Why does Exxon need to be assessed punitive damages? Is there any reason to think that Exxon didn't have enough incentive to do whatever they could to prevent a spill?
I would say having a known drunk piloting the vessel would count as evidence that there wasn't enough incentive to get Exxon to be careful about this.
I'm confused as to people believing that the individual's negligence shouldn't count towards the corporation. How exactly does a corporation do anything except through individual employees??? It's not a real person; 100 percent of whatever a corporation does, it does through real people. So why would tortious acts not be imputed to the corporation when profitable ones are?
Usually people argue for punitive damages only in cases of conduct that goes beyond negligent-like, say, having someone who was known to be habitually drunk on the job piloting an oil tanker.
I think cutting down the punitive damages was fair in this case, though-but certainly I can see why they were assessed.