Cafe Talk | Talking Points Memo

A Crude Injustice

By Ripper McCord - June 25, 2008, 11:18PM

What does it cost to negligently damage a pristine ecosystem, to kill off wildlife by the hundreds of thousands, blacken 1,300 miles of coastline and cripple the livelihoods of more than 30,000 people for decades to come?

Why, it's hardly worth a slap on the wrist, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today. In fact, it's worth the value of only about three tankers of Alaska North Slope crude. The kind carried by the Exxon Valdez until its drunken captain ran it against the rocks March 24, 1989, and caused 11 million gallons to spew into Prince William Sound, Alaska.

If you think that sounds bad, the court's ruling straps damage awards, at least in maritime cases, into a single, arbitrary straitjacket defined by the ratio of punitive damages to actual damages. The court decided that ratio is a maximum of 1:1, and here is the NY Times account of the crude impact on justice in the real world:

Justice David H. Souter, writing for the majority in the 5-to-3 decision, said a ratio between the two sorts of damages of no more than one-to-one was generally appropriate, at least in maritime cases. Since Exxon has paid about $507 million to compensate more than 32,000 Native Alaskans, landowners and commercial fishermen, Justice Souter said, it should have to pay no more than that amount in punitive damages.

That works out to $15,000 for each plaintiff for compensation and $15,000 more as punitive damages.

The court's decision cut the $2.5 billion punitive damages awarded by an appellate court, which had already reduced the original jury award. Of course, those affected by the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill do not enjoy the legal and financial resources of an oil giant. Nor does the court's decision, essentially a formulaic cap, bode well for any whose lives have been laid to waste by corporate carelessness or malicious indifference.

Comments (8)

Dude, 5-3?

Who didn't vote and why?

Posted by Aubie84
June 25, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink

Click the link. That's all I know.

Posted by Ripper McCord
June 25, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink

Alito recused himself because he owns Exxon stock.

4 of the 5 were exactly who you think they were. Souter was the one who surprised me, not one of the usual suspects at all. That is probably why they had him write the opinion.

Posted by BalRog
June 26, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink