Dissonance Illustrated

By: Ruthie

Ruthie — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:45:29 +0000

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.

By: MichaelHarrington

MichaelHarrington — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:52:02 +0000

Yeah, but…McDONALD’S COFFEE!! Frivilous lawsuits an’…stuff…y’know?

By: Ruthie

Ruthie — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:33:05 +0000

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.

By: captphealy

captphealy — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:46:15 +0000

Et tu, Fat Tony?

By: Ruthie

Ruthie — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:17:52 +0000

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.

By: Nylund

Nylund — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:53:59 +0000

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.

By: JGabriel

JGabriel — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:30:00 +0000

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!

By: moondancer

moondancer — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:54 +0000

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.

By: Tom65

Tom65 — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:41:19 +0000

Watch those bastards file another suit looking to have the $507 million reduced.