Comments on: Infamous Exxon Case Heard Tomorrow

By: Rick Garnett

Rick Garnett — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:27:12 +0000

Just in case facts matter, in addition to the compensatory damages, Exxon paid millions to local workers– that is, it pumped millions into the local economy — during the very expensive cleanup. And, of course, if we are talking about “punitive damages”, the idea is not to provide additional compensation to those who lost their livelihood, but to punish and deter.

By: Blackadder

Blackadder — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:08:40 +0000

I’m not that familiar with the details of Hazelwood’s history with Exxon, but if the billions of dollars in lost revenues didn’t give Exxon an incentive not to let such things happen in the future, it’s not clear that an additional $2.5 billion would do so.

By: radicalcatholicmom

radicalcatholicmom — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:47:33 +0000

Absolutely, BA. I think it is a good question, too. Exxon knew for 3 years that Hazlewood had a drinking problem and yet they did nothing. Highly irresponsible and we can see what happened. Evidently they need extra incentive to enforce their policies and make sure they people running their companies and businesses are competent.

By: Blackadder

Blackadder — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:16:03 +0000

The level of compensatory damages was decided by a jury composed of people whom, I suspect, were not inclined to be overly lenient on Exxon. But let’s say that the level of compensatory damages was woefully inadequate. This case is not about compensatory damages. It’s about punitive damages. The purpose of the $2.5 billion, according to the law, is not to compensate those injured in the spill for their harm. It is to deter folks like Exxon from causing other spills in the future. The idea that Exxon needs additional incentives not to run their tankers into the ground doesn’t seem very plausible.

By: radicalcatholicmom

radicalcatholicmom — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:35:17 +0000

Yeah, Exxon DID pay an average of $15.000 per person. $15,000! What a joke! These people have lost their jobs and they are compensated $15,000. I am sure there are people who think $15,000 is MORE than sufficient. But after reading the Court’s transcripts I don’t think our Justices believe it.

By: RPFN

RPFN — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:33:38 +0000

Radicalcatholicmom, Exxon has paid $287 million in compensatory damages to the fisherman. What is at issue now is whether the fishermen should be paid above and beyond their just compensation in order to punish Exxon.

By: radicalcatholicmom

radicalcatholicmom — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:12:43 +0000

Rick: “Exxon has paid, a lot, since the accident. How much is enough?” The fishermen who lost their livelihoods have never been compensated. EVER.

By: Tim F.

Tim F. — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:43:27 +0000

It’s 11 million. Sheesh! It’s still a tragedy of epic proportions but it is MILLIONS not BILLIONS.

By: Donald R. McClarey

Donald R. McClarey — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:57:40 +0000

Rick, judges deciding cases purely according to the law and the facts? What a truly radical notion! I of course completely agree.

By: G. Alkon

G. Alkon — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:45:08 +0000

Exxon made about 35 billion dollars of pure profit this year.

Much more than many small countries.

No “innovation” or “quality performance” can possibly justify that level of profit. They make that money because they control access to a limited resource. That is not real competition in an open market. That is monopoly capitalism. And that is the world we live in.

35 billion in pure profit for a single company is theft. It is sin. And you can be sure that when wealth is concentrated in this way, it is being taken from somebody. Somebody pays. And surely, too, somebody dies.

Anyone who claims to be “pro life” without thinking about how to control this “free market” theft is not seeing the whole picture.

And the fact that Exxon can make this 35 billion after dumping 11 billion gallons of oil and killing thousands is … blasphemy.

By: Rick Garnett

Rick Garnett — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 02:25:49 +0000

Gee, MM, I hope the relevant judges will decide in accord with the law. I would hope that judges would be “pro-business” when business has the better of the legal arguments. Perhaps you think differently?

I’m an Alaskan myself, and remember the spill well. Exxon has paid, a lot, since the accident. How much is enough?

By: RPFN

RPFN — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:51:07 +0000

“Yes, I wonder how our pro-big business (eh, sorry, I meant pro-life) justices will decide….”

Judging by their position on the death penalty, it would seem that they’d be likely to uphold the punitive damages. Punishment for punishment’s sake is what they seem to believe in so it’s in line with the thirst for revenge against big bad oil that is being expressed here.

I, personally, have no interest in revenge thus I support Exxon in this matter. Justice must prevail.