« Miers Withdraws Nomination | Main | America is Oil Hungry? »
Port Authority Mostly to Blame for WTC Bombing
According to a truly twisted finding of a New York jury, liability for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center is 68% attributable to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the owner of the property).
The terrorist act that killed 6 and injured more than 1,000 was previously perceived to be nearly entirely the responsibility of Ramzi Yousef (who was duly convicted in 1997 and is now serving a 240 year sentence for masterminding the attack and planting the explosives) and several of his terrorist cohorts (also convicted for their roles in the attack).
But as it turns out, in failing to better secure the site's garage facilities upon reports of the site's appeal as a terrorism target, it was the Port Authority that was mainly to blame.
"This was an extraordinary victory, and we're deeply grateful to the jurors,'' said David Dean, a lawyer for survivors and relatives of those who died "This case was never about blaming the terrorists. It was always about the failure of the Port Authority to respond to their own reports and to the advice of others. The garage should have been closed.''
The liability finding of greater than 50 percent allows the plaintiffs to seek full payment of damages from the Port Authority, Dean said.
A lawyer for the Port Authority said it will appeal.
"The February 26, 1993, attack on the World Trade Center was an act of terrorism for which terrorists alone are responsible,'' Marc Kasowitz, the lawyer, said after the verdict. "While the Port Authority believes in our American jury system, it believes the decision in this case was egregiously incorrect."
This decision clears the way for plaintiffs to seek monetary damages (nearly $2 billion worth) from the Port Authority. What message does this send to would-be future property developers in high-risk areas? Nothing says "rebuild" quite like $2 billion in damages.
Ignore for a moment the luxury of hindsight in finding fault for prior inaction. Let's assume the Port Authority was truly and grossly negligent in their failure to secure the garage, and further that it was a cold, calculated cost-benefit decision that guided their hand, even in the face of strong evidence of looming peril. Does that even approach an equal share in the liability for the outcome, much less 68%?
This is an unvarnished abhorrence.
Handcrafted by Flip on October 27, 2005 |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572653ef00d834271b8153ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Port Authority Mostly to Blame for WTC Bombing:
» Port Authority Found Negligent in 1993 Bombing from A Blog For All
...the jury found the Port Authority 68% liable for the bombing. In other words, the Port Authority was twice as responsible for the terrorist act as the terrorists themselves. My guess is that the jury decided that the Port Authority was the deep po... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 27, 2005 12:37:35 PM
Comments
Holy cow! I am but a stone's throw away from complete legal ignorance, but that seems so wrong to me. Let's say are only, say, 100 sites in the country with a [potential casualty] : [lack of security] ratio high enough to make it worth an attack (probably a gross underestimate). Let us further speculate that the WTC was at or near the top of the list of said ratios. Even then, it seems to me that for their liability to be as high as two-thirds, the attractiveness of the site would have to contribute more to the probability of an attack than the terrorists' actions. That seems really hard to believe, especially with so many other sites they could choose.Posted by: Garrett | Oct 28, 2005 4:32:20 PM
