to other business as a result of problems it causes them like any other business would be, even if they don't feel they should be further responsible for their actions?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070831/us_nm/exxon_valdez_alaska_dc
2007-08-31 01:13:14 · 12 answers · asked by avail_skillz 7 in Environment ➔ Other - Environment
It's interesting. If you've ever sat in on Housing Court (or Property Court), you'll see that small business owners are rigorously prosecuted for the smallest violations of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. If the business is of any size, there are often a raft of other claimants along for the ride, seeking punitive damages. One of the main reasons I think is that although these are Federal Laws, the States get to keep the money in most instances. Small businesses have become a cash cow for the States in this way.
The Federal Government on the other hand, normally exempts itself completely form the laws it applies to the citizenry, including environmental laws. If you try to collect from them, they'll keep you in litigation for the rest of your natural life at taxpayer expense, before they'll pay you a penny.
Historically the treatment of the Oil and Power Companies by the Courts has been somewhere in between. This company responded poorly to the crisis it caused, and has kept the thing in litigation almost 20 years now. ("justice delayed is justice denied"). Obviously they don't have much remorse about their slipshod safety practices, and they are blundering ahead on other fronts while this crime languishes in court. They are one of the Cartel underwriting the opposition to critical environmental policies, so I wouldn't expect them to be any good at complying with the law themselves.
They deserve to pay the amount originally awarded. It is small, compared to the offense.
2007-08-31 05:26:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nobody ever feels they should be further responsible. But, that isn't how our legal system works, (or doesn't.) In this I agree with the Mayans. The higher up or more powerful the individual, and legally a corporation is an individual, the more severe the penalties for s******g up. But, that's not the way our legal system works either. Or doesn't.
I submit that our legal system has become essentially non-functional and is in danger of collapsing under its own weight.
Too many laws are functionally equivalent to no laws at all.
What to do about it that wouldn't actually be worse is the real question. I'm afraid ?Plato? was right, "Republics become Democracies, which become Dictatorships, which eventually become Republics." As with a hysteresis loop, you can't get there from here.
I doubt I got the quote exactly right, but it was his thought, and I prefer to give credit to him.
2007-08-31 08:58:05 · answer #2 · answered by balloon buster 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve was purchased, in part, with funds derived from fines paid due to the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969.
Serious fines are meant to act as a deterrent, so that companies don't defer maintenance and act responsibly.
The fine should fit the crime. But the impacts from the Exxon-Valdez spill were and are devastating, and no fines can compensate for seriously damaged environments and the loss of income for thousands in the area.
2007-08-31 08:54:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Direct damages are different than punitives. The question the court will need to answer is whether Exxon needs to be 'taught a lesson' as a result of the Valdez or whether the money already paid is punishment enough.
I believe "yes", they should be compelled to pay the punitives. The amount is (in current dollars) significantly less than from 1994 and equates to 1 quarter of profit for the firm.
2007-08-31 09:06:27 · answer #4 · answered by words_smith_4u 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely! Aren't you responsible for any damages you do?
Robert P mentions that maybe it's an insurance company's attempt to dodge its responsibility. Remember this; You have two very large campaign contributors involved here. I don't think the congress is going to push either one very hard. I would sooner think the taxpayer would be the one to get stuck with the bill! The longer our representatives are in Washington the more they become indebted to the lobbyist & corporate America.
2007-08-31 08:46:55 · answer #5 · answered by peepers98 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Any Corporate entity is liable for damages they cause. The problem is having enough money to sue them. I have a friend who sue GM and it was him against about 20 other attorneys. His client was hurt but GM did not want to recall the cars for a known problem. So GM wanted to make sure he lost otherwise all the people hurt would go after them. Fortunately my friend won.
2007-08-31 10:18:36 · answer #6 · answered by B. D Mac 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As a small business owner, I MUST carry liability insurance – I’m sure that Exxon carried plenty. Could be just another insurance company trying to get out of their responsibility.
2007-08-31 08:36:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, they should, but the article you cite is regarding PUNITIVE damages. These are not actual damages.
Punitive damages would do nothing but raise the price of oil to the consumer.
2007-08-31 09:44:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
This has nothing to do about damages. They were paid, and most of that money went to lawyers, not those harmed.
This money is how much punishment Exxon should have. This is subjective and should be installed to prevent any future incident. Since none occurred, it's clear Exxon learned from the past.
The punitive damages should be removed in total.
2007-08-31 08:43:48 · answer #9 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Yes. That is why they had to pay $2.5 Billion for the spill. So what's your point?
2007-08-31 09:28:56 · answer #10 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋