That activist court spills oil on logic

The U.S. Supreme Court apparently could not find a law, ruling or precedent to guide its decision over punitive damages for the Exxon Valdez oil spill, so it made one up.

The result was a slap in the face for many residents of Alaska, who had their economy, way of life and pristine environment drowned in 11 million gallons of oil in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez supertanker ran aground on Bligh Reef.

Clearly uncomfortable with the idea of punitive damages, the court hems and haws through legal history ruminating about the role of damages and their application. In circumstances where the court might otherwise have opted to defer to a jury's award, or the judgment of lower courts, or even wait for lawmakers to act, the justices acted to slash the penalty.

Exxon had already paid out large sums of money in criminal fines, for cleanup, settlement of a civil action and voluntary payments to private parties. In 1994, a jury concluded additional punitive damages were appropriate and set the amount at $5 billion. An appeals court cut that in half, and the high court whacked that down to $500 million.

The rationale gets awfully thick. Maritime law gets squishy about making a corporation pay punitive damages for the acts of a managerial surrogate. Unless the chairman of the board is at the helm, it would not stick — or something.

The justices mumbled about not being too impressed by punitive damages as retribution or to deter future bad behavior. They were stuck on an older concept of "enormity."

Hmm, enormity. A 987-foot oil tanker runs aground after its captain turns the helm over to an unlicensed subordinate and leaves the bridge. Eleven hours later, the captain's blood-alcohol content is .241.

Thirteen-hundred miles of Alaskan shoreline are fouled, an estimated 30,000 birds are killed, and the rest is brutal history.

The court leaves the public and politicians to draw their own conclusions about how grievous behavior by oil companies would be enforced in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or in expanded offshore drilling.

This is a potentially expensive victory for Exxon, which made a $40 billion profit last year.