US Supreme Court case Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
E682976
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly limited punitive damages awarded against Exxon for the Exxon Valdez oil spill, shaping modern maritime and punitive damages law.
Observed surface forms (1)
| Surface form | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker | 0 |
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
maritime law case ⓘ punitive damages case ⓘ |
| affectedParty |
Alaska Native communities
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Exxon Mobil Corporation shareholders ⓘ commercial fishermen in Alaska ⓘ |
| appliesTo | federal maritime cases ⓘ |
| aroseFromDate | March 24, 1989 ⓘ |
| aroseFromEvent | Exxon Valdez oil spill NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| aroseFromLocation | Prince William Sound, Alaska NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| citation | 554 U.S. 471 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Justice John Paul Stevens
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| decisionDate | June 25, 2008 ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 07-219 ⓘ |
| doesNotRestOn | Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasPetitioner | Exxon Shipping Company NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasRespondent |
Grant Baker
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
other commercial fishermen and private parties ⓘ |
| holding |
In maritime cases, punitive damages may not exceed compensatory damages in a 1:1 ratio absent exceptional circumstances defined by Congress
ⓘ
Punitive damages in this case were reduced to $507.5 million to match compensatory damages ⓘ The $2.5 billion punitive damages award against Exxon was excessive under federal maritime common law ⓘ |
| impact |
influenced later punitive damages jurisprudence in federal and state courts
ⓘ
significantly limited punitive damages exposure for maritime defendants ⓘ |
| issue |
Whether Exxon could be held vicariously liable for punitive damages based on the conduct of the ship’s captain
ⓘ
Whether federal maritime law imposes limits on punitive damages ⓘ Whether the punitive damages award against Exxon for the Exxon Valdez spill was excessive under maritime law ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal maritime jurisdiction ⓘ |
| legalArea |
federal common law
ⓘ
maritime law ⓘ punitive damages ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Justice David H. Souter NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| originatedFrom |
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
United States District Court for the District of Alaska NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedEvent | Exxon Valdez grounding on Bligh Reef NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| restsOn | federal maritime common law authority of the Supreme Court ⓘ |
| result |
established a 1:1 ceiling on punitive-to-compensatory damages ratio in maritime cases under federal common law
ⓘ
punitive damages award substantially reduced ⓘ |
| ruledOn | vicarious corporate liability for punitive damages in maritime cases ⓘ |
| voteSplit | 5-3 on punitive damages ratio rule ⓘ |
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.