According to recent reports, the Labor Department is racing to complete and implement a new rule that was opposed by President-elect Barack Obama regarding benzene emissions. The new rule would supposedly make it harder for the government to regulate toxic substances to which employees are exposed to while on the job.

The rule is reportedly being strongly supported by business groups and states that in assessing how risky certain substances are to the workplace, federal agencies should gather and analyze evidence of the employees’ exposure during their working lives. In many cases, the proposal would add a step to the process of developing higher standards in regards to protecting the health of workers.

Benzene Rule Details

Public health officials worry that the rule will only delay much needed protections for workers across the country, which could ultimately result in more deaths and illnesses.  The Labor Department proposal is reportedly one of 20 highly debatable rules that the Bush Administration is trying to pass during his last weeks in office. The other rules cover a wide array of topics from abortion, to auto safety and the environment.
The one regarding benzene emissions at workplaces across the country is of importance due to the harm that benzene can cause to anyone exposed over an extended duration of time. Benzene is a toxic chemical that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers. It is typically used in gasoline, dyes, synthetic rubbers, and cigarettes. If this rule is passed and workers across the country aren’t protected from benzene and other toxic chemicals, more and more people could die and become ill from diseases linked to these substances.

Is it any surprise that all across Alaska plaintiffs are reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision reducing the punitive damages from the Exxon Valdez accident to about 500 million dollars for all plaintiffs to share? Lives and businesses were destroyed and plaintiffs get practically nothing.

Andrew Wills lost his fishing business when the herring population was destroyed. He borrowed money and opened a bed & breakfast, bookshop and cafe. He had looked forward to his share of the settlement which he thought would be $85, 000. He would pay off some debt.

“This decision is a giant cold slap in the face,” said Garland Blanchard, 59, a third-generation fisherman who said he lost his marriage along with his two fishing boats, house, cat and dog to financial pressures caused by the spill. Mr. Blanchard expects to receive less than $100,000 from the settlement, down from the $1.2 million he had previously expected.

“Our lives and businesses have been destroyed, and we get basically nothing,” he said. “It’s pathetic.”

Alicia Jensen of Cordova owns the Killer Whale Cafe in Cordova and says that the spill and legal battles have dominated conversations for over two decades. She said, “This has been the primary focus of this town for most of my life. I’m glad that its over, and everybody can get on with our lives.”

On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-3 vote, slashed a punitive punishments award against Exxon Mobil from two and a half billion dollars to about 500 million dollars. It is no surprise that this decision was applauded by business and decried by Alaskans and environmentalists.

This means that victims of the spill who filed a claim may expect to collect an average of $15, 000 each. Under the 2.5 billion dollar judgement they would have collected an average of $75,000 each.

Osa Schultz of Cordova, Alaska, said she was “pretty disappointed” with the amount of the settlement. “On the other hand, I’m relieved they slapped Exxon in the face,” Schultz said, adding that a $15,000 award wouldn’t even begin to cover the losses to her and her husband’s gillnet fishing business.

Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, $507.5 million, an amount equal to about four days worth of Exxon Mobil Corp.’s profits last quarter.

In an opinion dissenting from the Souter decision, Justice John Paul Stevens endorsed the $2.5 billion figure for punitive damages, pointing out that Congress has chosen not to impose restrictions in such circumstances.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented, saying the court was engaging in “lawmaking” by concluding that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses.

Exxon has been fighting to reduce or erase the punitive damages verdict by an Alaskan jury, a verdict reached because of the crash of the Exxon Valdez super tanker in 1989. That crash dumped eleven million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound fouling 1200 miles of coastline and leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of seabirds and other marine animals.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that a woman who saw her mother die in a car crash can sue the other driver for negligently inflicting emotional distress.

In many states you cannot claim emotional distress as your only injury.  In some states you also have to prove in a car accident lawsuit that  you witnessed the accident or were within some “zone of danger” in order to claim emotional distress.  This decision appears to expand the types of damages that you can claim in a New Jersey Auto Accident case.

The 4-3 decision released Tuesday said such a claim can be made despite the state’s so-called “verbal threshold” for auto insurance, which generally allows victims to only sue for physical injuries.

The insurance industry criticized the ruling, charging it threatens efforts at reducing insurance rates.

The daughter was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression after the car she and her mother were in was rear-ended in 2000. The daughter got more than $500,000 for wrongful death and survivorship claims, but a judge dismissed the emotional distress claim.

The Supreme Court decision reinstates that claim.