It is hard to know why Justice Souter spent a long time explaining the issues involved in figuring out whether punitive damages were available at admiralty for shipowners given the recklessness of ship masters (and the reason why punitives wouldn't be available is the sort of technical, let's-read-a-bunch-of-19th-century-decisions-and-pretend-we're-not-making-a-naked-policy-choice that wouldn't exactly gladden the hearts of law professors), only to say:

The Court is equally divided on this question, and “[i]f the judges are divided, the reversal cannot be had, for no order can be made.” Durant v. Essex Co., 7 Wall. 107, 112 (1869). We therefore leave the Ninth Circuit’s opinion undisturbed in this respect, though it should go without saying that the disposition here is not precedential on the derivative liability question.

I mean, he didn't have to write anything at all - that's usually the way the Court does it when it is equally divided.  But Justice Souter loves to write.

Anyway, the rest of the opinion was good for John Gotanda at Villanova, whose Columbia Journal of Transnational Law article was cited in the opinion in chief (as were maaaaaany other sources, including writing by Herbert Kritzer in the footnotes), and good for corporations who often get sued for punitives, who, at the end of a lengthy, convoluted, and exceptionally policy-oriented decision, got this:

On these assumptions, a median ratio of punitive to compensatory damages of about 0.65:1 probably marks the line near which cases like this one largely should be grouped. Accordingly, given the need to protect against the possibility (and the disruptive cost to the legal system) of awards that are unpredictable and unnecessary, either for deterrence or for measured retribution, we consider that a 1:1 ratio, which is above the median award, is a fair upper limit in such maritime cases.

I summered at the firm that brought this case, and I remember wondering, as did others, if the firm would disband and everyone retire to the south of France if the contingency part of the $5 billion initial punitive award went to the partnership.  It was a lot of money.  Now the plaintiffs are looking at, best case, $507.5 million in punitives.  A billion dollars ain't nothing, but I suspect that, if there ever is a payout in the Valdez dispute, it won't mark the end of any law firm.

UPDATE: The Legal Times talks to plaintiffs' counsel - he ain't happy.

| Bookmark

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200e5538b8d648834

Links to weblogs that reference The Exxon Punitive Damages Case: Wacky, then Cheering for Corporations: