In Re : The Exxon Valdez v. Hazelwood

Citation270 F.3d 1215
Decision Date07 November 2001
Docket NumberDEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS,DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,Nos. 97-35191,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,s. 97-35191
Parties(9th Cir. 2001) IN RE: THE EXXON VALDEZ, GRANT BAKER, ET AL., AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MANDATORY PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLASS,v. JOSEPH HAZELWOOD, DEFENDANT, AND EXXON CORPORATION; EXXON SHIPPING COMPANY, IN RE: THE EXXON VALDEZ, GRANT BAKER, ET AL., AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MANDATORY PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLASS,, v. EXXON CORPORATION; EXXON SHIPPING COMPANY, DEFENDANTS, AND JOSEPH HAZELWOOD, DANIEL R. CALHOUN; BRADFORD J. CHISHOLM; DAVID P. CLARKE; THOMAS S. MCALLISTER; PHILLIP G. MCCRUDDEN; MICHAEL J. MCCLENAGHAN; GUY PIERCEY; HUGH WISNER; GRANT C. BAKER; LARRY L. DOOLEY; KIM J. EWERS; JOHN W. HERSCHLEB; KENT HERSCHLEB; DAVID B. HORNE; MICHAEL J. OWECKE; GERALD E. THORNE; GEORGE A. GORDAOFF; OLD HARBOR NATIVE CORPORATION; TIMBERLINE, INC.; BARBARA BROWN; JOHN FOGES; JAMIE L. HALLADAY; CHARLES MCMAHON; JENNIFER BRIGGS; TERRI MAST; MARK T. COLES; FRED GALICANO; MIKE HOLLERBEKE; KATHY BRYAN; VINCENT LIBED; ART HUDDLESTON; OPINION ROBERT LOVE; ROXANE VILLAUEVA; MARCELO ROMBAOA; SCOTT HULBERT; BRIAN GILLIS; FRANK MICHAEL CARLSON; ELENOR MCMULLEN; NATIVE VILLAGE OF LARSEN BAY; NATIVE VILLAGE OF CHENEGA BAY,v. EXXON CORPORATION; EXXON SHIPPING COMPANY; JOSEPH HAZELWOOD,, to 97-35193 and 97-35235
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] John F. Daum, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Los Angeles, California, for appellant Exxon Corporation.

David M. Heilbron (briefed), McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, LLP, San Francisco, California, for appellant Exxon Shipping Company.

Thomas M. Russo (briefed), Chalos & Brown, P.C., New York, New York, for appellant Joseph Hazelwood.

David C. Tarshes (briefed), Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP, Anchorage, Alaska, for the appellees.

Brian B. O'Neill (argued), Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska; H. Russell Holland, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-89-00085-HRH; CV-89-00095-HRH

Before: Schroeder,* Chief Judge, Browning and Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges.

Kleinfeld, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska, Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm. 1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen.

The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon,2 not to pay back the plaintiffs. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. The law began changing shortly after judgment, and important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a Supreme Court decision that came down only last term, Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.3

Facts

Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time. Captain George Vancouver charted and named the island on his third voyage to the North Pacific on the Discovery in 1794.4 The Bligh Island Reef has long been mapped on U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey maps, shortened to Bligh Reef by the Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1930.5 Captain William Bligh and Vancouver had been officers together sixteen years earlier, on the Resolution, when Captain James Cook, among the greatest navigators in history, explored Alaska and the South Pacific.6

Captain William Bligh is infamous from Fletcher Christian's mutiny on the Bounty.7 The infamy was refreshed in 1989, the 200th anniversary of the mutiny on the Bounty, by Captain Joseph Hazelwood of the Exxon Valdez.

On March 24, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska. It has never been altogether clear why the Exxon Valdez ran aground on this long known, well-marked reef. Because we are reviewing a case that resulted in a jury verdict, we interpret the evidence, and state our account, most favorably to the parties successful at trial.8

The vessel left the port of Valdez at night. In March, it is still dark at night in Valdez, the white nights of the summer solstice being three months away. There is an established sea lane that takes vessels well to the west of Bligh Reef, but Captain Hazelwood prudently took the vessel east of the shipping lanes to avoid a heavy concentration of ice in the shipping lane, which is a serious hazard. Plaintiffs have not claimed that Captain Hazelwood violated any law or regulation by traveling outside the sea lane. The problem with being outside the sea lane was that the ship's course was directly toward Bligh Reef.

Bligh Reef was not hard to avoid. All that needed to be done was to bear west about the time the ship got abeam of the navigation light at Busby Island, which is visible even at night, some distance north of the reef. The real puzzle of this case was how the ship managed to run aground on this known and foreseen hazard.

There was less than a mile between the ice in the water, visible at night only on radar, and the reef. Captain Michael Clark, an expert witness for the plaintiffs, testified that an oil tanker is hard to turn, more like a car on glare ice than a car on asphalt:

Q: Let's talk a minute about how you turn one of these vessels. Now, this we're talking about a vessel here that's in excess of 900 feet long, all right? Over three football fields.

What's it like to turn one of these?

A: Well, it's not like turning a car or a fishing boat or something. There is a -as you are traveling in one direction and you put the rudder over, even though the head of the vessel will turn, your actual direction of travel keeps going in the old direction. Sort of like you're steering a car on ice; you turn the wheel and you just keep going in the same direction. Eventually you'll start to turn and move in the direction you're headed for.

Q: Okay. Is it just as easy as turning a car?

A: No.

Q: And does it make any sense to try to compare changing course in one of these vessels fully laden to that of turning a corner with a car?

A: No.

Q: To make it turn on a vessel, there has to be a rudder command given?

A: Yes.

Q: And once you give that rudder command, is that the end of the turn?

A: No. No, you have to watch and make sure that the rudder command is made as you ordered it and to make sure that it's having the desired effect.

Q: Is there anything else that has to be done in order to put it on the course that you want it on?

A: Yes, you usually have to give counter rudder to slow the turn down.9

Considering the ice in the water, the darkness, the importance of turning the vessel away from Bligh Reef before hitting it, and the tricky nature of turning this behemoth, one would expect an experienced captain of the ship to manage this critical turn.

But Captain Hazelwood left the bridge. He went downstairs to his cabin, he said, to do some paperwork. A special license is needed to navigate the oil tanker in this part of Prince William Sound, and Captain Hazelwood was the only person on board with the license. There was testimony that captains simply do not leave the bridge during maneuvers such as this one and that there is no good reason for the captain to go to his cabin to do paperwork at such a time. Captain Hazelwood left the bridge just two minutes before the turn needed to be commenced, which makes it all the more strange that he left at all.

Before leaving, Captain Hazelwood added to the complexity of the maneuver that needed to be made: he put the vessel on autopilot, which is not usually done when a vessel is out of the shipping lanes, and the autopilot program sped the vessel up, making it approach the reef faster and reducing the time during which error could be corrected. As Captain Hazelwood left, he told Cousins, the third mate, to turn back into the shipping lane once the ship was abeam of Busby Light. Though this sounds plain enough, expert witnesses testified that it was a great deal less clear and precise than it sounds.

Captain Hazelwood's departure from the bridge, though unusual, was not inexplicable. The explanation put before the jury was that his judgment was impaired by alcohol. He was an alcoholic. He had been treated medically, in a 28 day residential program, but had dropped out of the rehabilitation program and fallen off the wagon. He had joined Alcoholics Anonymous, but had quit going to meetings and resumed drinking. Testimony established that prior to boarding his ship, he drank at least five doubles (about fifteen ounces of 80 proof alcohol) in waterfront bars in Valdez. The jury could have concluded from the evidence before them that leaving the bridge was an extraordinary lapse of judgment caused by Captain Hazelwood's intoxication. There was also testimony that the highest executives in Exxon Shipping knew Hazelwood had an alcohol problem, knew he had been treated for it, and knew that he had fallen off the wagon and was drinking on board their ships and in waterfront bars.

There are supposed to be two officers on the bridge, but after Hazelwood left, there was only one. The bridge was left to the fatigued third mate, Gregory Cousins, a man in the habit of drinking sixteen cups of coffee per day to keep awake. Cousins was not supposed to be on watch-his watch was ending and he was supposed to be able to go to sleep--but his relief had not shown up, and Cousins...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 cases
  • Kirola v. City of S.F., Case No: C 07-3685 SBA
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • November 26, 2014
    ...Plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the City has violated the ADA. See In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215, 1232 (9th Cir. 2001) ("The standard of proof generally applied in federal civil cases is preponderance of evidence."). 99. The City's program......
  • Laramie v. Philip Morris USA Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 15, 2021
    ...this case, by contrast, the plaintiff has a private interest in punitive damages under G. L. c. 229, § 2. Compare In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215, 1227-1228 (9th Cir. 2001) (request for punitive damages, seeking to vindicate private harm due to oil spill, was not barred by prior judgment ......
  • Am. Chem. Soc'y v. Leadscope, Inc.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • September 18, 2012
    ...better approach’ ” is to remand so that the district court can “apply the appropriate standards.” Id. at 867, quoting In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215, 1241 (9th Cir.2001). However, the court held: [B]ecause it has already been four years since [the] arrest and three years since this case ......
  • Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 25, 2008
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Oil and Water Do Not Mix: An Argument for the United States Supreme Court's Deferral to Congress in Exxon v. Baker
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 38-1, September 2009
    • September 1, 2009
    ...She would also like to thank the many friends, family members, and professors who provided insight and assistance. 1 In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215, 1225 (9th Cir. 2001). 2 Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605, 2611–12 (2008). The tanker was operated by Exxon Shipping Co., Inc., ......
  • The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption of State Water Quality Law
    • United States
    • The Clean Water Act and the Constitution. Legal Structure and the Public's Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment Part I
    • April 20, 2009
    ...Glasgow would not pay the fee, the state refused to issue a permit for Glasgow’s water treatment facility.” 101 96. In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215, 1229 (9th Cir. 2001). 97. Id . at 1230. 98. American Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027, 1050 n.49, 6 ELR 20068 n.49 (3d Cir. 1975). 9......
  • The BP Spill and the Meaning of 'Gross Negligence or Willful Misconduct
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 71-3, April 2011
    • April 1, 2011
    ...144. Id. at 284. 145. Id. at 279. 146. Id. 147. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 515 (2008). 148. In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215, 1232 (9th Cir. 2001). 2011] GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND THE OPA 1001 tortious action was worse than negligent but less than malicious‖ and noted that i......
  • Civil Enforcement of the Clean Air Act
    • United States
    • Air pollution control and climate change mitigation law
    • August 18, 2010
    ...Steven D. Schell, Self-Monitoring and Self-Reporting of Routine Air Pollution Releases , 24 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 63 (1998). 2. See, e.g ., 270 F.3d 1215, 32 ELR 20320 (9th Cir. 2001) (Valdez I), 472 F.3d 600, 37 ELR 20001 (9th Cir. 2006) (Valdez II), and No. 04-35183 (9th Cir. May 23, 2007) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT