Jury Selection to Begin in Lawsuit Over 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill : Courts: About 14,000 plaintiffs seek punitive, compensatory damages from the huge firm.

After five years, several failed fish harvests, a huge wildlife death toll and discovery of what government scientists say are chronic and genetic injuries to marine life, the case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill is going to trial.

Jury selection is scheduled to start today in U.S. District Court in the case of about 14,000 commercial fishermen, Alaska natives, property owners and others suing Exxon Corp. over the 1989 spill.

The trial will consider Exxon’s responsibility for paying compensation and punitive damages for the 11-million-gallon disaster, one of the most deadly to wildlife. The trial is expected to last four months.

That this case against a huge multinational corporation has even made it to a courtroom is remarkable, said Brian O’Neill, chief plaintiff trial attorney.

“The question here is whether one of the biggest institutions in the world, including many countries, will be held accountable for its actions,” O’Neill said.

“These guys never go to trial. These guys are so big that they usually grind plaintiffs into the ground. And they certainly tried that here.”

Exxon has portrayed itself as a good corporate citizen that has already accepted responsibility for the accident. It spent more than $2 billion for the cleanup and promised $1.03 billion over 10 years in natural resource compensatory damages under a 1991 settlement with the U.S. and Alaska governments.

On June 6, a smaller case filed by a coalition of municipalities and Alaska native corporations will be tried concurrently in state Superior Court. That trial, to consider only compensatory claims, is expected to last five weeks, plaintiff liaison attorney Dave Oesting said.

Both trials are expected to concentrate on a duel of scientists with opposing pictures of the affected ecosystem.

“The jury will hear two completely different stories. Establishing a strictly scientific link between the spill and the damages is variable,” said Bob Spies, chief scientist for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the panel that manages the governments’ spill settlement.

Of special concern are Prince William Sound fisheries. Pink salmon returns there collapsed in 1992 and 1993, and a poor return is forecast for this summer. Sparse and diseased herring runs ruined spring harvests last year and this year.

Angry fishermen last summer staged a three-day blockade of the trans-Alaska pipeline’s terminal in Valdez. The protest was ended through negotiations by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.

Exxon, pointing to a record salmon run in 1990 and a large 1991 run, has said the sound’s fishery troubles are unrelated to the spill.

“It just doesn’t seem fair that Exxon should be held accountable for these current hardships when they’re not connected to the spill and are more likely resulting from any number of factors that aren’t related to the spill in any way,” company spokesman Dennis Stanczuk said.

Exxon has maintained that the spill-struck areas have fully healed.

“Prince William Sound has seen a remarkable recovery,” Exxon Chairman Lee Raymond told reporters at the company’s annual meeting last week.

Plaintiff attorneys are seeking about $3 billion in compensatory damages.

A plaintiff-hired expert said that punitive damages--which may depend on proof that recklessness contributed to the Exxon Valdez grounding--must be at least $6 billion to $10 billion to adequately punish Exxon.

U.S. District Court Judge Russel Holland, who will preside over the trial, has disqualified that expert’s testimony.

Exxon has compiled other pretrial victories limiting the number of plaintiffs and their claims.

Holland dismissed the claims of tourism business operators and about 1,000 cannery workers and fish wholesalers who said the spill’s ripple effects hurt them economically.

He dismissed the claims of sport fishermen, environmentalists and others seeking compensation for loss of enjoyment in the spill-polluted marine areas.

He also dismissed claims filed by fishermen for lost fishing-permit values, which have been halved since the spill, and those filed by some 4,000 Alaska natives for non-economic losses to their traditional “subsistence” lifestyle, which is based on gathering fish and wildlife from the sea.