You said it way better than I ever could. I’m sure the corporate loving sycophants will find plenty wrong with your post, but the more sophisticated folks will read it for what it is.
Words from the frontlines are good to hear. And while I sympathize with you (I’ve never experienced that level of tragedy, so could never empathize) I feel I must stick to the definitions of “compensatory” and “punitive”. If the area has not been made whole the compensatory damages were not properly calculated and should be revisited. Punitive damages are designed to punish and should not be counted upon to be made whole.
I fully agree that Exxon should pay full compensatory damages. I do not agree that huge punitive damages should be awarded because compensatory damages failed to make whole.
How about another class action suit against politically motivated reporters using an industry forum to “report” their political opinion and intentionally omit all of the facts. Whether I agree or not, nowhere in the article did it state as to why a majority of the justices (not all Bush appointees, I might add) voted against Charter Communications investors, one of the cases that set a key precedent on this issue. This is an OpEd piece, not news article. The author should go back to journalism school where they presumably teach that all of the facts tell the real story, everything else is just an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions…
Wow Seriously, that’s pretty edgy. Let’s take a quick look – out of 30+ articles on today’s IJ, some are wholly pertinent and objective, some are decidely subjective, some are thinly-veiled advertisements, etc. If IJ’s management/editorial staff only posted the wholly pertinent and objective articles, they’d have about 1/3 the material. Subsequently, 1/3 the ad revenue. 1/3 the staff. 1/3 the influence. So they make some exceptions, draw the line a little further out, make it fuzzy. Have they expanded the site’s scope a bit beyond your ideal? That’s a sad story. They’re trying to make money and grow. They evolve and adapt, fight for market share. Get over it.
“The author should go back to journalism school…”
LOL
Maybe you should go back to Capitalism School and learn how to be an American? Seriously Guy.
How about that Boumediene v. Bush decision! Justice Scalia wrote that the majority decision “warps the Constitution” and that “[our] nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.” Scalia further warned the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed… that consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today.”.
Pat Leahy bemoans the loss of justice for those harmed by Exxon here. Did I miss something or was this a punitive damages award ABOVE actual losses already compensated.They are being paid TWICE for their losses but that isn’t enough for the good liberal senator.
Every article written about this refers to the captain being drunk when, in fact, his sobriety contributed in no way to the actual loss. He wasn’t on duty or at the wheel when the ship ran aground. It is like saying a passenger in the back seat is responsible for an auto accident because he was wearing a blue jacket.
“Pat Leahy bemoans the loss of justice for those harmed by Exxon here. Did I miss something or was this a punitive damages award ABOVE actual losses already compensated.They are being paid TWICE for their losses but that isn’t enough for the good liberal senator.
Every article written about this refers to the captain being drunk when, in fact, his sobriety contributed in no way to the actual loss. He wasn’t on duty or at the wheel when the ship ran aground. It is like saying a passenger in the back seat is responsible for an auto accident because he was wearing a blue jacket.”
Yes, you did miss something, this was the total award, compensatory PLUS punitive. Or is that too hard to comprehend for your puny insult-spewing mind?
And no, it’s not like a back seat driver. A captain of a ship is not like the night manager at McDonalds. The captain is responsible for his entire ship at all times. When you become captain, you take this responsibility. You are on call 24-7 and responsible for everything, no exceptions. Try reading up on the subject. And don’t forget this wasn’t his first instance of drunk “driving.” Exxon had knowingly promoted him despite other episodes of drinking on the job.
Joe, you make two good points. I’ll bet Good Hands thinks the Alaskans should be responsible since it was their rocks the Valdez crashed into. Damn nature…always getting in the way of things like corporate responsibility. What are all those people in Alaska thinking, trying to recover fair damages for a disgusting and avoidable travesty? Exxon – THEY should be getting the benefit of the doubt!
Has this become a communist Blog. Not for nothing, it was an accident and Exxon is being punished heavily. Now maybe $500mm doesn’t seem like much to you Marxist folk, but to a lover of free trade and capitalism, it is a hell of alot of money.
PS. Alaskan Fisherman and others affected were compensated by their own insurance companies, last I checked indemnity meant getting whole, not getting rich.
Ouch Joe, did I touch a nerve?
Reread the article, it says the puni award was cut to the amount of the actual losses but it is a separate award. In effect, the puni doubles the damages. No one is saying there is going to be no punitive damage award.
Yes, the captain is responsible for his ship at all times; I get that. Ever hear of hyperbole? The fact stands that the Exxon Valdez was not being driven around the sound by a drunken sailor. It just ran onto the rocks; an accident. The captain is responsible but he still was not at the wheel.
I don’t even have a dog in this fight!
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
You said it way better than I ever could. I’m sure the corporate loving sycophants will find plenty wrong with your post, but the more sophisticated folks will read it for what it is.
Thanks for the info!
Words from the frontlines are good to hear. And while I sympathize with you (I’ve never experienced that level of tragedy, so could never empathize) I feel I must stick to the definitions of “compensatory” and “punitive”. If the area has not been made whole the compensatory damages were not properly calculated and should be revisited. Punitive damages are designed to punish and should not be counted upon to be made whole.
I fully agree that Exxon should pay full compensatory damages. I do not agree that huge punitive damages should be awarded because compensatory damages failed to make whole.
How about another class action suit against politically motivated reporters using an industry forum to “report” their political opinion and intentionally omit all of the facts. Whether I agree or not, nowhere in the article did it state as to why a majority of the justices (not all Bush appointees, I might add) voted against Charter Communications investors, one of the cases that set a key precedent on this issue. This is an OpEd piece, not news article. The author should go back to journalism school where they presumably teach that all of the facts tell the real story, everything else is just an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions…
Wow Seriously, that’s pretty edgy. Let’s take a quick look – out of 30+ articles on today’s IJ, some are wholly pertinent and objective, some are decidely subjective, some are thinly-veiled advertisements, etc. If IJ’s management/editorial staff only posted the wholly pertinent and objective articles, they’d have about 1/3 the material. Subsequently, 1/3 the ad revenue. 1/3 the staff. 1/3 the influence. So they make some exceptions, draw the line a little further out, make it fuzzy. Have they expanded the site’s scope a bit beyond your ideal? That’s a sad story. They’re trying to make money and grow. They evolve and adapt, fight for market share. Get over it.
“The author should go back to journalism school…”
LOL
Maybe you should go back to Capitalism School and learn how to be an American? Seriously Guy.
How about that Boumediene v. Bush decision! Justice Scalia wrote that the majority decision “warps the Constitution” and that “[our] nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.” Scalia further warned the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed… that consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today.”.
Pat Leahy bemoans the loss of justice for those harmed by Exxon here. Did I miss something or was this a punitive damages award ABOVE actual losses already compensated.They are being paid TWICE for their losses but that isn’t enough for the good liberal senator.
Every article written about this refers to the captain being drunk when, in fact, his sobriety contributed in no way to the actual loss. He wasn’t on duty or at the wheel when the ship ran aground. It is like saying a passenger in the back seat is responsible for an auto accident because he was wearing a blue jacket.
“Pat Leahy bemoans the loss of justice for those harmed by Exxon here. Did I miss something or was this a punitive damages award ABOVE actual losses already compensated.They are being paid TWICE for their losses but that isn’t enough for the good liberal senator.
Every article written about this refers to the captain being drunk when, in fact, his sobriety contributed in no way to the actual loss. He wasn’t on duty or at the wheel when the ship ran aground. It is like saying a passenger in the back seat is responsible for an auto accident because he was wearing a blue jacket.”
Yes, you did miss something, this was the total award, compensatory PLUS punitive. Or is that too hard to comprehend for your puny insult-spewing mind?
And no, it’s not like a back seat driver. A captain of a ship is not like the night manager at McDonalds. The captain is responsible for his entire ship at all times. When you become captain, you take this responsibility. You are on call 24-7 and responsible for everything, no exceptions. Try reading up on the subject. And don’t forget this wasn’t his first instance of drunk “driving.” Exxon had knowingly promoted him despite other episodes of drinking on the job.
Joe, you make two good points. I’ll bet Good Hands thinks the Alaskans should be responsible since it was their rocks the Valdez crashed into. Damn nature…always getting in the way of things like corporate responsibility. What are all those people in Alaska thinking, trying to recover fair damages for a disgusting and avoidable travesty? Exxon – THEY should be getting the benefit of the doubt!
Has this become a communist Blog. Not for nothing, it was an accident and Exxon is being punished heavily. Now maybe $500mm doesn’t seem like much to you Marxist folk, but to a lover of free trade and capitalism, it is a hell of alot of money.
PS. Alaskan Fisherman and others affected were compensated by their own insurance companies, last I checked indemnity meant getting whole, not getting rich.
Ouch Joe, did I touch a nerve?
Reread the article, it says the puni award was cut to the amount of the actual losses but it is a separate award. In effect, the puni doubles the damages. No one is saying there is going to be no punitive damage award.
Yes, the captain is responsible for his ship at all times; I get that. Ever hear of hyperbole? The fact stands that the Exxon Valdez was not being driven around the sound by a drunken sailor. It just ran onto the rocks; an accident. The captain is responsible but he still was not at the wheel.
I don’t even have a dog in this fight!