You are on page 1of 29

An Introduction to the Litigation of Maritime Oil PollutionFocus on

Punitive Damage Award


Chun Hung Chan,2009/11/21

Abstract
The main purpose of this article is: In a maritime oil pollution
case, is it reasonable to claim punitive damage? By analyzing the
famous Exxon Valdez and Amorgos case, this article find that it is
difficult for plaintiffs to claim punitive damage in maritime oil
pollution case, except that case accesses in USA. Further more, this
article also finds Taiwans Sea Pollution Prevention Act chapter 7 is
incomplete. It is important to amend that chapter immediately. This
article also gives us its proposal.

Key Words
punitive damagemaritime oil pollutionSea Pollution Prevention ActOil
Pollution Act(OPA)Exxon ValdezAmorgos

1989 3 24
(Exxon Valdez)1
1

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-25-10.asp 2009 6 25
1

20
(punitive damges)
9
2
25 2 2008 6 25 3

5 3 4

(compensatory damages)5 7 50
9 9 2009
6 15
5
9 2001
1 14

288,889 6 2

In re Exxon Valdez, 472 F.3d 600,625.


Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S.Ct., 2605, 171 L.Ed.2d 570.
4
Alito Exxon Shipping Co. v.
Baker, 128 S.Ct., 2605, 2634.
5
Exxon Valdez v. Exxon Mobil Corp, 2009 WL 1652256 (C.A.9 (Alaska)).
6

2004 () 4
7
2009 6 21
http://www.udn.com/2009/6/23/NEWS/DOMESTIC/BREAKINGNEWS3/4979007.shtml
2009 6 25
2
3

(Exxon Valdez)

1(Exxon Valdez)

1989 3 24
(Joseph Hazelwood)
(Bligh
Reef)

(Prince
William Sound) 1100 ( 4.164 )
1500 ( 2414 )

21 3 3
8

() 1
1.()

9
1994 5 2
2 8 7 10
2 2 60 11
12

1 3 40 13
In re Exxon Valdez, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1043,1046-47 (D. Alaska 2002 ).

In re Exxon Valdez, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1043,1048.


10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
Id. at 1050.
8
9


9
1
14
2.
(1)

15
(2)

(instructions)
(punishment and deterrence)16
(reckless)
17

18
5 (verdict)
22 50
5000 19
() 9 1
1. 50
9
(1)(due process)

20(2)
(CWA)( parens
partie21)
Id. at 1047.
In re Exxon Valdez, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1048 (D. Alaska 2002).
16
Id, at 1049.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id. at 1050.
20
In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215, 1226.
21
Id. at 1227.
14
15

(res judicata)
(3)(common law)
(CWA)
22(4)(instructions)
(clear and convincing)23
(preponderance of the evidence)
(5)

24(6)
25(7)
50 26
2. (1)(6) 9
(7)
50
BMW 27 Cooper
Industries 2850

29
()
1.
(due process)30
2. BMW
3 ---( the
reprehensibility)
(ratio)
31

32
3.
Id. at 1228.
Id. at 1232.
24
Id. at 1233.
25
Id. at 1236.
26
Id. at 1238.
27
517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996).
28
532 U.S. 424, 121 S.Ct. 1678, 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001).
29
In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215, 1246-47.
30
In re Exxon Valdez, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1054 (D. Alaska 2002).
31
Id. at 1051. 31 5 2002
9 200-201
32
Id. at 1057.
22
23

33

4. 50
34 50
5. 9
40 35
6. 40 28 U.S.C. 1961
1996 9 24 36
() 9 2
2003 State Farm Mut. Auto. Co. v.
Campbell 37 9

38
() 2
State Farm
10
(due process)
39(

) 5 1 3 14 7 7 40 40
50

45 40 41
() 9 3
1. BMW State Farm
(reprehensibility)
(mid range)42
2. 10

5 1 3
4 9 3
Id.
Id. at 1068.
35
Id.
36
Id. at 1069.
37
538 U.S. 408 (2003).
38
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18219.
39
538 U.S. 408, 425.
40
In re Exxon Valdez, 296 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1101 (D. Alaska 2004).
41
Id. at 1110.
42
In re Exxon Valdez, 472 F. 3d 600, 618 (9th Cir. 2006).
33
34

43
9

State
Farm 44
3. 9

(particularly egregious) 9
Planned Parenthood

4 45
4

5
State Farm
46
4.( Oil
Pollution Act OPA )

47(5)

5
25
48
()
1. 9 3
3 (Writ of Certiorari)
(1)

9 1567
(2)()

Id. at 619.
Id. at 621.
45
Id. at 623.
46
Id. at 623-25.
47
Id. at 624.
48
Id. at 625.
43
44

9 (judge-made
federal maritime law) 1567
(3)25

49
2. 2007
10 29 50 2008 2 27
2008 6 25

(1)
4 4
1869 Durant v. Essex
9

51
(2)(CWA)
9
(maritime common law)
9

52

53

(savings clause)

54
(3) 10

Brandon T. Morris, Oil, Money, and the Environment: Punitive Damages Under Due Process,
Preemption, and Maritime Law in the Wake of Exxon Valdez Litigation, 33 Tul. Mar. L. J. 165,19293(2008).
50
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 492 (2007).
51
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S.Ct., 2605,2616.
52
Id. at 2617-18.
53
Id. at 2618.
54
Id. at 2619.
49

55

56

(punitive recovery)
57

35
2 1
3 50
5 1 58
(4)

3
5 2 5
5
59
(5)
(outrageous)
60
61

(public policy)62
(6)
Morris, supra note 49, at 194.
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S.Ct., 2605,2622.
31 5 2002 189 80 4

57
Id. at 2622.
58
Id. at 2623.
59
Id. See also, Thompson v. Commissioner of Police of Metropolis, [1998] Q.B. 498, 518.
60
Id. See also, 2 L. Schlueter, Punitive Damages 22.1(B), (D).
61
Id., 22.2(A)-(C), (E).
62
Id. See also, Gotanda, Charting Developments Concerning Punitive Damages: Is the Tide Changing?
45 Colum. J. Transnatl L. 507, 514, 518, 528 (2007).
97 835
117 2008 12 1 41-54
55
56

63

(7) 3
3
(culpability)
(recklessness) 3
3 (
2 1)

(median award)
0.65 164

1 1 65(CWA)
1 1
State Farm
(due
process)66
1 1
9 25
9 67
() 9 4
1.

68 2008 8 12
9 9

69 2008 8
Morris, supra note 49, at 195.
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S.Ct., 2605,2633.
65
Id.
66
Id. at 2634.
67
Id.
68
Exxon Valdez Plaintiffs Ask Supreme Court to Confirm Their Entitlement to Interest on the $500
Million Punitive Damage Award, http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/california-punitivedamages/a637d7675b2398c596ad1dc8e6927306
2009 7 5
69
US supreme court kicks Exxon Valdez case back to California court,:
63
64

10

(partial settlement) 3 8 3
3 3 70
( 50
5 7 50 )
2008 6 25

9
2. 9 2009 6 15
(1) 1996 9 24 (
1 ) 5 7
(2)71
(1)
(
)
28
U.S.C. 1961(a) (1994&Supp. II 1996)
5 772(2)
50 5 7 50
90
90
4

73

9
1996 9 24 5 7
4 7 74

7 ( 6 60
(letter of credit)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/13/oilspills.usa2009 7 5
70
Alaska fisherman will get part of Exxon Valdez punitive damages,:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/376669_exxonvaldez27.html?source=rss2009 7 5

71
Exxon Valdez v. Exxon Mobil Corp, 2009 WL 1652256, at4.
72
Id. at 2.
73
Id. at 3.
74
Exxon Will Not Ask Supreme Court to review Valdez Interest Ruling,
http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/california-punitive-damages/eac222f2f9e3e59d32032f144f5e4b08
2009 7 5
11

) 6
60 90( 5 4 50 )
2009 6 29 (en banc)
(rehearing)75
(common law)

()
76 Federal Water Pollution Control
Act(FWPCA CWA )77Trans-Alaska
Pipeline Authorization Act(TAPAA)78Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act Amendment of 1978 (OCSLA)79Deep
Water Port Act (DWPA)80Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) 81 Oil Pollution Act (OPA)82
() 1990 Exxon Valdez OPA
83
84

85

86
1.
2.
3.
(subsistence use)
4.
See Lyle Denniston, Exxon Valdez: One last fight, http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/exxon-valdez-onelast-fight/2009 7 5
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/exxon-rehear-6-29-09.pdf
2009 7 5
76
Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty And Maritime Law, 883 (4th ed. 2004).
77
33 U.S.C. 1251-1637.
78
43 U.S.C. 1651-1655.
79
43 U.S.C. 1801-1866.
80
43 U.S.C. 1901-1906.
81
42 U.S.C. 9601-9675.
82
33 U.S.C. 2701-2761.
83
Schoenbaum, Supra note 76.
84
Id. at 884.
85
Id. at 885.
86
Id. at 885-86.
75

12

5.

6.

87
()OPA 88
(restoring)(rehabilitating)

(No double
recovery)(restoration costs) Zoe
Colocotroni

89

State of Ohio
(market pricing)90
()(economic loss)OPA

5 9 91

()OPA

OPA 92
()
OPA
Exxon Valdez

Id. at 888.
Id.a t 889.
89
Id. at 891.
90
Id. at 892.
91
Id. at 893-94.
92
Id. at 897.
87
88

13

2
() (United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea)
1. 1994 194

207 210 212

93
2. 211 212

94
3. 211

95
()(International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL 73/78)

96

()(International Convention on Civil


Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, CLC,1969)

3
(omission)

(privity)
97
98 1984
(protocol) 5000
3 (Special Drawing Rights, SDRs)
5 9 70

Id. at 874.
Id. at875.
95
Id.
96
Id. at877-79.
97
Id. at880.
98
Id.
93
94

14


(omission)
(reckless)99
1996
100
3
1990 (OPA)
2000 11 1
33 1
3
1
34

()
( 2008 8 3 8 3
) 9 4 7
5 4
50 9

20
2008 2 5 7
2 9 101

1 1
1
50 2 40 3 45

5 7 50

2010
Id. at881.
Id.
101
US supreme court kicks Exxon Valdez case back to California court, supra note 69.
99

100

15

9 2009
6 15

()

1 1

1.

90

2.

3.

()
102

103

20

() 34

Chris Bergen, Exxon Shipping co. v. Baker: The Supreme Court Tightens the Purse on Corporate
Punitive Awards, 22 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 141, 157(2008).
103
Morris, supra note 49, at 202.
102

16

(
)

100

33 1

() 33 1
OPA

6 104

()

()
OPA
()

104

Supra, n.87.
17

105

106
3

()

21
1
3

()

33 1 34

() OPA

OPA

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker


105
106

Id. at 884.
188
18

3
( 3 )107
OPA

(recklessness)

()

(CLC)

211

()

OPA

33 1 34

33 1

107

Schoenbaum, Supra note 76, at 884-85.


19

1.
2.
3.
4.

1.
2.
3. 3

3
1

34 1

()
1. 33 1

OPA
OPA

2. 33 2
OPA 3

3. 33 3
20

211

4. 34 1

108
2001 1 14

Gard

200
955,000 2001 1 18 1,000
3

6,640,000 2,455,993
1,760,000
3,699,405
60,000 250,000
700,000
Gard
5,047,875
520,000 1,913,043
620,290
1,917,014
358,997

6 75-76
108

21


()
2003 1 10
Gard
109 Gard

92
4 2004 6 30

1. Gard

Gard
(CLC)

2. 2003 1
10 Gard
6 6 Gard
2004 3
5 Gard

2 3.

4.

249 1 2
110

2004 12 31 93 487
Gard
2006 1 5 95
2 Gard
111

76
92 4
111
95 2
109
110

22

1.

()

Gard

2.

3. Gard

Gard
( Gard )

Gard

Gard 2006 3 25
112
()
Gard 2003 1 10
2003 6 6
Gard
2004 3 16 Gard
5,047,875
520,000
1,913,043 620,290
1,917,014
358, 997
2005 1 10 Gard
112

92 4
23

288,889 2004 3 17
5 113 Gard 3,292,892
34,300

114
1.

2.

2000 2001 2001 2002


2003

3.
2000 2001 2002
2000 2
2000 2001

4.

5.

Gard

2001 2002 246,145

6.

113
114

113
102-114
24


50,000

7. Gard

Gard
8,615,290
8,535,423
246,145 50,000
8,831,568 Gard
97.55% Gard
288,889
2

2006
8 10
3,400
115

()
1. Gard
90 Gard

Gard

Gard
9 1
15 1 2

115

http://e-info.org.tw/taxonomy/term/2523 2009 7 14
25

2. Gard 15 2
33

34

116

34

34
117
Gard
34

34
34

3.Gard Gard 2

Gard

()
1.

116
117

http://lis.ly.gov.tw/ttscgi/lgimg?@895402;0218;0252 98 7 15

26

(CMI Guidelines on Oil Pollution


Damage)(IOPC Claims
Manual)

2.

Gard

()
1.

Gard
(1)

Gard
Gard

Gard
Gard

118
288,889
(2)
9
4 7
119

118
119

109-110
74
27

Gard

2.

Gard
3

()

120
(public policy)
121

(CLC)

33
120
121

61
62
28

35 3

122

211

117
2008 12 1 41-54

()2004 74-114
31 5
2002 9 63-219

Brandon T. Morris, Oil, Money, and the Environment: Punitive Damages Under Due
Process, Preemption, and Maritime Law in the Wake of Exxon Valdez Litigation, 33
Tul. Mar. L. J. 165-202(2008).
Gotanda, Charting Developments Concerning Punitive Damages: Is the Tide
Changing? 45 Colum. J. Transnatl L. 507-541 (2007).
Chris Bergen, Exxon Shipping co. v. Baker: The Supreme Court Tightens the Purse
on Corporate Punitive Awards, 22 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 141- 158(2008).
Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty And Maritime Law, (4th ed. 2004),Hornbook
Series Thomson West.

122

29
29