We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
THE ANSWER LIES IN ADMIRALTY: JUSTIFYING OIL SPILL PUNITIVE DAMAGES RECOVERY THROUGH ADMIRALTY LAW.
- Authors
Bush, Brittan J.
- Abstract
Oil spills, unlike other environmental disasters, often cue a certain immediacy among society for not only increased regulation but punishment exerted against the parties responsible for a spill. Within our American tort system, society's call for punishment is most clearly embodied within the realm of punitive damages recovery. However, the current federal oil spill liability regime, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), and its accompanying jurisprudence stifle the possibility of oil spill punitive damages recovery. This Comment posits legal and normative justifications in favor of punitive damages recovery for OPA as well as general maritime law causes of action arising out of an oil spill. It first refutes the reliability of the prior jurisprudence regarding the OPA's effect on punitive damages recovery. It then argues that the Clean Water Act preemption analysis from Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker as well as the Court's criticism of Miles v. Apex and Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend form a complementary argument supporting oil spill punitive damages recovery. Applying these arguments to causes of action under general maritime law as well as the OPA, this Comment concludes that punitive damages' goals of punishment and deterrence require an extension of punitive damages recovery to post OPA oil spills.
- Subjects
UNITED States; OIL spill laws; EXEMPLARY damages; MILES v. Apex Marine Corp. (Supreme Court case); ATLANTIC Sounding Co. v. Townsend (Supreme Court case); MARITIME law; PUNISHMENT in crime deterrence
- Publication
Environmental Law (Lewis & Clark Law School), 2011, Vol 41, Issue 4, p1255
- ISSN
2831-9028
- Publication type
Article