News Articles Blog » personal injury attorneys

Motorcycle Accident Lawyers

admin — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:41:51 +0000

Our Motorcycle Accident Lawyers Identify the Most Common Causes of Multi-Vehicle Motorcycle Accidents.

What our motorcycle accident lawyers often find in jury selection is that the ordinary juror has the misperception that motorcycle riders are risk takers, and so they come into the case with the initial bias toward the assumption that negligence on the part of the motorcyclist is most likely the cause of the accident. However, according to the extensive research conducted by our motorcycle accident attorneys the most common cause of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents is the inattention and negligence of the other driver, most commonly an auto driver.

What our motorcycle accident lawyers discovered upon reviewing the research, including the landmark study conducted by Harry Hurt of the University of Southern California, is that the most common causes of motorcycle accidents is auto driver inattention, specifically either in pulling out from a side street or turning left from the opposite direction into the motorcyclists right of way. According to our motorcycle accident attorneys research, two-thirds of all multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents are solely the fault of the auto driver, meaning without any fault on the part of the motorcyclist. And two-thirds of that number, or fifty percent of the total number of motorcycle accidents are due to auto driver inattention, again either “not seeing” the oncoming motorcyclist as the auto driver enters a street from a side street or “not seeing” the motorcyclist as the auto driver turns left into the motorcyclists right of way from the opposite direction. The auto driver’s explanation is almost always that he or she didn’t “see” the oncoming motorcyclist.

Our motorcycle accident lawyers have done original research to determine why it is that auto drivers don’t “see” motorcycles. For many years the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, NHTSA, took the position that auto drivers didn’t see motorcyclists because of a “lack of conspicuity” of the motorcycle. In our motorcycle accident lawyers opinion that was just a cop out by NHTSA, essentially an excuse for not doing what would be required in order to retrain auto drivers to “look” for motorcyclists when they engage in the driving behaviors most likely to result in auto accidents. All “lack of conspicuity” does for NHTSA is to shift the fault of two-thirds of all motorcycle accidents from the auto drivers who fail to “see” the motorcycle, over to the size of the motorcycle. But every motorcyclist knows that for a car to present a hazard to us that we can’t avoid either by braking or by swerving, the auto driver must out right in front of us, from a very short distance. Our motorcycle accident lawyers are convinced that “lack of conspicuity” of the motorcycle simply cannot account for auto drivers failing to “see” us at the short distance that would be required for them to create a hazard we can’t brake to avoid or swerve around.

Instead, what our motorcycle accident attorneys original research suggests is that the mental mechanism responsible for the auto drivers failure to “see” us at these short distances is an “inattentional blindness,” a widely accepted mental perception phenomenon widely discussed in the scientific literature. There are a number of factors leading to “inattentional blindness” that our motorcycle accident lawyers believe are responsible for the auto drivers failure to “see” oncoming motorcyclists. The two most prominent, in our motorcycle attorneys view, are “expectation” and “relevance.” The reason why auto drivers don’t “see” oncoming motorcycles is in part because they don’t “expect” to see a motorcycle, just because motorcycles are a less prevalent mode of transportation, and the science discloses that we are much more likely to “see” what we expect to see. The second reason why auto drivers don’t “see” motorcycles, on the basis of our motorcycle accident lawyers research, is that auto drivers just don’t see us as being as “relevant” as an oncoming car, truck or bus. We don’t pose a threat to the auto driver’s life in the same way that an oncoming car, truck or bus would pose such a threat, and therefore, in the competition for limited conscious attention, the oncoming motorcycle will not draw the auto drivers attention in the same way a larger vehicle would.

As our motorcycle accident lawyers will describe in other articles on the “solution to the obscene incidence of motorcycle accidents,” the real answers to reducing motorcyclist injuries is to focus on reducing accident, specifically by “motorcycle awareness” programs, also on retraining auto drivers to look for motorcycles, particularly when entering intersections and turning left at intersections, and then, more severe criminal penalties for auto drivers who commit “right of way violations” that result in the injury or death of a motorcyclist. In the foregoing ways our motorcycle accident attorneys suggest that the auto driver can be led to “expect” the oncoming motorcyclist, and to see the oncoming motorcyclist as “relevant.”

Ray Henke is a Motorcyclist, Motorcycle Accident Lawyer, and Lead Trial Attorney for the Henke Law Group.

Accident Lawyers Require Particular Experience

admin — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:27:58 +0000

Accident Lawyers Require Particular Experience for Auto, Motorcycle, Bicycle, Commercial and Big Rig Truck Lawsuits, Also Attorneys for Cell Phone Accident Liability, And Serious Injury Claims Such as Traumatic Brain Injury and Paralysis.

The job of the accident attorney is often thought to be no more complicated than demonstrating who ran the red light. In fact, accident litigation can be highly complex, indeed every serious injury lawsuit is complex, involving numerous experts solely to demonstrate general and economic damages. Furthermore, very different factors may determine liability in motorcycle and bicycle accident cases, cases in which a party was engaged in cell conversation at the time, cases involving violation of the federal and state regulations governing large commercial and big rig trucks. Solving the “collectability” problem to assure full compensation in serious injury litigation can involve a number of different strategies to establish vicarious liability upon others which the accident lawyer must adapt specifically for auto accident and big rig truck accident cases.

Accident lawyers require a breadth of knowledge to effectively represent those injured in bicycle and motorcycle accident lawsuits, the latter often requiring experience with single track physics and the unique dangers of auto driver inattention to the smaller vehicles, particularly when entering or turning left at intersections, accounting for fully 2/3 of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents without any negligence on the part of the motorcyclist. Bicycle accident attorneys must similarly be cognizant of the dangers posed to bicyclists as the result, for example, of not being able to “command a lane,” and so their vulnerability to parked auto drivers who may open their doors into the path of a bicyclist or pull out into traffic without recognizing that a bicycle is approaching. Our accident lawyers have provided separate pages for “Motorcycle Accident Lawsuits” and “Bicycle Accident Lawsuits” where the reader can learn more about the unique challenges that accident lawyers face in single track vehicle accident litigation.

Commercial and big rig truck accident lawyers also must have a breadth of specific knowledge to competently evaluate, prepare and prosecute truck accident lawsuits. Big truck accident attorneys need to become fully knowledgeable about the federal and state laws governing a broad host of safety requirements from the permissible weight of loads and how freight must be secured to the hours that big rig truck drivers may operate their vehicles between rest periods, the logs that must be kept, and the responsibilities of shippers. Because the driver will often have inadequate insurance to compensate the more seriously injured, and because most freight companies hire commercial and big rig truck drivers as “independent contractors” in order to attempt to limit their liability for the negligence of the driver, large commercial truck and big rig truck lawyers must establish the shipper’s liability on legal theories such as “negligent entrustment,” and “negligent supervision,” as examples. Our big rig truck accident lawyers explain more fully these concepts on our “Commercial and Big Rig Accident Lawsuits” page, but the shipping companies may be liable, for example, for negligent entrustment, for their negligence in failing to screen out drivers who lack drivers licenses or who were inadequately trained or who have a history of accidents or alcohol abuse. Negligent supervision would include failures to adequately inspect the trucks or freight, the manner by which freight is secured, as well as failing to maintain logs of driver hours, all of which may involve violations of federal or state law.

There are also investigative techniques that accident lawyers should follow including, for example, subpoenaing the cell phone records of the other drivers because all too often the other driver may not be seen to be using his cell phone while driving, and may not volunteer the information to the investigating police. Appropriately educated accident lawyers will be aware of the epidemiological and controlled experimental studies which have demonstrated that a driver while engaged in cell conversation is four times more likely to get into an accident. In a “he said, she said” accident, with no independent witness or where the independent witnesses are split, demonstrating that one party was under the influence of cell conversation may become persuasive evidence of liability. Often of crucial importance where the driver of the other car has insufficient liability coverage to compensate the victim, cell phone records identifying the other party to the call can provide the answer to the “collectability” problem. For example, if the driver was found to have been in conversation with his employer or secretary or a potential client or otherwise engaged in a business call at the time of the accident, the accident lawyer can assert “respondeat superior” liability to name the employer as a defendant in the lawsuit, permitting his client to recover against the employer’s insurance and assets.

Finally every serious injury case is complex litigation, involving the investigation and development of the evidence of the client’s general damages, which some lawyers refer to as “pain and suffering,” but which in most serious injury cases, in their largest part may be more accurately characterized as “loss of enjoyment of life” damages. Some injuries may be catastrophic, and our accident lawyers have provided specific information with regard to the presentation of “Traumatic Brain Injury Lawsuits” and “Quadriplegia, Paraplegia and Spinal Cord Injury Cases.” The qualified accident lawyer will commonly present damages in a serious injury case first through the testimony of his client, family members and friends with regard to the types of activities that the client enjoyed doing before his accident, juxtaposed against a professionally produced “Day in the Life” film, in which the client is accurately shown courageously meeting the huge challenges presented even to do the simplest things in his post-accident everyday life. In serious injury litigation, the accident lawyer must also have extensive experience presenting past and future economic damages, including medical and loss of earnings claims. Our accident lawyers provide a “Serious Injury Damages” page in which we discuss more fully the preparation and presentation of catastrophic injury cases. In almost every serious injury case the accident lawyer will be required to engage a host of experts, from physicians to “life care managers” to “rehabilitation experts” to forensic economists to establish the present value of the future medical expenses and projected loss of earnings.

So while the general public may have the impression that the accident lawyer’s job is no more complicated than proving who ran the red light, the truth is different. Accident litigation is as varied as the vehicles on the road, almost always complex, and can be particularly complex where the lawyer must learn single track vehicle physics, or assert the net of federal and state laws to trap a freight shipper despite its every effort to insulate itself from truck driver liability, as an example, or to assure that the seriously injured client is fully compensated for the full specter of his general and economic damages.

Motorcycle Lawyers Discuss the Legal Challenges of Bikers of Lesser Tolerance as it Brings Civil Disobedience and Constitutional Court Challenge to North Carolina

admin — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:57:45 +0000

By Ray Henke, a motorcycle accident lawyer and member of Bikers of Lesser Tolerance, California

Freedom fighters joined to form BOLT of North Carolina and are currently bringing nonviolent civil disobedience and constitutional court challenge to the streets and courts of the state in response to the enactment of North Carolina’s new helmet law.

The North Carolina helmet law, which went into effect on January 1, 2008, is the same law that NTSB is recommending to state legislatures nationwide, with the insurance industry and medical lobbies throwing their weight behind the NTSB recommendations. The law requires motorcyclists to wear helmets compliant with the federal motorcycle safety helmet standards set forth at FMVSS 218. The North Carolina law, and all other state laws requiring riders to ride with helmets that meet FMVSS 218 plainly are incapable of being understood by the ordinarily intelligent person, and are certainly incapable of being applied, except incompetently, subjectively, arbitrarily, and discriminatorily by law enforcement officers. FMVSS 218 is just a list of laboratory procedures and arbitrary impact criteria. You have to be an engineer to understand it, and you have to have the laboratory equipment to apply it. Such laws are unconstitutional because the due process clause of the United States Constitution requires that law be comprehensible specifically so that the citizenry can know what is prohibited, and to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory application of the law by police and the judiciary. You are invited to learn more about the motorcycle lawyers perspective on the Constitutional defects in helmet laws.

The BOLT of North Carolina freedom fighters refuse to be constrained by this unconstitutionally vague legislation. They are holding protest rallies all over the state with a frequency and drawing numbers of bikers refusing to abide the law that has not been witnessed anywhere in the United States in decades. They have sponsored already over a dozen helmet protest rides, in which the riders make their own choices whether to wear helmets. And if they ride with helmets, they make their own choices as to the kinds of headgear they wear, undeterred by North Carolina’s attempt to force them to wear the riding hat specified by this new state biker dress code. The BOLT of North Carolina riders have been joined in their protest by individual bikers numbering over 500, angered by the state’s intrusion upon their freedom, coming from all over North Carolina. According to the Director of BOLT of North Carolina, Janice MacKay, “The next acts of civil disobedience in North Carolina are the 2nd Annual East Coast Helmet Protest on May 18th, followed by the Maggie Valley Freedom Ride on NC Bikers Freedom Ride Day, June 12th, and the WNC Freedom Ride in Asheville from Buncombe County to Henderson County on June 21st.”

It is expected that BOLT of North Carolina will also hold a freedom ride “in solidarity” with BOLT of California, and ABATE of California, organized by BOLT member, Red Barron. Two years ago the San Diego police laid in wait for the participants, setting up roadblocks and issuing helmet tickets. This past year, the police stayed their distance. Similarly in North Carolina, notwithstanding the threats of law enforcement to strictly enforce the new helmet law, Ms. MacKay reports that it is difficult to obtain a helmet ticket without riding back and forth outside the state police headquarters in Raleigh.

If North Carolina will rise to the challenge to enforce the law, BOLT of North Carolina hopes to clog the traffic courts at an average cost to the state of $872 per helmet citation trial, also requiring the law enforcement officers to appear and explain upon what incompetent basis they issued the tickets, providing the evidentiary basis for the initial constitutional challenge that the FMVSS 218 based law cannot be understood by the biker or cop and therefore is unconstitutionally vague.

At the same time, BOLT of the North Carolina is active in the legislature, with a no compromise helmet law repeal bill recently drafted and distributed to all North Carolina legislators by Jan MacKay. BOLT is also actively opposing the Street Gang Act and other legislation often employed by law enforcement arbitrarily and discriminatorily against bikers who chose to wear colors.

This article is provided by Ray Henke, a California lawyer, founder of Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers, and co-moderator of Bruce & Ray’s Biker Forum, also a member of Bikers of Lesser Tolerance, and contributor to Biker, Born to Ride and Thunder Road magazines.

Environmental Disaster Law

jana — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:37:57 +0000

On March 23, 1989, the supertanker Exxon Valdez pulled out of Valdez, Alaska, loaded with more than 56,000,000 gallons of crude oil. Captain Joseph Hazelwood, the Master of the vessel, had spent the day drinking with crew members. He had consumed at least eight vodka doubles and his blood alcohol level stood at .241 – more than six times the permissible level under Coast Guard regulations. Third mate Gregory Cousins was on duty beyond the limits specified by federal fatigue laws. Hazelwood, Cousins and the rest of the crew faced a night voyage through ice in Prince William Sound. Hazelwood’s intoxication was evident from the alcohol on his breath, his slurred speech (captured on audiotape) and, most of all, his actions as the ship navigated the sound.
While passing through fishing grounds, Hazelwood took the Exxon Valdez outside established shipping lanes to avoid ice. He put the vessel on automatic pilot, accelerating at Bligh Reef. Hazelwood then left the bridge in violation of Federal Pilotage Regulations. As he went below, Hazelwood gave vague instructions to the inexperienced and fatigued Cousins. Within minutes, the supertanker struck Bligh Reef, spilling 11,000,000 gallons of oil, thereby causing the largest oil spill and greatest environmental disaster at that time experienced in American history.
Following the grounding, lawsuits were filed in Alaska State and Federal Court on behalf of approximately 45,000 individuals, businesses, native corporations and local governments, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. Most of the state court actions were ultimately removed to federal court. The Federal District Court carefully managed this litigation. It entered hundreds of orders, and the discovery master entered hundreds more. The trial plan provided for four separate phases of trial. The first three phases were to be tried to a single jury of 12 (rather than the customary six), with a unanimous verdict required. Trial proceeded as follows:
1. Phase 1 and began on May 9, 1994, 5 years after the spill, and ended on June 6, 1994. A week later, on June 13, 1994, the jury returned a verdict that both Exxon and Hazelwood had been reckless.
2. Phase IIA went to trial in June 20, 1994, to determine the lost harvest, loss price and permit valuation claims in the Prince William Sound, Kodiak, Cook Inlet, and Chignik salmon and herring fisheries. After deliberating a month (from July 11, 1994 to August 11, 1994), the jury awarded hundreds of millions in compensatory damages on these claims.
3. Phase III was tried between August 22, 1994 and August 29, 1994. In this phase, the jury was asked to decide whether Exxon and/or Hazelwood should be assessed punitive damages, and if so, in what amount. The jury returned its verdict on September 16, 1994, awarding punitive damages against Exxon in the amount of $5 billion and against and Hazelwood in the amount of $5,000.
The compensatory damage claims of all other plaintiffs, not earlier decided in Phase II of the trial, were to have been decided in Phase IV. Phase IV settled before trial, in mid-1996.
Exxon and Hazelwood filed countless post-trial motions. These motions resulted in the District Court issuing approximately 250 pages of rulings. Due to this delay, final judgment was not entered until September 24, 1996. An Amended Judgment was ultimately issued on January 30, 1997.
Appeals and cross appeals next ensued. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its first decision on November 7, 2001. In essence, the court remanded the case to the trial judge, requesting that Judge Holland evaluate the appropriate amount of punitive damages in light of United States Supreme Court decisions, BMW and Cooper. (It should be noted that neither of these Supreme Court decisions existed at the time of the trial of the Exxon Valdez litigation.)
Ultimately, Judge Holland reluctantly reduced the jury’s punitive damage award from $5 billion to $4.5 billion. Judge Holland went on to note that interest on the judgment itself would be somewhere in the range of approximately $2.5 billion. Exxon appealed again.
On Friday, December 22, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals again issued decision, reducing the punitive damage award against Exxon from $4.5 billion to $2.5 billion. Exxon immediately sought en banc rehearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 23, 2007, rehearing was denied. This left Exxon with the option of a writ to the United States Supreme Court, which it did.
Incredibly, on October 29, 2007, the United States Supreme Court granted Exxon’s Writ, and has agreed to decide the propriety of the revised judgment. The case will likely be argued in during spring, 2008. One Justice, Samuel Alito, recused himself due to ownership of between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock.
Clearly, this is one of the oldest pieces of environmental disasters litigation in the country. Who would have ever imagined that following one of the largest oil spills in the world, caused by a clearly drunken Captain, over 18 years would pass without one penny in punitive damages being paid to those so greatly damaged by the spill.
From a practical standpoint, many damaged by the spill believe that Exxon has already prevailed because they’ve literally worn people out. Following the environmental disasters, numerous people were forced into bankruptcy. Since the spill, numerous others have died, leaving their heirs to seek recompense. Even some of the most prominent lawyers involved in the litigation (Melvin M. Belli, Sr., Jerry Cohen, Leonard Ring, Richard Gerry, among others), have since passed away. Though bittersweet, perhaps this tragic litigation is finally nearing completion.
From a legal perspective, there is much to be said about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals December 22, 2006, opinion. Was the award of $4.5 billion “grossly excessive”? After a defendant displays egregious, reprehensible, conduct sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages, should conduct taken by defendant thereafter serve to reduce a jury’s punitive damage award? Perhaps these questions would be best answered through the analysis of cases other than the Exxon Valdez litigation. But, whether one agrees with Judge Schroeder’s analysis, or not, surely everyone agrees with her comment, “It is time for this protracted litigation to end.”
Unfortunately, with the United States Supreme Court’s grant of Exxon’s Writ, the saga is guaranteed to continue, and potentially with significant consequence to the victims of this avoidable tragedy. The Scarlett Law Group are National Trial Lawyers based in San Francisco, California with outstanding results in cases involving automobile accidents,airplane crashes,traumatic brain and, environmental disasters
http://archivex-ht.com/articles/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/
http://www.articleaddict.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/19593
http://www.articleadventure.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/128422

http://graciousgeek.com/articledetail.php?artid=9799&catid=9

http://www.series-of-articles.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/11193

http://www.articlemetropolis.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/155947

http://www.webiar.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/186614
http://www.articleated.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/15132
http://www.articledirectory.com/Art/126849/11/Environmental-Disaster-Law.html
http://www.myarticlesdirectory.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/70260
http://www.gardenepic.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/75906
http://qualityfreearticles.com/articledetail.php?artid=69412&catid=9
http://www.itempad.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/42987
http://misterarticle.com/articledetail.php?artid=57094&catid=309

http://www.thearticleboard.com/articles/47604/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law/Page1.html
http://www.articleus.com/articles/1030/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law/Page1.html
http://www.tntarticles.com/business/environmental-disaster-law.html
http://dynamicarticle.org/business/environmental-disaster-law.html
http://www.guidemegreen.com/articles/article-detail.html?aID=1368
http://www.pacificarticles.com/articles/9257/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law/Environmental-Disaster-Law.html
http://www.articlesrevenue.com/articles/1465/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law/Page1.html
http://www.bluewaterarticles.com/business/environmental-disaster-law.html

http://www.articlesdirectory.in/articles/109085/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law/Page1.html
http://sqsv.com/business/environmental-disaster-law.html
http://www.arucc2006.com/?a=articles&p=1813
http://www.articlebasement.com/articles/55905/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law/Page1.html
http://www.articleplanets.com/articles/56381/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law/Page1.html
http://articlebots.com/node/2365
http://www.businesscurrents.net/articles/3860/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law

http://www.pandoras-archive.com/articles/2943/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law
http://www.freeblogarticles.com/my_articles/
http://articlecity.com.au/Business/environmental-disaster-law.html
http://articlecue.com/articledetail.php?artid=110241&catid=9
http://www.articledepot.net/articles/12819/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law
http://www.articlesplash.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/93175
http://content-edge.com/articledetail.php?artid=64716&catid=9
http://www.myfreearticlecentral.com/Article_13914_Environmental-Disaster-Law.aspx

What You Need to Know in a Truck Accident

admin — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:11:16 +0000

When you find yourself involved in a truck accident, there are a lot of things truck accident lawyers in Las Vegas can tell you about the what needs to be done for your case and what your odds are of winning the case in which you find yourself. The truck accident lawyers in our Las Vegas office know what strategies to use and what events can be exempted from litigation in relation to these cases. This is why it is imperative that you get the best truck accident lawyers in Las Vegas when you need legal help in the matter. They will know what to do to get you the kind of help you need after you find yourself or a family member or close friend in such a situation as a truck accident.

Since truck accidents are some of the most dangerous accidents that can happen on the road, truck drivers are often carefully chosen by companies to handle their trucking needs. When a truck accident occurs, it is usually the result of negligence or carelessness and therefore needs to be taken to court. This is what truck accident lawyers in Las Vegas often try to prove, the liability of the truck driver when it comes to the accident. However, there are certain exemptions that need to be taken out of the equation and these are often the ways that the trucks themselves operate.

Some of the possible reasons when a truck driver can be absolved of any wrongdoing are when the vehicle in question itself is faulty or when the road is in a condition that is conducive to accidents happening. This is often evident when a truck jackknifes or slips when it turns due to the road conditions. If it can be proven that the truck was involved in the accident due to the road conditions and not because of negligence or because of a faulty vehicle, the driver and the company that owns the truck and even the company that manufactured the truck is not responsible of any wrongdoing. Reasons why a truck can jackknife or cause a turning accident is often ascertained before a case is taken to court by experienced truck accident lawyers in Las Vegas. Proving that the accident is indeed the fault of the driver in question is one thing that good truck accident lawyers are adept at.

Even if the trucking company or driver is not at fault, the municipal authority in charge of the roads may be. In any accident, there are a variety of factors to consider.

Skilled truck accident lawyers in Las Vegas also know how to get to the truth of the matter and what their clients are truly entitled to. This means that these skilled lawyers can often get the kind of justice and compensation that those who are involved in the accident should rightfully get. This is why people in truck accidents in Las Vegas need to obtain lawyers who are well versed in the ways of the law and those who also know the many different loopholes in such cases.

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Disaster

admin — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:09:19 +0000

While passing through fishing grounds, Hazelwood took the Exxon Valdez outside established shipping lanes to avoid ice. He put the vessel on automatic pilot, accelerating at Bligh Reef. Hazelwood then left the bridge in violation of Federal Pilotage Regulations. As he went below, Hazelwood gave vague instructions to the inexperienced and fatigued Cousins. Within minutes, the supertanker struck Bligh Reef, spilling 11,000,000 gallons of oil, thereby causing the largest oil spill and greatest environmental disaster at that time experienced in American history.

Following the grounding, lawsuits were filed in Alaska State and Federal Court on behalf of approximately 45,000 individuals, businesses, native corporations and local governments, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. Most of the state court actions were ultimately removed to federal court. The Federal District Court carefully managed this litigation. It entered hundreds of orders, and the discovery master entered hundreds more. The trial plan provided for four separate phases of trial. The first three phases were to be tried to a single jury of 12 (rather than the customary six), with a unanimous verdict required. Trial proceeded as follows:

1. Phase 1 and began on May 9, 1994, 5 years after the spill, and ended on June 6, 1994. A week later, on June 13, 1994, the jury returned a verdict that both Exxon and Hazelwood had been reckless.

2. Phase IIA went to trial in June 20, 1994, to determine the lost harvest, loss price and permit valuation claims in the Prince William Sound, Kodiak, Cook Inlet, and Chignik salmon and herring fisheries. After deliberating a month (from July 11, 1994 to August 11, 1994), the jury awarded hundreds of millions in compensatory damages on these claims.

3. Phase III was tried between August 22, 1994 and August 29, 1994. In this phase, the jury was asked to decide whether Exxon and/or Hazelwood should be assessed punitive damages, and if so, in what amount. The jury returned its verdict on September 16, 1994, awarding punitive damages against Exxon in the amount of $5 billion and against and Hazelwood in the amount of $5,000.

The compensatory damage claims of all other plaintiffs, not earlier decided in Phase II of the trial, were to have been decided in Phase IV. Phase IV settled before trial, in mid-1996.

Exxon and Hazelwood filed countless post-trial motions. These motions resulted in the District Court issuing approximately 250 pages of rulings. Due to this delay, final judgment was not entered until September 24, 1996. An Amended Judgment was ultimately issued on January 30, 1997.

Appeals and cross appeals next ensued. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its first decision on November 7, 2001. In essence, the court remanded the case to the trial judge, requesting that Judge Holland evaluate the appropriate amount of punitive damages in light of United States Supreme Court decisions, BMW and Cooper. (It should be noted that neither of these Supreme Court decisions existed at the time of the trial of the Exxon Valdez litigation.)

Ultimately, Judge Holland reluctantly reduced the jury’s punitive damage award from $5 billion to $4.5 billion. Judge Holland went on to note that interest on the judgment itself would be somewhere in the range of approximately $2.5 billion. Exxon appealed again.

On Friday, December 22, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals again issued decision, reducing the punitive damage award against Exxon from $4.5 billion to $2.5 billion. Exxon immediately sought en banc rehearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 23, 2007, rehearing was denied. This left Exxon with the option of a writ to the United States Supreme Court, which it did.

Incredibly, on October 29, 2007, the United States Supreme Court granted Exxon’s Writ, and has agreed to decide the propriety of the revised judgment. The case will likely be argued in during spring, 2008. One Justice, Samuel Alito, recused himself due to ownership of between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock.

Clearly, this is one of the oldest pieces of litigation in the country. Who would have ever imagined that following one of the largest oil spills in the world, caused by a clearly drunken Captain, over 18 years would pass without one penny in punitive damages being paid to those so greatly damaged by the spill.

From a practical standpoint, many damaged by the spill believe that Exxon has already prevailed because they’ve literally worn people out. Following the spill, numerous people were forced into bankruptcy. Since the spill, numerous others have died, leaving their heirs to seek recompense. Even some of the most prominent lawyers involved in the litigation (Melvin M. Belli, Sr., Jerry Cohen, Leonard Ring, Richard Gerry, among others), have since passed away. Though bittersweet, perhaps this tragic litigation is finally nearing completion.

From a legal perspective, there is much to be said about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals December 22, 2006, opinion. Was the award of $4.5 billion “grossly excessive”? After a defendant displays egregious, reprehensible, conduct sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages, should conduct taken by defendant thereafter serve to reduce a jury’s punitive damage award? Perhaps these questions would be best answered through the analysis of cases other than the Exxon Valdez litigation. But, whether one agrees with Judge Schroeder’s analysis, or not, surely everyone agrees with her comment, “It is time for this protracted litigation to end.”

Unfortunately, with the United States Supreme Court’s grant of Exxon’s Writ, the saga is guaranteed to continue, and potentially with significant consequence to the victims of this avoidable tragedy.

Randy Scarlett is a trial lawyer based in San Francisco, CA specializing in traumatic brain injury and mass torts.