Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008)
Primary Holding
A shipowner may be liable for punitive damages in maritime law, but such damages should not exceed the amount of compensatory damages awarded.
In the case of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, a huge oil spill caused by the Exxon Valdez tanker led to a lawsuit from people affected by the disaster, like fishermen and local residents. The Supreme Court decided that while Exxon could be punished with extra damages (called punitive damages) for their role in the spill, those damages couldn't be more than the actual losses people suffered. This ruling helps protect consumers by ensuring that companies can be held accountable for their actions, but it also limits how much extra punishment they can face, making it fairer for everyone involved. This case is relevant if you're dealing with a situation where a company’s negligence has harmed you or your community, as it sets a standard for how much they can be penalized.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker owned by Exxon Shipping Co., grounded on Bligh Reef off the Alaskan coast, resulting in a catastrophic oil spill that released millions of gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound. The vessel was transporting 53 million gallons of crude oil at the time and was under the command of Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who had a history of alcohol abuse. Despite having completed a 28-day alcohol treatment program, Hazelwood had not adhered to the prescribed follow-up care and was known to have consumed significant amounts of alcohol on the night of the spill. The incident caused extensive economic harm to local fishermen and native Alaskans, leading to a lawsuit by Grant Baker and others seeking compensation for their losses. The case progressed through the courts, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of certiorari from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower courts had addressed various aspects of liability and damages, including whether Exxon could be held liable for punitive damages and the appropriateness of the $2.5 billion punitive damages award that had been granted. The Supreme Court's decision focused on maritime law principles and the relationship between compensatory and punitive damages in this context. The background of the case involved not only the immediate aftermath of the oil spill but also the broader implications for maritime law and corporate accountability. Exxon had already settled state and federal claims related to environmental damage for over $1 billion, but the economic losses claimed by individuals were a separate issue. The case raised significant questions about the responsibilities of shipowners and the standards for punitive damages in maritime contexts, particularly in light of the actions and knowledge of Exxon’s management regarding Captain Hazelwood's conduct.
Whether a shipowner may be liable for punitive damages without acquiescence in the actions causing harm, and whether the award of punitive damages should be limited to an amount equal to compensatory damages under maritime law.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- February 27, 2008
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Souter
- Damages Awarded
- $2500.0M
- Data Quality
- high
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Rooker-Feldman doctrine is limited to cases where state-court losers seek to challenge state court judgments in federal court, and it does not extend to other situations that would override preclusion law or allow federal courts to dismiss cases in deference to state court actions.
Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005)
Consumer WonA dredge is considered a "vessel" under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), allowing individuals injured while working on such a vessel to pursue claims under the Act.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005)
Consumer LostA federal court in a diversity action may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs whose claims do not meet the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement, as long as at least one named plaintiff satisfies that requirement and the claims are part of the same case or controversy.
Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 (2005)
Consumer LostTitle III of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to foreign-flag cruise ships operating in United States waters, provided there is a clear congressional intent to impose such requirements, particularly concerning the removal of physical barriers.