Alaska Employment Law

One of the factors in assessing the “reprehensibility” of a tortfeasor’s conduct, when setting punitive damages, is whether the conduct was intentionally malicious or a mere accident.  In addressing this factor, the 9th Circuit, in In re The Exxon Valdez, 2007 WL 1490455 *22 (9th Cir. May 23, 2007), responded to Exxon’s ADA defense as follows:

Putting Captain Hazelwood in command of the supertanker was knowing and reckless misconduct. We agree with the district court that this misconduct was not “mere accident.” District Court Opinion, 296 F.Supp.2d at 1096.
Exxon points out that relieving Hazelwood of command would have denied Hazelwood an employment opportunity on the basis of alcoholism and theoretically subjected Exxon to a disability discrimination lawsuit. While Exxon’s concerns may have been appropriate considerations in its evaluation of the risk, they do not justify the dangers its decision created to the livelihoods of tens of thousands of individuals. Spilling the oil was an accident, but putting a relapsed alcoholic in charge of a supertanker was not. And anyone doing so would know they were imposing a tremendous risk on a tremendous number of people who could not do anything about it. Exxon’s knowing disregard of the interests of commercial fishermen, subsistence fishermen, fish processors, cannery workers, tenders, seafood brokers and others dependent on Prince William Sound for their livelihoods, cannot be regarded as merely accidental.