Menu
Law School / legal humor / on the record

OTR: Exxon-Valdez Litigation

Today in Torts we had a lecture by a local attorney who worked on the Exxon-Valdez oil spill case.* The attorney was intense, yet funny. Here are some quotes:

Attorney: “I was the Barry Bonds of law, and let me tell you: it was sweet.”
Attorney: “We only settled it two years ago. So while you guys were having rich and full lives, I was going in and out of the court of appeals…”
Attorney: “The Supreme Court gave a survey of law. They started off with a quote from Hammurabi, but they might as well have started with the bible…”
Attorney: “If I hit you on purpose – because you’re the asshole I know you are – that’s a purposeful act.” **
Attorney: “If you come and work at Someone & Somebody with me, you’ll make so much money you’ll choke on it. Then, after five or six years, you’ll think “what am I doing with my life? What will make me happy and lead a fuller life?” and then your spouse hears you and screams “NO! GO BACK TO WORK!”
Attorney: “One of my hobbies is suing the federal government… (laughter from audience) for killing wolves and bears…”

The court writes:

“The criterion of “substantial” takes into account the role of punitive damages to induce legal action when pure compensation may not be enough to encourage suit, a concern addressed by the opportunity for a class action when large numbers of potential plaintiffs are involved: in such cases, individual awards are not the touchstone, for it is the class option that facilitates suit, and a class recovery of $500 million is substantial. In this case, then, the constitutional outer limit may well be 1:1.”
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605, 2634 (U.S. 2008)

Attorney’s responds:

Attorney: “If you were working for me and you wrote something like this I’d fire you!


A student asks a question, and then:

Attorney: “First off you’re wearing a packers outfit, and should be ashamed…”


* Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (U.S. 2008)

* The attorney used this analogy to explain the Supreme Court’s reasoning. The full quote is, “If I hit you on purpose – because you’re the asshole I know you are – that’s a purposeful act. But if I know you’re a drunk and put you in charge of a school bus and hope you will make it to the other side…that’s equally as blameworthy of an act, and probably worse than if I punched you.”

No Comments

    Leave a Reply

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.