The Exxon Valdez grounded on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound nineteen years ago, causing the worst oil spill in US maritime history, but the accounts of the sheer negligence that night of Joseph Hazelwood, the tanker's captain, are still breathtaking.
The tanker was traveling outbound when Hazelwood was cleared by the Coast Guard to cross the inbound lane to less icy water. But that move put the tanker in the path of the reef, requiring a turn back into the shipping lane.
The Supreme Court took up the narrative in its opinion last week in the Exxon Valdez punitive damages case: "Two minutes before the required turn, however, Hazelwood left the bridge and went down to his cabin in order, he said, to do paperwork. This decision was inexplicable. There was expert testimony that even if their presence is not strictly necessary, captains simply do not quit the bridge during maneuvers like this, and no paperwork could have justified it."
Hazelwood's presence was required, not only because there should have been two officers on the bridge at all times and his departure left only one, the court said, but because "he was the only person on the entire ship licensed to navigate this part of Prince William Sound." The remaining officer on deck and the helmsman failed to make the turn, and the Exxon Valdez grounded, spilling 260,000 barrels.
Hazelwood had a known drinking problem, and witnesses reported that he drank heavily before the Valdez left port on the night of the disaster. Perhaps his judgment was addled by alcohol. Perhaps he went below to sleep it off. His actions still defy belief.
The court divided 4-4 on whether Exxon (subsequently merged with Mobil) was responsible, in a "managerial capacity" for the "reckless acts" of its employee. The split decision let stand the lower court ruling that the company was accountable and liable, but it has no value as precedent. (Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the decision because he is an ExxonMobil shareholder).
However, the court voted 5-3 to reduce the $2.5 billion punitive damages award to $507.5 million, the amount of the award for compensatory damages.
In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens was not prepared to overlook "Exxon's decision to permit a lapsed alcoholic to command a supertanker carrying tens of millions of gallons of crude through the treacherous waters of Prince William Sound, thereby endangering all of the individuals who depend upon the sound for their livelihood."
Stevens wrote that the jury, which originally awarded $5 billion in punitive damages, "could reasonably have given expression of its 'moral condemnation' of Exxon's conduct." (The award was subsequently halved on appeal).
ExxonMobil, and perhaps industry and business more broadly, won a key victory when the court established a 1:1 ratio matching punitive damages to compensatory damages. Although the opinion was in a maritime case, the 1:1 ratio could become the across-the-board standard.
But having prevailed in the highest court in land, what an opportunity ExxonMobil now has to win in the court of public opinion where, let's face it, it's on a long losing streak. Actually, this writer's wife suggested it: Why not, as a good will gesture, pay the $2.5 billion anyway to the 32,000 claimants in the case, or their heirs? Surely it wouldn't hurt the company's bottom line and imagine the feel-good stories it would generate.
Just recall what passing out dimes did for ExxonMobil progenitor John D. Rockefeller's image.
Well, it has been a long time since the Exxon Valdez, and every time in court they reduced the amount to pay. So I don't know if the (Exxon Mobil) will be making another compensatory move to change the amount. So is very important to say that since that accident Exxon Mobil (XOM) made a lot of procedures and rules to make all business in the safety way possible.
Is unforgettable this issue, but at least they now make things in a good way. I hope XOM would pay the fee to the people and Alaska state.