Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Minton
737 S.E.2d 16
Va.2013Background
- Minton worked at the Newport News Shipyard (1956–1993) with Exxon vessels repaired there, exposed to asbestos present on ships.
- In 2009 Minton was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma; he sued Exxon under the LHWCA for failure to warn and protect him from asbestos hazards.
- Jury awarded $12,000,000 in compensatory damages and $12,500,000 in punitive damages, later reduced to $5,000,000; post-trial motions denied except punitive reduction.
- Exxon challenged: sufficiency of evidence on Exxon’s duty (active control and duty to intervene), causation, and exclusion of Shipyard-knowledge evidence; punitive-damages theory under LHWCA.
- Court held: evidence supported active-control and duty-to-intervene duties; turnover duty waived; excluded Shipyard-knowledge evidence was error; punitive damages improperly awarded under the LHWCA.
- Remand for proceedings consistent with opinion; punitive-damages award reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Exxon breach Scindia duties (active control) | Exxon actively controlled repair work and asbestos-involved areas. | Exxon had only general oversight, not control of methods/operations. | Yes; evidence supported active-control duty. |
| Did Exxon breach the duty to intervene | Exxon knew of hazards and that Shipyard could not safely remediate; should have intervened. | Shipyard could be relied upon to protect workers; Exxon had no duty to overrule shipyard judgments. | Yes; evidence supported duty to intervene and breach. |
| Was turnover duty waived and not preserved at trial | Turnover duty applied to hidden dangers at start of operations. | Turnover duty was not argued and thus withdrawn at trial. | Turnover duty waived. |
| Whether exclusion of Shipyard-knowledge evidence was reversible error | Shipyard knowledge/policies were relevant to Exxon's duty to intervene. | Evidence focused on Shipyard’s own immunity and not relevant to Exxon’s duty. | Error to exclude; remand necessary to determine impact on verdict. |
| Punitive damages under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) | Punitive damages are available under general maritime law and § 905(b) is silent on them. | § 905(b) exclusive remedies preclude punitive damages as a matter of law. | Punitive damages precluded under § 905(b) as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981) (established turnover, active control, and duty to intervene)
- Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., S.A., 512 U.S. 92 (1994) (reiterates Scindia duties and interplays among them)
- Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U.S. 256 (1979) (indivisible injury approach under maritime negligence in LHWCA context)
- Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (punitive damages available in maritime law absent statutory departure)
- Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (referencedidemonstrating punitive-damages framework in maritime law)
- Lormand v. Superior Oil Co., 845 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1987) (substantial-factor causation framework in maritime context)