http://talkradionews.com/2008/02/supreme-court-today-exxon-v-baker/ The Talk Radio News Service is the only information news service dedicated to serving the talk radio community. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:46:24 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://talkradionews.com/2008/02/supreme-court-today-exxon-v-baker/comment-page-1/#comment-862 Cliff Ward Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:41:56 +0000 http://talkradionews.com/2008/02/supreme-court-today-exxon-v-baker/#comment-862 There is argument mentioned in the SCOTUS report that the size of the corporation should have no bearing on the size of a 'punative damage'. "As if being a large successfull business should be penalized for it's huge sucess'. If punative damages are the only way to make a corporation sence that it has recklessly and/or knowingly harmed another (or others), in an attempt to influence it to mend it's ways, wouldn't it be right then to inflict monetary pain to that corporation that would indeed catch it's attention, resulting in it's responsible board to remediate imediately its errant policy/philosophy...and effectively act as a deterrant? Would you think that penalizing an auto maker for fraudulently selling damaged good as new(as in the BMW V wealthy Dr used as comparrison by Dellinger) should ride in the same trolly of offences as Hazzlewood's managers....up thru the ranks to Exxon CEO's who... KNEW BUT DID NOT DETER while knowing via 32 employee reports of his relapsed drinking...over an extended period of time...resulting in this massive oil spill which resulted in the class action of over 32,000 damaged victims of corporate complacency? How thick is a massive corporation's skin? How much do it's shareholders, BOD, and top suits need to EACH INDIVIDUALLY LOOSE(of potential proffits) for them to consent and promote in a major change of policy and deterrant of like incidents? Remember also that the spilled oil sat on calm water for nearly 4 full days while.....virtually no industry supervised effort was actually in place to take any of it out of the water....it was on paper but not in reality.....Then the wind blew the mess far and wide. There is argument mentioned in the SCOTUS report that the size of the corporation should have no bearing on the size of a ‘punative damage’. “As if being a large successfull business should be penalized for it’s huge sucess’. If punative damages are the only way to make a corporation sence that it has recklessly and/or knowingly harmed another (or others), in an attempt to influence it to mend it’s ways, wouldn’t it be right then to inflict monetary pain to that corporation that would indeed catch it’s attention, resulting in it’s responsible board to remediate imediately its errant policy/philosophy…and effectively act as a deterrant? Would you think that penalizing an auto maker for fraudulently selling damaged good as new(as in the BMW V wealthy Dr used as comparrison by Dellinger) should ride in the same trolly of offences as Hazzlewood’s managers….up thru the ranks to Exxon CEO’s who… KNEW BUT DID NOT DETER while knowing via 32 employee reports of his relapsed drinking…over an extended period of time…resulting in this massive oil spill which resulted in the class action of over 32,000 damaged victims of corporate complacency?
How thick is a massive corporation’s skin? How much do it’s shareholders, BOD, and top suits need to EACH INDIVIDUALLY LOOSE(of potential proffits) for them to consent and promote in a major change of policy and deterrant of like incidents? Remember also that the spilled oil sat on calm water for nearly 4 full days while…..virtually no industry supervised effort was actually in place to take any of it out of the water….it was on paper but not in reality…..Then the wind blew the mess far and wide.

]]>