SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Snowshoe who wrote (393)6/26/2008 5:46:24 PM
From: Kenneth Kirk  Read Replies (1) of 570
 
a decision that could have broader implications for limiting how much courts can order businesses to pay.

It will definitely have those implications. Technically the decision is based on maritime law only, but the reasoning in the decision could apply to a lot of other circumstances as well. The main point was that punitive damages, in order to have the desired effect of deterring bad conduct, have to be predictable, and 'outlier' awards (ones that are far too high)can't have that effect because they're unpredictable.

The first 3 parts of the decision, which were agreed to 8-0, tossed out Exxon's objections to having to pay any punitives at all. The final two parts, reducing it to 0.5 billion, were 5-3.

So it went from 5 billion (jury verdict) to 2.5 billion (ninth circuit) to 0.5 billion. Of course this is punitives, which in some sense is "found money" anyway for the plaintiffs.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News