Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants = Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
ArgueDate = February 27
ArgueYear = 2008
DecideDate = June 25
DecideYear = 2008
FullName = Exxon Shipping Company, et al. v. Grant Baker, et al.
Docket = 07-219
USVol = 554
USPage =
CitationNew = 554 U.S. ___; 128 S.Ct. 2605
Prior =
Subsequent =
Holding = A ratio of no more than one-to-one between compensatory and punitive damages is generally appropriate in maritime cases. Since Exxon has paid about $507 million to compensate more than 32,000 Alaska Natives, landowners and commercial fishermen for the damage caused by the spill, it should have to pay no more than that amount in punitive damages.
SCOTUS = 2008
Majority = Souter
JoinMajority = Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas; Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer (in part)
Concurrence = Scalia
JoinConcurrence = Thomas
Concurrence/Dissent = Stevens
Concurrence/Dissent2 = Ginsburg
Concurrence/Dissent3 = Breyer
NotParticipating = Alito
LawsApplied =

"Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker", 554 U.S. ___ (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled in a 5-3 decision that the punitive damages awarded to the victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill should be reduced. The Supreme Court lowered the damages from US$2.5 billion to US$500 million.

The case was appealed from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit had also ruled that Exxon could be held liable for the reckless conduct of the ship's captain Joseph J. Hazelwood, who had left the bridge during the disaster and had been drinking vodka that evening. The Supreme Court was split 4-4 on the question of whether Exxon was liable for Hazelwood's action. The result of the split is that the Ninth Circuit's ruling on Exxon's respondeat superior liability for Hazelwood's conduct remains.

The Court reasoned that although punitive damages were warranted, they may not exceed what Exxon already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, which was about US$500 million. Souter argued that a one-to-one ratio between punitive and compensatory damages was "a fair upper limit" in maritime cases that involved recklessness, compared to the lower liability of negligence or the higher liability of intentional conduct. [ [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062500663.html Justices Slash Damages for Exxon Oil Spill - washingtonpost.com ] ]

Justice David Souter wrote for the majority, joined in full by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Samuel Alito took no part in the decision because he owns Exxon stock.

Of this reasoning, Boston University law professor Keith Hylton said, "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." [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_exxon_valdez_quotes_3]

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 554

References

Further reading

* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=07-219 Full text opinion from Findlaw.com]
*cite news |first=Adam |last=Liptak |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Damages Cut Against Exxon in Valdez Case |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26punitive.html |work=New York Times |publisher= |date=June 26, 2008 |accessdate=