Fvck Exxon. Fvck Lawyers.

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
but this wasn't the drunk driving accident it's commonly made out to be.

So does that justify letting Exxon off the hook for the money?

I think it very well may. As I said above, simple negligence doesn't entitle a plaintiff to punitive damages - the defendant has to show an intentional or reckless disregard for the rights or safety of another. A mere accident is NOT a basis for punitive damages, much less billions of dollars worth.

ah, the voice of reason.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: DonVito
Frankly, while I didn't follow the initial case closely, and wasn't a lawyer at the time, it strikes me as a little odd that punitive damages would ever have been awarded here, much less billions of dollars worth.

Broadly speaking, to get punitive damages, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant has shown either deliberate or reckless disregard for the rights or safety of another. Punitive damages are not generally awarded based on accidental events, unless there is a showing that the defendant was so aware of the risk of such an accident that their failure to prevent it constitutes recklessness.

I could understand awarding punitive damages against the captain, who was operating the ship while drunk, but those would be based, in part, on his ability to pay, and a multi-billion-dollar award would be necessarily reduced by the trial court. I am at a loss to understand a huge punitive damages award against Exxon itself, unless they were somehow proven to have known that this guy was such a degenerate lush that he drank morning, noon, and night. It sounds like there were several causative factors in this case, and I don't know that any of them constitutes reckless disregard for the rights or safety of others.

To be clear on this... Hazlewood wasn't operating the ship while drunk. As the captain he is the commander (and therefore responsible for everything that happens) but it was in fact his third mate (on his scheduled watch) who was in physical control of the ship when it crashed.

There was excessive ice in the normal channel. (Glacier calving) Hazlewood asked for, and was granted, permission to plot a course around the ice. He informed his 3rd mate of the course deviation and ordered him to resume the channel once the ship was around the ice. Course corrections to resume normal channel sailing failed because the 3rd mate didn't realize that the ship was on auto pilot. Every correction he made to resume the channel once he was past the ice was reversed by the auto pilot. By the time he figured it out it was too late. A very stupid and tragic human error.

I'm as pissed as anyone about that spill... But the misconception that has built up over the years that Hazlewood was some drunk idiot trying to thread his ship through a channel while hoisting another scotch is just wrong. As usual the press and public went for the easiest possible answer to what happened. Joe was an easy villain. And the thought of portraying the whole thing as a drunk driving accident made for sensational headlines.

But that's not how it happened. Joe is responsible because the Exxon was his ship... but this wasn't the drunk driving accident it's commonly made out to be.

There's 3 things I would like to point out.

1. The captain (in legal language the 'Master') of any ship is responsible for what happens to to the ship, no matter who actually did it, be it a junior officer, a harbor pilot or another ship. So even though he may not have himself caused the accident, the responsibility rests on his shoulders, and through him, the owners of the vessel.

2. It is customary for the captain be on the bridge during harbor passages, river transits, narrow channels like the sound or when pilot is on board. Even if he has not taken over the watch and the watch officer is navigating, Hazelwood should have been on the bridge throughout the passage, specially as he had the pilotage exemption - not the ship. Pilotage exemptions are only given to Captains personally and not the ship.

3. When in close waters like the sound, or in harbor passage or under pilotage, the auto pilot is NEVER used. There are rules about that. The ship should have been under hand steering with a helmsman at the wheel and under the con of either the watch officer or the captain. Putting the ship on autopilot was a big no-no.

While he may not have been drunk, he did have a beer before sailing out, and he was negligent or derelict in his duty of care. I agree he is not the villain he was made out to be but I wouldn't consider him blameless.

Whether this accident comes under the category of crew negligence and the questions of punitive damages I don't know enough about the law on that. But as someone who has been in command of similar sized oil tankers I would not have taken the careless approach of Joe Hazelwood. In terms of ethical responsibility to your job he was almost reckless in his disregard for his duties under the circumstances. I know, had I done what he did (without running aground) and my owners found out I was not on the bridge, I would have lost my job.

1. I Specifically mentioned this in my original statement. Hazlewood is the captain, it's his boat, therefore his fault. But there are huge misconceptions about what happened that day. So I addressed them.

2. Yes. As I said above, i'm not absolving him of blame.

3. Again yes. In this particular case one helmsman was relieved by another. During the transaction the AP was engaged. It was never determined exactly when or for how long the AP was being used or if it was ever turned off.

It sounds as if you think my description of events was presented to remove blame from the captain (or Exxon). It wasn't. I was addressing DonVito's protrayal (and the common public assumption) that this was little more than a drunk driving accident. As with most accidents like this it was far more complicated than most people see it for.

Many, many rules about navigation in the sound changed after than accident. I don't know that auto pilot was disallowed in the sound before 1989. But it was used at some point during the exit to open ocean. I should also point out that it is still in dispute as to whether the AP was locked in, the order to change back to the north channel was given too late or the steering system itself was not functioning properly. If you take a tour through the area the story most commonly presented was that the AP was correcting the course changes made by the helmsman who was under the direction of the 3rd mate.

In any case... nobody has enough fingers and toes to count the number of mistakes that were made that night. The image of a drunen cowboy trying to thread a 1000' tanker through the eye of a needle while shouting "Yee HAW" Slim Pickens style is very different from what really happened. And that was all I was trying to get across.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
but this wasn't the drunk driving accident it's commonly made out to be.

So does that justify letting Exxon off the hook for the money?

I think it very well may. As I said above, simple negligence doesn't entitle a plaintiff to punitive damages - the defendant has to show an intentional or reckless disregard for the rights or safety of another. A mere accident is NOT a basis for punitive damages, much less billions of dollars worth.

ah, the voice of reason.

Ah of course. It's perfectly OK for Corporate employees to take alcohol on the job. :roll:

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
but this wasn't the drunk driving accident it's commonly made out to be.

So does that justify letting Exxon off the hook for the money?

I think it very well may. As I said above, simple negligence doesn't entitle a plaintiff to punitive damages - the defendant has to show an intentional or reckless disregard for the rights or safety of another. A mere accident is NOT a basis for punitive damages, much less billions of dollars worth.

ah, the voice of reason.

Ah of course. It's perfectly OK for Corporate employees to take alcohol on the job. :roll:

He was not on the job (as in controlling the ship) - He deligate the responsiblity to the mate.

 

[BoberFett]

Dave, you're the last person who should be attacking companies with bad employees. Where's the 5 billion fine for your little distributed.net stunt?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
but this wasn't the drunk driving accident it's commonly made out to be.

So does that justify letting Exxon off the hook for the money?

I think it very well may. As I said above, simple negligence doesn't entitle a plaintiff to punitive damages - the defendant has to show an intentional or reckless disregard for the rights or safety of another. A mere accident is NOT a basis for punitive damages, much less billions of dollars worth.

ah, the voice of reason.

Ah of course. It's perfectly OK for Corporate employees to take alcohol on the job. :roll:

yes, dave, it's perfectly alright for Corporate employees to take alcohol on the job. it's also ok for them to rape the environment, kill babies, eat kittens, strangle puppies, cheat on their taxes, and plot how to eliminate the middle class. the only thing corporate employees are not allowed to do is install software on computers they're supposed to be checking for Y2K issues.

 

[grohl]

Lawyers. I hate f-ing lawyers.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
but this wasn't the drunk driving accident it's commonly made out to be.

So does that justify letting Exxon off the hook for the money?

I think it very well may. As I said above, simple negligence doesn't entitle a plaintiff to punitive damages - the defendant has to show an intentional or reckless disregard for the rights or safety of another. A mere accident is NOT a basis for punitive damages, much less billions of dollars worth.

ah, the voice of reason.

Ah of course. It's perfectly OK for Corporate employees to take alcohol on the job. :roll:

yes, dave, it's perfectly alright for Corporate employees to take alcohol on the job. it's also ok for them to rape the environment, kill babies, eat kittens, strangle puppies, cheat on their taxes, and plot how to eliminate the middle class. the only thing corporate employees are not allowed to do is install software on computers they're supposed to be checking for Y2K issues.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Dave, you're the last person who should be attacking companies with bad employees. Where's the 5 billion fine for your little distributed.net stunt?

Interesting that you two bring this up.

Technically I was the Captain.

I had full control of what went on all client side PC's.

What does Y2K have to do with anything?

I was steering the ship with DC on them for over a year with no issues until someone decided to make a name for themselves.

On the fine issue.

The state came up with 59 cents a second looking for nearly a million dollars.

That was reduced to $2,100 the actual cost of going around and hitting the delete key on the DNet directory.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I think it very well may. As I said above, simple negligence doesn't entitle a plaintiff to punitive damages - the defendant has to show an intentional or reckless disregard for the rights or safety of another. A mere accident is NOT a basis for punitive damages, much less billions of dollars worth.

Is this DonVito defending big oil? :laugh:

I'm actually on the other side here. I think Exxon deserves to pay exactly what they were originally ordered to pay.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I had full control of what went on all client side PC's.

Obviously not fool, or you wouldn't have gotten busted.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
but this wasn't the drunk driving accident it's commonly made out to be.

So does that justify letting Exxon off the hook for the money?

I think it very well may. As I said above, simple negligence doesn't entitle a plaintiff to punitive damages - the defendant has to show an intentional or reckless disregard for the rights or safety of another. A mere accident is NOT a basis for punitive damages, much less billions of dollars worth.

ah, the voice of reason.

Ah of course. It's perfectly OK for Corporate employees to take alcohol on the job. :roll:

He was not on the job (as in controlling the ship) - He deligate the responsiblity to the mate.

It doesn't matter who he delegated to. Under admiralty law, and in practice on board ships, the Captain is ALWAYS in charge and ALWAYS responsible for what happens to the ship.

I remember a case in Japan where one of our ships accidentally spilled about a bucket of oil - which was caught in a air pocket in a general service pipeline which also served as the anchor wash line. It was one of the engineers who opened the line without realizing it had been used for something else and needed to be flushed internally. The oil sheen was caught by Japanese coast guard aircraft. It was not visible at sea level in the ships wake.

The moment the ship docked they first arrested the Captain - who had no clue what had happened - and kept him in jail BEFORE starting an inquiry and determining it was the engineer who was at fault. The Capt was released after the investigation and the engineer jailed till the company paid the fine.

The capt's neck has a permanent dotted line which says, "Cut here when something goes wrong"!!

 

[piasabird]

Potty Mouth!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DonVito
I think it very well may. As I said above, simple negligence doesn't entitle a plaintiff to punitive damages - the defendant has to show an intentional or reckless disregard for the rights or safety of another. A mere accident is NOT a basis for punitive damages, much less billions of dollars worth.

Is this DonVito defending big oil? :laugh:

I'm actually on the other side here. I think Exxon deserves to pay exactly what they were originally ordered to pay.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. I work largely as a defense attorney (actually I have a trial in a couple of weeks in which I am defending our municipal bus company), but I recently won the largest punitive damages award in state history for a police case, on a trial in which we were representing the plaintiff.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DonVito
I think it very well may. As I said above, simple negligence doesn't entitle a plaintiff to punitive damages - the defendant has to show an intentional or reckless disregard for the rights or safety of another. A mere accident is NOT a basis for punitive damages, much less billions of dollars worth.

Is this DonVito defending big oil? :laugh:

I'm actually on the other side here. I think Exxon deserves to pay exactly what they were originally ordered to pay.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. I work largely as a defense attorney (actually I have a trial in a couple of weeks in which I am defending our municipal bus company), but I recently won the largest punitive damages award in state history for a police case, on a trial in which we were representing the plaintiff.

Congrats, quite an accomplishment. :beer:

 

[GTaudiophile]

And now it goes to the SC:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/2...z.ap/index.htm?cnn=yes