Exxon Valdez: An end to long trek through courts
Reaction to Wednesday's ruling in which the Supreme Court cut a $2.5 billion damage award to $500 million in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case in Alaska:
"We are extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court has chosen to reduce the punitive damages amount from $2.5 billion to $507.5 million. Three times previously, lower courts have ruled on the amount of damages and the Supreme Court, in our opinion, should have allowed the $2.5 billion judgment to stand. Today's ruling adds insult to injury to the fishermen, communities and Alaska natives who have been waiting nearly 20 years for proper compensation following the worst environmental disaster in our nation's history."
--Alaska Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, in a joint statement
"The court recognized the dangerous unpredictability of huge punitive damage awards, and the standards it established today under federal maritime law will be extremely helpful to state and federal courts around the country as they seek to set their own stricter standards for bringing these arbitrary awards under control."
--Attorney Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who has represented prominent defendants, including
"For the court to require a company that recorded a 2007 profit of $40.6 billion and that posted the highest quarterly results in U.S. corporate history in February to pay a mere $500 million in punitive damages to the affected Alaskans makes a mockery of justice. The worst environmental calamity in U.S. history will continue to haunt the Prince William Sound and those dependent upon it for their livelihoods. Crude oil still can be found under rocks along the sound's shores, and fishery scientists estimate that only 10 percent of the oil was ever cleaned up."
--John Passacantando, executive director, Greenpeace USA
"Exxon v. Baker was the epitome of a compromise verdict on a 4-4 Supreme Court. Four of the justices wanted no damages at all and at least three wanted $2.5 billion. The court ended up giving Exxon an 80 percent reduction, and permitting just over $500 million in punitive damages. The case reflects a combination of the court's pro-business willingness to cut punitive damages quite sharply, its disinclination to spare Exxon all punitive damages in today's political environment, and its occasional capacity to resolve disagreement by striking a bargain."
--Fordham Law Professor Benjamin Zipursky
"The court's elaborate and lengthy argument for the one-to-one ratio is troubling for several reasons. First, the whole discussion was largely unnecessary if the court really wanted to limit its decision to maritime cases. The court's majority appears to be trying to make the case for imposing the one-to-one ratio as a default rule in ordinary civil cases."
--Boston University law professor Keith Hylton
"Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms that judges and juries in maritime cases may hold wrongdoers accountable for egregious misconduct by permitting significant punitive damages to punish the company and deter its reoccurrence. The court said that punitive damages may be capped through a ratio only in maritime cases that do not involve extraordinary misconduct by the corporation itself. Those in the business community who claim this decision stands for a generalized punitive damage limit are wrong, and the court has made clear their decision applies only to maritime cases."
--Kathleen Flynn Peterson, president of the American Association for Justice, a national group of plaintiffs attorneys.
