We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
ARE WE SAILING IN OCCUPIED WATERS?: RETHINKING THE AVAILABILITY OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990.
- Authors
Hume, Lauren E.
- Abstract
Litigants' briefs in the myriad cases arising from the Deepwater Horizon explosion raise questions about the extent to which the Oil Pollution Act's two savings clauses preserve additional remedies, such as punitive damages. A large number of comprehensive federal frameworks include savings clauses that anticipate supplementing the statute with additional federal or state law. When these clauses are ambiguous, the statute and precedent may not suffice to resolve the ambiguity. This Note explores how economic policy, specifically optimal deterrence theory, may be used to resolve whether the Oil Pollution Act's ambiguous maritime savings clause preserves or precludes maritime punitive damages. Optimal deterrence theory bolsters the Supreme Court's recent repeated affirmances of using maritime punitive damages to supplement federal statutes, providing a firmer justification for the argument that two lower courts wrongly held that the Act precludes the maritime damages for oil spill injuries. Having resolved the ambiguity caused by the interaction between maritime punitive damages and the Oil Pollution Act with optimal deterrence theory, I conclude by proposing a framework that courts could use to determine when and how to award maritime punitive damages for oil spill injuries in particular cases, integrating the common law remedy with the statutory scheme.
- Subjects
UNITED States; BP Deepwater Horizon Explosion &; Oil Spill, 2010; ENVIRONMENTAL law; MARITIME law; OIL spill laws; EXEMPLARY damages; LEGAL remedies
- Publication
New York University Law Review, 2011, Vol 86, Issue 5, p1444
- ISSN
0028-7881
- Publication type
Article