I completely agree .. buried. IMO, fining a corporation for something of this scope is simply ridiculous. A buddy of mine says “Take upper management and march their heads through town, held high on pointed sticks”.

Hey Beth,

Yeah, that was quite a story about hot coffee, who’d ever have thought it. Thanks for the kind words on the photo.

Hey Ron,

Exactly. A month’s profits for the kind of long-term disaster they directly caused, it’s amazing the Supreme Court is even discussing the case .. if they go the wrong way on this one, it’ll be hard to understand what’s so “Supreme” about that court.

Cheers

Carl

Thanks man. Yeah, it’s absurd. And the guy never even had his Ship’s Masters license revoked.

Cheers

Carl

McDonald’s didn’t lose that lawsuit because of one employee. It lost because it’s corporate policy was to serve coffee much hotter than needed, hotter than other establishments served, and it had already settled with other burn victims to the tune of $500,000 without changing the way the coffee was dealt with. It actually wasn’t as much of a farce as a lot of people think.

And being able to deduct the cleanup costs doesn’t mean that the government paid for it - only part of it (the money they would have gained from Exxon’s taxes on the $40 million). I’m not positive about corporate taxes, but I think this is correct.

Finally that’s a great explanation of punitive damages in this case….

David Bostedo

PS - Also keep in mind that my comments are worth the price you paid me to write them.

Thanks for the comment and input man, I appreciate it.

My point about the McDonald’s case was not so much about the ridiculous nature of it. That’s another issue. The issue here is whether a ship’s captain is in a ‘managerial’ position, which would warrant liability on the behalf of the corporation. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to draw a parallel to any number of cases .. I could’ve used Union Carbide/Bhopal as an example. The bottom line is that a corporation, i.e., a profit-making fictional entity, could, on a technicality, be argued to not be responsible at all, in any case. A corporation is not a tangible, physical entity, so how can it be the responsibility of “McDonalds”™, if “McDonalds”™ isn’t an actual entity? Clearly the fault lies with the individuals, either the coffee maker, or the persons responsible for “policy development”, ad infinitum. The reality, of course, is that just as the corporation, at the end of the day, benefits via profit from the actions of the workers, the corporation ought also be held accountable for the actions of the workers. Any system that doesn’t abide this simple principle is every bit the farce you suggest, and bound for failure.

Regarding the cleanup costs, in actuality, yes, the Govt did pay for it. I perhaps didn’t write that section too clearly - the tax deductions and the cleanup cost deductions are two separate things. Exxon were allowed to deduct the cleanup costs they paid from its 1992 civic settlement payment to the Govt - they were supposed to pay the Govt $150 million in 1992, but they were granted an allowance to deduct the money they’d spent on cleanup ($40million).

Let’s say I borrow your car, and I break it. You take me to court. My charm, cool Aussie accent and general good nature sways the judge into giving me a minor slap - a $200 fine and I have to get your car fixed. If the car repair costs me $20.00 and I only pay you $180.00, you effectively paid for fixing your car. There’s probably some nifty little economic or legal term for this kind of manipulation, but I’m not clever enough to know what it is.

As for the tax deductions, no, I didn’t mean to imply that through tax deductions the Govt paid for the cleanup. Through tax deductions, Exxon’s net cost for what was supposed to be a $1billion payment of civil and criminal liability, was around $450million. There was a Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report that came out in maybe 91 or 92 that spelled this out pretty clearly (much clearer than I’m able to).

Lastly, remember there was clause in the initial criminal case stipulating, and both parties agreed to, were compensatory, remedial and non-punitive, and distinct from any other fines and payments that could be imposed - that is, they agreed, at the time, that the fines initially imposed were not a form of punishment, and that punitive fines could be imposed later. They’re now arguing that they’ve already been punished enough.

I hope the Supreme Court turns all the way around, re-imposes the original $5billion punitive damages payment, adds 20 years interest to the charges, and says Exxon are not allowed to continue to operate until they’ve paid - and if they try to jack their petrol prices to cover the costs, then their entire board of directors should be slapped silly.

Cheers

Carl

PS - did you ever try to cash that check I paid you with?

Good on you for posting this; contains a lot of information of which I was unaware.

Ever since the incident I’ve not bought one molecule of Exxon gasoline, even if it meant having to pay lots more at the next station. Too bad a more widespread boycott never really caught on (or died out too quickly).

Mike

Thanks for stopping by, and taking the time to comment, I appreciate it.

I’m with ya, I was just talking with Ron Niebrugge the other day about this - we agreed we’d rather push our vehicle on to the next station than stop at Exxon. One of the problems, of course, is finding a company to buy your gas/petrol from that deserves your business. Shell are next on my list after Exxon to not buy from, but unfortunately that list seems to be getting longer rather than shorter.

Thanks again.

Cheers

Carl

I wish someone could do a simulation of what 1,200 miles of coastline destroyed on the east coast would look like. Can you imagine a whole states coastline destroyed? Would it have taken 19 years to settle, if this same disaster had happened off RI or NJ? Would the east coast have settled for 2.5 bil or would Exxon have been even hit harder maybe put out of business? I wonder, if Alaska just seems too far away and less populated for people to truly understand what this spill looked like. It would be a great disater movie showing this spill happening on the Populated eastern seaboard.

It will be sad if the Supreme Court does not give punative damages and sides with Exxon.
Won’t seem like the correct perpective of the American idea of law and justice.

Thanks for stopping by and for commenting, I do appreciate it. Thanks for the kinds words about my post.

I agree, a big part of the reason there’s so little pressure on Exxon and the Court is that the incident occurred where it did .. Out of sight, out of mind for many people .. it’s like the Hurricane Katrina/New Orleans thing in a way - if it doesn’t directly adversely affect the bulk of the population, people forget and move right along.

It’ll be a very sad day if the Supreme Court decides in Exxon’s favor on this case, for many reasons. I really hope they get it right - if anyone can afford justice it’s Exxon Mobil.

Thanks again.

Cheers

Carl