October Term 2007 · Docket 07-219

Can a shipowner limit punitive damages for an employee's reckless spill?

Exxon seeks a cap on punitive damages for the Valdez spill. Baker argues maritime law allows full compensation for reckless conduct.

Official caption
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Dellinger argued the spill was a historic environmental tragedy.

    Fisher argued the lower court rulings align with mainstream tort law.

    Dellinger denied Exxon expected or approved the specific reckless act.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether maritime law limits punitive damages for corporate negligence. Exxon argues a one-year cap applies. Baker argues full compensation is required for reckless acts.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 27, 2008.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Exxon wants a cap on punitive damages for employee negligence.

Baker wants full punitive damages for reckless corporate conduct.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Exxon argues maritime law limits punitive damages to one year's wages.

Baker argues general tort law allows full compensation for recklessness.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Souter questioned why maritime rules differ from other industries.

Justice Kennedy asked if a captain leaving despite weather is managerial.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the financial risk for corporate negligence in shipping. It sets the standard for compensating victims of environmental disasters. It balances corporate liability against employee misconduct.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON