Personal Injury Law

: The Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

Port Authority Liable in 1993 WTC Attack

In 1984, the Port Authority's executive director, Peter Goldmark, asked Scotland Yard to assess security at the World Trade Center complex. Scotland Yard's assessment was that they were "appalled" that there was public underground parking at the complex. The following year, Charles Schnabolk, an outside engineering consultant, stated in a report that an attempt to bomb the Towers was not only possible, but probable. His report also stated that the parking lot was highly vulnerable. Later in 1985, the Office of Special Planning, a Port Authority study group, laid out a scenario that was close to the actual 1993 bombing: "a time bomb-laden vehicle could be driven into the WTC and parked in the public parking area."

The Port Authority read all the warnings, may have seen the writing on the wall, and yet chose not to close the parking structure because "banning public parking in the underground lot?would be an unacceptable inconvenience and loss of revenue." The 1993 bombing showed how just inconvenienced the citizens of New York might become.

Verdict

Yesterday, a New York state court of appeals ruled that because the Port Authority chose to ignore a potentially catastrophic scenario, one that was "open and obvious to any terrorist who cared to investigate and exploit it," they were mostly liable for the attack that killed six and injured 1000. While the court found the Port Authority 68 percent liable, and the terrorists who carried out the bombing 32 percent liable. This stems from a 2005 ruling, which the Port Authority appealed, calling the ruling "egregiously incorrect," as well as "bizarre."

The five judge panel said that while the jury found the acts of the terrorists "obviously odious in the extreme," the Port Authority let the bombing happen by contributing to the conditions. The court also said that the Port Authority should have realized the risk, and that the terrorists were able to complete their mission "without meeting a scintilla of resistance." Furthermore, the Port Authority's income at the time of the bombing was around $100 million, and that the net financial loss from closing the parking structure would have been small. Chastising the Port Authority further, the judges said that had they even met the minimal standard of security, as the Port Authority argued was their only obligation, they failed in this respect.

Damages for the survivors and families of those killed in the bombing have not yet been determined. However, out of 575 original lawsuits, only 50 have been resolved. One of the reasons is that, because the federal government did not create a fund to compensate victims, as it did after 9/11, the families of the first bombing have waited 15 years without a damages trial.

This ruling may have some legal ramifications for those families who held out and did not take federal compensation in 2001 for their loss. They have sued the airlines and airport security companies for failing to protect the airplanes from hijackers.

If you have been injured, or lost a loved one in one of the terrorist attacks in this country, please contact an experienced injury lawyer in your area.

Full post as published by The Personal Injury Lawyer Directory on April 30, 2008 (boomark / email).