My recollection is that:
Hazelwood’s blood test was ruled inadmissible at trial (there were chain of custody and timing of the test problems) and the jury found him not guilty on the “operating-a-tanker-while-under-the-influence” charge. He was only convicted of misdemeanor “negligent discharge of oil.”
The defense presented a number of Masters in the Valdez tanker trader who all testified at trial that once beyond Valdez Narrows, it was permissible for a Master to leave the bridge to the Mate on watch. However, on cross examination they all admitted that none of them had ever done it.
Hazelwood knew, or should have known, that Cousins was debilitated by fatigue after many hours on duty loading the ship, and not fit to stand his watch. Cousins was not drunk, and had not engaged in any misconduct, but he was apparently just too tired to do it properly.
When Hazelwood left the bridge, the ship was intentionally headed off course toward the inbound traffic lane (and toward Bligh Reef) to avoid ice coming off the Columbia Glacier that was in the outbound lane. Hazelwood left Cousins with instructions to turn back to the original course once the ice was cleared and proceed outbound in the inbound lane. For whatever reason, Cousins failed to make the turn and steamed right up onto Bligh Reef. The rest is history. The only thing we are missing is another song from Gordon Lightfoot.
If we ignore for a moment whether or not Hazelwood was drunk (which was never proven), it was obviously a huge blunder on Hazelwood’s part to leave an exhausted Cousins in control on the bridge to dodge ice and make a critical turn back to the proper course once he cleared the ice — without supervision and assistance.
With in a couple of years Cousins was sailing as a Mate again, and for all I know he is probably sailing as Master somewhere by now. I have never heard any evidence to suggest that Cousins was not a competent mate. To the contrary, I heard that he was quite competent. I have never heard any logical explanation for Cousins failure to change course after clearing the ice, except fatigue or that he nodded off on his feet.
With the benefit of hindsight it seems to me that Hazelwood was clearly at fault for failing to be well rested and alert himself on the bridge to supervise Cousins ice avoidance and a timely critical course change.
The jury found that Exxon was reckless because they knew of Hazelwood’s drinking problems and failed to properly supervise him. I cannot recall what the jury might have said about Exxon routinely requiring their mates to work unreasonably long hours before sailing. But in my view, Exxon was also at fault for failing to provide enough tankermen to at least allow the mate going on the first sea watch to be properly rested.