crude behavior

for my generation, many folks' first recollection of an oil company or environmental tragedy, which are all over the news these days, was the wreck of the Exxon-Valdez. back in '89 the tanker ran aground in Alaska and dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil into a relatively pristine area of the pacific shore line. back in the day 'A jury initially awarded $287 million to compensate for economic losses and $5 billion in punitive damages.' of which Exxon paid the compensatory damages, but has been fighting, ever since the initial ruling, the the punitive damages.

punitive damages a put in place in incidents of all sorts of a rather negligent or heinous nature and to act as a deterrent for similar deeds in the future. well Exxon has fought those damages all the way to the supreme court where the case arrived today.

Exxon argues that long-standing maritime law and the 1970s-era Clean Water Act should bar any punitive damages, which are intended both to punish behavior and deter a repeat. The company says it should not be held accountable for Hazelwood's reckless conduct.

The plaintiffs say the judgment, representing three weeks of Exxon's 2006 profit, is rational and proportionate. It takes account of Exxon's decision to allow Hazelwood to command the ship, despite knowing he had an ongoing drinking problem, the plaintiffs contend.

to me it is clear that Exxon should have paid this fine before i reached my 10th birthday. they fucked up. they fucked up royally. they should be punished, and in my opinion, the fine isnt enough. i sincerely hope that with Alito abstaining from the case because he owns stock in Exxon, that the court will at least slap an oil company's hand. maybe just once??? please.

thanks to the Detroit News for this one.