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

By: PointOfLaw Forum

PointOfLaw Forum — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:45:13 +0000

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…

By: Overlawyered

Overlawyered — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:48:55 +0000

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)….

By: Overlawyered

Overlawyered — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:50:22 +0000

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…

By: Ironchef

Ironchef — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:58:02 +0000

Funniest comment ever, Moe.

The “real issue”, was a bomb.

By: Moe Levine

Moe Levine — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:55:21 +0000

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.

By: Overlawyered

Overlawyered — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:57:28 +0000

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…

By: Declarations and Exclusions

Declarations and Exclusions — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:22:47 +0000

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,…

By: Overlawyered

Overlawyered — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:38:04 +0000

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…

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 09:32:30 +0000

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.