"admiralty Law And Oil Boom Cases: How Maritime Law Attorneys Navigate Complex Jurisdiction"

 "admiralty Law And Oil Boom Cases: How Maritime Law Attorneys Navigate Complex Jurisdiction" - Fishing boats attached to an oil skimmer by containment booms patrol the waters off Erlington Island in Prince William Sound, Alaska, in this April 12, 1989 file photo, as workers continue to clean up crude oil left over from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. John Gaps III / AP File

When a federal jury in Alaska in 1994 ordered Exxon to pay $5 billion to thousands of people whose lives were cut short by the massive Exxon Valdez oil spill, an appeal of the nation's largest punitive damages award was inevitable.

"admiralty Law And Oil Boom Cases: How Maritime Law Attorneys Navigate Complex Jurisdiction"

But almost no one could have predicted the incredible round of legal ping-pong that just this month landed at the Supreme Court.

What Are The 'systemic Risks' In Offshore Oil Drilling?

In the time span of the battle -- 14 years after the verdict, nearly two decades since the spill itself -- plaintiffs' lawyers say there are new statistics to add to the grim legacy of the Prince William Sound disaster: Nearly 20 percent of the 33,000 fishermen, Alaska Natives, cannery workers and others who triumphed in court that day are dead.

"It's the most upsetting thing that more than 6,000 people have come through and it's still not finished," said Mike Weber, an Alaskan native carver and former fisherman in the Prince William community of Cordova. “Our sound is not healthy and neither are people. Everything is still on the surface as it was.'

"The bottom line," said Tim Joyce, the mayor of Cordova, where half of the city's 2,400 residents are involved full-time, is that there is still oil on the beaches. And this process is not over yet."

Is the punishment excessive? The Supreme Court is due to hear arguments on Wednesday on whether the punishment is excessive or even permissible under maritime law. the case,

Methods For Oil Spill Cleanup At Sea

It could turn, in the justices' eyes, to nearly 200 years of precedent where private vessels have navigated the oceans, or to more recent provisions of the Clean Water Act.

But in Alaska, the lawsuit is seen as a test of fairness and corporate responsibility, and its resolution is seen as critical to healing the scars left by an epic event that defines the state's modern history, Gov. Sarah Palin (R) said in an interview.

"Every Alaskan's life was affected by this," said Palin, who was elected in 2006. "When I came in here, that was one of the first tasks: to figure out how on earth this administration could speak for all the residents of Alaska that were so adversely affected by this spill."

Exxon officials say such sentiment ignores the facts of the case and note that the company has already spent more than $3.4 billion in compensation for losses, cleanup and fines.

Oil Spill At Sea: Who Will Pay For Peru's Worst Environmental Disaster?

"This case is about whether additional punishment is warranted," Exxon spokesman Tony Cudmore said. "We spent $3.5 billion, which is a significant amount of money that we believe is enough to deter anyone" from future wrongdoing.

But that number no longer impresses Palin and others. When the jury awarded $5 billion in 1994, it represented a year of profits for Exxon. An appeals court subsequently reduced the award to $2.5 billion -- "about three weeks of Exxon's current net profits," the plaintiffs told the Supreme Court in their brief.

"I'm a capitalist, I'm a conservative Republican, I'm pro-development and pro-industry," said Palin, herself a former commercial fisherman who once served on the case. “But think what Exxon has done in terms of profits all these years. The American court system came up with that decision and they appealed and appealed and appealed.”

The award has been reviewed three times by a district judge and twice by the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, with more than four years between one appeal and a decision.

Most Dangerous Oil Companies To Work For

"It's outrageous how long it took," said David Lebedoff, a Minneapolis attorney and author who wrote a book about the five-month trial that led to the punitive damages award. He blames the 9th Circuit for not moving faster. "This is absolutely inexcusable."

Running out of time is a concern for the plaintiffs, and they have responded with public relations and legal tactics unusual for Supreme Court cases. The newly launched website details the ongoing environmental damage to Prince William Sound and the commercial fishing industry, which has not fully recovered.

Press conferences and a vigil are scheduled before the arguments. The "Pillar of Ridicule" Weber carved from yellow cedar, depicting an Exxon executive with oil pouring from his mouth, has been packed and is on its way to Washington.

Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford law professor who will defend the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, has sent the court a DVD containing photos and footage taken during the spill, video of Exxon executives admitting guilt and audio of the distress call made by what plaintiffs claim was an apparently drunk Captain Joseph Hazelwood reporting that the Exxon Valdez had hit Bly Reef.

China And The Unclos: Practices And Policies In: The Chinese Journal Of Global Governance Volume 5 Issue 1 (2019)

Fisher said it was important to remind the judges of the events of 19 years ago and that the jury was punishing Exxon for "socially outrageous conduct."

"One of the dangers for us is that outrage dissipates over time and it's hard to get back to where the country was at the time," he said.

The justices extended the time set for oral arguments, and briefs filed by both sides indicate the events of the detention may be re-examined.

Some things are not debatable. The Exxon Valdez left port late on the evening of March 23, 1989, loaded with 53 million gallons of crude oil. He veered off course to avoid the ice. Hazelwood instructed the third mate when to turn back into the lane and then left the ship's bridge, a breach of rules. Just after midnight, the crew member caused the nearly 1,000-foot tanker to run aground on the reef and 11 million gallons of oil spilled into Prince William Sound.

Chapter 1 History In: A Poetic History Of The Oceans

The oil eventually spread more than 600 miles, an area plaintiffs say would stretch from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to Cape Lookout, North Carolina.

They also charge that Hazelwood, an alcoholic, was drunk. They claim he drank at least five double vodkas in waterfront bars before boarding the ship. They say Exxon knew that Hazelwood, after being treated for his illness, had resumed drinking.

The courts agreed. "The oil spill was an accident, but putting a relapsed alcoholic at the helm of a supertanker was not," the appeals court ruled, upholding punitive damages.

Exxon's attorney in the case, Walter Dellinger, told the court in his brief that it was "hotly contested" whether Hazelwood was drunk at the time of the accident and pointed out that Hazelwood was acquitted by a state court jury of operating a vessel under the influence.

Offshore Accident Lawyers Discuss Common Offshore Accidents

Whatever misdeeds Hazelwood committed, Dellinger argued, were not Exxon's misdeeds. "To impose subjective criminal liability on a shipowner without requiring the jury to find that the shipowner directed, supported, or participated in the conduct is inconsistent with nearly 200 years of unbroken maritime law," the brief states.

, in which he held that the owner of a ship could not be held liable for the robbery of his crew when the ship was miles at sea.

Exxon also argued that punishment for dumping oil and other hazardous substances is governed by the Clean Water Act and does not provide for private punitive damages. Alternatively, the company says punitive damages should not be allowed because of what Exxon has already paid, or at least should be reduced.

Not surprisingly, the plaintiffs reject all of these arguments. Exxon itself ruled that Hazelwood was a "managerial agent" of the company, they argued, and that a jury found that both Hazelwood and the company acted recklessly. They argue that the Clean Water Act claim is without merit and that the award is warranted.

Nation's Largest Dredging Company Fined $1 Million For Causing Oil Spill In Louisiana

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. owns Exxon stock and recused himself from the case. Eight judges remain to hear it, and an even split would mean the award stands.

Around Prince William Sound, residents await a final decision on the $2.5 billion award, which plaintiff lawyers say now stands at about $4.8 billion due to interest earned during the case.

"I guess it would mean I could relax a little bit," said Patience Anderson Faulkner, an Alaska Native who makes a living becoming a "legal technician" to help people in Cordova with their claims. Her father and brother were claimants who died.

"It's painful for people to talk about," said Jennifer Gibbons, executive director of the environmental group Prince William Soundkeeper, "but they want closure." When a maritime worker brings a potential Jones Act or Maritime Law case to their lawyer, one of the most -the important things to determine is the "status" of the employee; that is, does the employee meet the criteria necessary to apply the Jones Act and/or the General Maritime Law to his or her case?

Sea History 179

Seaworthiness defined

Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, international maritime admiralty law, admiralty maritime jurisdiction, maritime law attorneys, maritime admiralty law books, what is maritime admiralty law, cases involving maritime law come under jurisdiction of the, maritime law jurisdiction, admiralty law and maritime law, maritime admiralty law, maritime admiralty law explained, maritime admiralty law pdf