On Wednesday, Exxon Mobil Corp. will try to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that it should not have to pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages to Alaskan folk affected by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. Exxon, which earlier this month posted an annual profit of $40.6 billion, will argue that the $3.4 billion or so that it's paid in cleanup costs and other fines should totally suffice. The company also says that Prince William Sound, where the tanker ran aground, is back to its pre-spill pristine state, an opinion disputed by research and people who actually live there.
source: The Washington Post, Associated Press
EU pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
Wolverine Posted 5:23 am
26 Feb 2008
The purpose of punitive damages is to punish a guilty defendant, like Exxon, in order to provide a strong incentive to not repeat the behavior that resulted in a guilty verdict. If punitive damages were based on what a defendant could afford or not afford, and on the behavior at issue, it would provide that incentive. However, our fascist Supreme Court has limited punitive damages to an amount based on compensatory damages, which are based on the actual harm caused. This lets defendants like Exxon off the hook, because they can obviously afford to pay a lot of money without that payment affecting their behaviors. Even $5 billion is not a sufficient amount to discourage Exxon. Add to that the ludicrous amount of time that has passed since the oil spill -- almost 20 years of Exxon earning interest or making investment profits on the money -- and any incentive to change Exxon's behavior that punitive damages would provide has been totally lost.
This is just another example of the broken legal system in the U.S. that highly favors those with money and power to the detriment of everything and everyone else.
Permalink
Pathos Posted 6:09 pm
26 Feb 2008
If either Hillary or Obama would promise to press every possible charge against ExxonMobile, and preferably seek the original damages plus interest for Valdez victims, they'd have my unwavering support.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:46 pm
26 Feb 2008
Yep, if Alito had his way corporate citizens would be free to sell everyone ak-47s. Just like in Iraq. Every family is entitled to one ak. That's a great profit picture for Putin's war profiteering.
The new judges, plus Scalia and the pubic hair on the coke can dude, ought to be able to let the exxonmob off the hook.
They just ruled against even hearing an ACLU suit over the bushco data mining. No standing. The evidence that would prove there is a person who was actually spyed on and thus have standing to sue, is secret. can't be released until a law suit is brought. Catch 22. Hehey. Those wacky justices!
That darned constitution was such a pain in the ass, it's good to see it finally being rendered null and void.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:53 pm
26 Feb 2008
Not that I was at all stirred to blush, of course, though I did flutter my fan a bit more agitatedly.
Anyway, excellent point. And excellent as well is Amazing's regular denunciation of "corpoRATism."
Not that I have anything against rats, the original ones. My understanding is they make very sweet pets.
Really, though, we Americans make lots of hoopla over the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation -- rightly so! -- , but we foolishly then pay no attention to equally fundamental texts, much more cruel however, the judicial decision to treat the corporation as an individual citizen, and the judicial tradition of decisions favoring business interests and mistrusting claims of individual citizens.
Permalink
Pathos Posted 12:00 am
27 Feb 2008
I'm going to go sleep now, and hope nothing wakes me up before the next alpaca-feeding time.
Permalink
usandthem Posted 5:02 am
27 Feb 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:04 am
27 Feb 2008
Permalink