Connection lost
Server error
EXXON SHIPPING CO. v. BAKER Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Supreme Court, exercising its federal maritime common law authority, found a $2.5 billion punitive damages award excessive. It established a 1:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages as the presumptive upper limit in such cases.
Legal Significance: Established a 1:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages as a federal common law guidepost for maritime cases involving reckless conduct and substantial compensatory damages, marking a significant judicial move to rein in unpredictable punitive awards outside the constitutional due process context.
EXXON SHIPPING CO. v. BAKER Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The supertanker Exxon Valdez, captained by Joseph Hazelwood, ran aground and spilled millions of gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound, causing extensive economic and environmental damage. Exxon Shipping Co. knew Hazelwood was a relapsed alcoholic but allowed him to command the vessel. On the night of the spill, Hazelwood consumed a significant amount of alcohol before boarding, and at a critical navigational point, he left the bridge, placing an unlicensed third mate in control. A jury found Exxon’s conduct reckless and awarded $5 billion in punitive damages against the company. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed and ultimately remitted the award to $2.5 billion. The total compensatory damages for the relevant class of plaintiffs were calculated to be approximately $507.5 million. Exxon challenged the remitted punitive award as excessive under federal maritime law, bringing the case to the Supreme Court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Was the $2.5 billion punitive damages award against a corporate defendant for reckless conduct excessive as a matter of federal maritime common law?
Yes. The $2.5 billion punitive damages award was excessive under federal maritime Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerc
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Was the $2.5 billion punitive damages award against a corporate defendant for reckless conduct excessive as a matter of federal maritime common law?
Conclusion
This case establishes a significant federal common law precedent by imposing a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exe
Legal Rule
Under federal maritime common law, punitive damages in cases involving reckless but Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court exercised its common law authority over maritime cases to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nos
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Court was equally divided on whether a corporation is vicariously