Why do you feel the need to defend this villainous company? Especially since you obviously have only a cursory knowledge of the subject?
During an investigation in 1985, Capt. Joseph Hazelwood admitted to drinking aboard ship and coming back to the ship drunk. He went through a 21-day company alcohol rehabilitation program. Following this, Exxon failed to offer him a shoreside job, and instead put him back to sea as a captain. There was no program for monitoring him.
Although Exxon officials testified before Congress and to the jury that Hazelwood was the most carefully monitored person in the Exxon fleet, they could not produce a single piece of paper which confirmed any monitoring at all. Many of Hazelwood’s superiors, including port captains and fleet coordinators who were supposed to be monitoring him, testified that they had no knowledge that he was monitored.
Despite numerous reports to high-level management about Joseph Hazelwood's drinking, including one the week before this fateful voyage, no action was taken by Exxon to remove the risk of a drinking captain. The person in charge of Exxon’s alcohol policy testified to the jury that Exxon’s policy would permit a relapsed alcoholic to be captain on the company’s ships.
Indeed, at the time of the grounding, Hazelwood had no valid driver's license, having had them revoked in two states for multiple drunken driving convictions. Despite the fact that that Hazelwood had no valid license to drive the smallest of cars, Exxon gave him the reins to its largest oil-laden supertanker. It is little wonder that the jurors found Exxon reckless and provided a fine that they felt was warranted by the devastation Exxon’s failed policies and greed had caused.
cglaw.com
Regarding "mechanical failure", it is well known that a double-hulled ship significantly reduces the risk of spillage in the event of an oil tanker accident, as well as the amount of oil released into the water in the event of a spill (since the leaking oil is partially contained by the second hull).
Tom |
