Why Exxon Committed Crimes Vs Torts

Exxon committed crimes and torts as a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The difference between a tort and crime is the outcome between the two; crimes typically seek punishment for the wrongdoings, while torts seek to compensate damages with monetary means for those affected.
Unlike crimes which seek punishment, tort is strictly monetary damages sought by the defending party. “Tort damages are monetary damages that are sought from the offending party. They are intended to compensate the injured party for the injury suffered” (Cheeseman, pg.115). “To win a tort case, the plaintiff must prove two things: (1) the defendant committed the tort and (2) as a result of the tort, the plaintiff or the plaintiff's property was injured” (The Difference
between Torts and Crimes). In this Exxon case the company did indeed commit torts. In this case the ship’s captain, Captain Hazelwood, committed an unintentional tort or negligence tort.
By Caption Hazelwood being intoxicated and then leaving the bridge enabling him not to make the call to turn the ship he committed a negligent tort. Due to his negligence the ship did not turn in time and spilled thousands of barrels of oil in the William Prince Sound in Alaska. He did not intentionally mean for the ship to spill the oil, but his negligence lead to that outcome. Exxon was found in fault of Captain Hazelwood’s torts, this meant they had to pay punitive damages to those affected by the oil spill. Many people agree that Exxon should be liable for their employees’ negligent tort to those that experiences losses due to the oil spill (Loeb & McCall, 2008). These people included fisherman and residents of the area that lost money and suffered damages due to the oil spill. “Respondents argue that the proper standard for corporate punitive liability is that of Restatement (Second) of Torts, which says, in part, that the torts of a managerial agent acting within the scope of employment can be imputed to the agent's employer. This rule properly extended to Captain Hazelwood and Exxon because Exxon had given its ship masters management authority” (Loeb & McCall, 2008). The final claim was that “Exxon was independently reckless because it
knowingly put an alcoholic in charge of a supertanker carrying dangerous cargo and had no policy to safeguard against a captain's drinking on duty” (Loeb & McCall, 2008). In this case Exxon had to pay private tort claims due to their existing knowledge of the problem that lead to the tort. The jury found Exxon and the caption acted recklessly and awarded the plaintiffs punitive damages in the sum of $5 billion from Exxon and $5,000 from the captain, although Exxon appealed and ended up paying $2.5 billion (Loeb & McCall, 2008).
Exxon committed crimes along with the tort of negligence committed by their ship’s captain.
A tort can also be a crime, but in this case the tort of negligence lead to Exxon breaking criminal statutes. A crime is defined as “a violation of a statue for which the government imposes a punishment” (Cheeseman, pg 614). The crime committed that Exxon was found in violation of was the Clean Water Act (Loeb & McCall, 2008). Exxon was found in violation of doing their due diligence to operate within the guidelines of making sure the water in which they operated were kept clean and not tainted. After the incident it was made known to the courts that Exxon had prior knowledge of the captain’s substance abuse and kept him in a role that has a high amount of safety including the potential to operate in a manner that does not cause oil spills. This knowledge was found in direct violation of Exxon taking steps they need to in order to prevent breaking statutes set forth by the government and
states.