...and YOU should be glad!
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court cut Exxon-Mobil’s verdict FROM $2.5 BILLION to $500 MILLION.
In 1989 punitive damages of $2.5 BILLION were awarded against Exxon-Mobil over the Exxon Valdez disaster.
The court ruled that victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history may collect punitive damages from Exxon Mobil Corp., but not as much as a federal appeals court determined.
Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, about $500 million compensation.
Exxon asked the high court to reject the punitive damages judgment, saying it already has spent $3.4 billion in response to the accident that fouled 1,200 miles of Alaska coastline.
A jury decided Exxon should pay $5 billion in punitive damages. A federal appeals court cut that verdict in half.
The reason YOU and I should be happy is that those punitive damages amount to a “cost of doing business,” for Exxon-Mobil and that cost, as ALL such costs are passed onto the consumers – that includes YOU and I.
So far, I have the U.S. Supreme Court at two and two – they got two (nixing the D.C. gun ban and slashing the Exxon Valdez punitive damages) RIGHT, and two (giving foreign terrorists access to U.S. courts and nixing the death penalty for child rapists) WRONG.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court cut Exxon-Mobil’s verdict FROM $2.5 BILLION to $500 MILLION.
In 1989 punitive damages of $2.5 BILLION were awarded against Exxon-Mobil over the Exxon Valdez disaster.
The court ruled that victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history may collect punitive damages from Exxon Mobil Corp., but not as much as a federal appeals court determined.
Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, about $500 million compensation.
Exxon asked the high court to reject the punitive damages judgment, saying it already has spent $3.4 billion in response to the accident that fouled 1,200 miles of Alaska coastline.
A jury decided Exxon should pay $5 billion in punitive damages. A federal appeals court cut that verdict in half.
The reason YOU and I should be happy is that those punitive damages amount to a “cost of doing business,” for Exxon-Mobil and that cost, as ALL such costs are passed onto the consumers – that includes YOU and I.
So far, I have the U.S. Supreme Court at two and two – they got two (nixing the D.C. gun ban and slashing the Exxon Valdez punitive damages) RIGHT, and two (giving foreign terrorists access to U.S. courts and nixing the death penalty for child rapists) WRONG.
Oil companies are part of the axis of evil according to far left wingers. Walmart and the tobacco companies are the other two parts. They make easy targets. I am glad this situation was brought back into the realm of reality.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you u, Exxon-Mobil has already paid $3.4 BILLION in response to the accident, those who want to punish Exxon-Mobil are, very much like those who want to punish Walmart, Coke, Pepsi, the Fast Food industry and big tobacco - anti-business, and since nealry 90% of the jobs created in this country are created by private industry, they are really anti-people.
ReplyDeleteI never got people who rail against prosperity!
Thanks for taking the time to stop by and comment.
P.S.
ReplyDeleteGlad you're BACK Uncle Joe!
our Supreme Court..sigh...how misguided they have become JMK!
ReplyDeletemy take on the score of the supremes matches your, jmk. sad commentary that we're excited that they got 1/2 right, ain't it?
ReplyDeleteYes Angel, they've been very poor this session - allowing foreign terror suspects access to U.S. civilian courts (Boumediene v Bush) and nixing the death penalty for child-rapers (Kennedy v Louisianna) overshadows almost everything else in recent memory.
ReplyDeleteWorse still, it's the same Liberal core that's foisted every one of those bad decisions on us - Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter have been on the wrong side of most of those decisions, from Kelo to Boumediene.
"my take on the score of the supremes matches your, jmk. sad commentary that we're excited that they got 1/2 right, ain't it?" (Heidianne)
ReplyDeleteI guess it's a matter of "SOME being better than NONE," Heidianne, BUT the Boumediene and Kennedy decisions, granting foreign terrorists access to U.S. civilian courts and nixing the death penalty for child-rapers respectively, are, to me, the most egregious in recent memory, while the Heller case (overturning the D.C. gun ban) merely took a common sense approach to the 2nd Amendment.
Hardly a fair or equitable trade-off, I agree.
Glad to be back. I'm still trying to catch up on your posts. :)
ReplyDeleteYou're right, JMK. This was a good decision by the Court, but a 2wrong and 2 right batting average is no cause for rejoicing. I just hope the Court's past few decisions will make people realize they must take the Court into consideration when deciding whom to elect president.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you're back too UJ!
ReplyDeleteThanks for looking in.
I agree completely Seane-Anna.
thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeletei wasn't aware of the full details of what took place during and after the oil disaster. but after reading your post i too applaud the judge who felt that exxon had already taken major steps towards compensation. i too think the right choice was made.
Thanks for taking the time to stop by and comment Don. I really like the Characters Bolg you and Attorneymom have set up.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, given the HUGE amount already paid out by Exxon-Mobil and considering that such "costs of doing business" are always passed onto us as consumers, I think the courts did the right thing here.
I know there are some folks who delight in seeing businesses punished, but that's advocating punishing ourselves, as so many Americans earn their livelihoods, not to mention all the pension funds invested in such businesses, providing the goods and services such industries produce.
I don't particularly like seeing business and industry punished because it ultimately results in so many other working Americans getting punished down the line.