First WTC bombing: terrorists 32% to blame, building owners 68%

Twelve years after the event, a jury finds someone to blame for the Islamist van-bomb attack that killed six, injured nearly 1,000, and caused costly business dislocation (Sept. 21, 2005, Dec. 5, 2004, Oct. 12-14, 2001). The culprit? The Port Authority, an agency whose losses are likely to be ultimately borne by New York and […]

Twelve years after the event, a jury finds someone to blame for the Islamist van-bomb attack that killed six, injured nearly 1,000, and caused costly business dislocation (Sept. 21, 2005, Dec. 5, 2004, Oct. 12-14, 2001). The culprit? The Port Authority, an agency whose losses are likely to be ultimately borne by New York and New Jersey taxpayers, motorists and air travelers:

The jury voted unanimously that the Port Authority [then-owner of the WTC] was negligent. It found the authority 68 percent at fault for the bombing, while the terrorists who carried it out were 32 percent at fault.

Mr. [David J.] Dean, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, said that because the jury apportioned more than half the blame to the Port Authority, the agency will have to pay 100 percent of any damages for pain and suffering, the so-called non-economic damages, that might be awarded.

Regardless of how the blame was shared, the Port Authority would have to pay 100 percent of any economic damages, like lost business, he said.

Separate legal proceedings will be used to determine actual payouts; “Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they were seeking a total of as much as $1.8 billion.” And this from Mr. Dean: “The case was never about blaming the terrorists.” Well, of course it wasn’t, from his point of view, was it? (Anemona Hartocollis, “Port Authority Found Negligent in 1993 Bombing”, New York Times, Oct. 27).

So there you have it. “What is robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?” wrote Bertolt Brecht, and now we learn that being the target of a terrorist act carries with it more than twice as much responsibility for the resulting damage as actually planting and detonating the bomb. The jury’s (and plaintiff’s lawyer’s) rationale was that security experts had warned that the use of car bombs was on the rise, and yet the PA did not take the (massively disruptive to its tenants) step of closing its enormous underground garage to the public. Inevitably, the lawyers portrayed the earlier advice as a “smoking gun”, a strategem I describe in Chapter 6 of The Litigation Explosion:

Among the favorite smoking-gun generators are memo debates or unheeded suggestions within an organization. The sought-after memo will advise the hotel to dismantle the diving board, the brokerage to go easy on the risky investment, the magazine to kill the hard-hitting investigative story, the hospital to close down the vaccination program that has attracted malpractice suits. (They knew it was wrong to go ahead!) New York City injury king Harry Lipsig’s law firm got a $1.8 million settlement for forty-six-year-old postal worker Freddie Brown, mugged and badly hurt in a housing project lobby, after they found a security specialist whose recommendations to upgrade security at the project had gone unheeded. “We couldn’t lose,” jubilated lawyer Thomas Stickel. “With that witness, we had the city by the throat.” Actually, it would be a wonder if the files of a city as intensively governed as New York did not contain unheeded recommendations by the bushelful on countless subjects.

The logic of lawyers’ search for “smoking guns” is that an organization faces one of three unattractive choices: put itself at risk for verdicts like this; implement any and all recommendations it gets from security experts, no matter that many of them will be costly and intrusive (like, say, stadium patdowns for football fans) and will guard against dangers that never would have materialized; or alternatively, arrange its affairs so that fewer safety recommendations enter its files in the first place, either by asking its experts to commit fewer ideas to paper, or just by not employing them. The New York Sun quotes me today in its coverage of the story: David Lombino, “Port Authority Is Held Liable in Bombing That Killed Six in 1993 Attack on WTC”, New York Sun, Oct. 27. More:Ann Althouse and commenters discuss the verdict, while Michael Krauss at Point of Law hopes it will be thrown out on grounds of lack of proximate cause.


  • I really am at a loss for words at the stupidity of this. I suppose the owners of buildings will have to purchase surface-to-air missile systems to prevent terrorists from crashing planes into their buildings. I’m sure there is a memo there somewhere describing the possibility.

  • Fiscal blow to Port Authority

    If the agency is indeed made to pay $1.8 billion for not preventing the first (1993) bombing, as suggested by this week’s jury verdict (Oct. 27), it could be forced “to reduce drastically its spending…

  • I, The Jury

    Judge: How does the jury find?Foreman: We find the defendants incredibly guilty. — The Producers (1968)Today, I will be putting in an appearance at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center — Los Angeles County’s central criminal courthouse,…

  • Haberman on Port Authority verdict

    New York Times columnist Clyde Haberman, on a jury’s determination last week (Oct. 27, Oct. 29) that negligent security on the part of New York’s Port Authority was more responsible for the damage from the…

  • It is always easy to win an argument with one’s self, you just leave out the real issue.

    Owners have to provide security to induce people to enter their premises. My town, St. Louis (for example) just published a survey showing that people don’t frequent the riverfront, due to a lack of security. Accordingly, society has a net gain by making owners provide security, even after considering the losses paid through risk spreading mechanisms.

    Unless one imposes liablity on owners, one is immediately faced with two problems–fraud and free riding.

    Fraud happens when owners imply to the public that a premise is safe, knowing that it is not. Obviously, a public parking garage in a building is an implied representation that the garage and building are safe to the public.

    Freeriding happens when B doesn’t provide security, hoping that it can bootstrap on the efforts of its neighbor, A, to provide security and change the reputation of a locale.

    The Port Authority’s problem was dishonesty. If it had security reviews that it was disregarding (as a public agency) it should have taken those issues up in public and found appropriate legislative solutions.

  • Funniest comment ever, Moe.

    The “real issue”, was a bomb.

  • Deep pocket files: blaming banks for terrorist attacks

    In the Middle East dispute, it’s not just the Left that files silly lawsuits (Mar. 16). A Hamas suicide bomber, Raed Abdul Hamid Misk, injured Tzvi Weiss in an August 19, 2003 attack. Weiss and…

  • New frontiers of blame-shifting

    …discussed by columnist Ralph Reiland at Point of Law. For more information on the cases, see Overlawyered Oct. 27 (first WTC bombing) and Mar. 27 (settlement for British criminal trespasser)….

  • New PoL column: “Shredding common sense”

    We’ve just posted a contribution by Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Ralph Reiland, who reflects on two of last year’s most curious news items on the subject of blame-shifting: 1) a NYC jury’s determination that the Port Authority was more responsib…