Posted on 12/14/2005 7:14:35 AM PST by Valin
The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was the most destructive terrorist attack on U.S. soil up until that time. Planted in a rental van, a 1,500-pound, urea-nitrate bomb exploded in the parking garage beneath the World Trade Center complex, creating a crater 200 feet across and seven stories deep.
The blast killed six people, injured nearly 1,000, and caused hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage and business interruptions. It could have been worse. “If the van had been parked a few feet closer to one of the pillars,” writes James Bovard, a policy analyst for The Future of Freedom Foundation, “it could have collapsed an entire tower of the Trade Center, killing tens of thousands.”
In fact, the terrorists’ plan was designed to topple New York City's tallest tower onto its twin, creating maximum havoc during a busy workday with perhaps as many as 50,000 people being killed and a cloud of cyanide gas chasing the survivors through the streets of Manhattan.
Now, after a dozen years of legal maneuvering, a jury in the state Supreme Court of New York has taken the terrorists off the hook for the majority of the blame in their 1993 attack. On October 26, unanimously, the jury said the guys who carried out the bombing were only 32 percent responsible for the damages.
The majority wrongdoer, 68 percent at fault for the death and destruction, said the jury, was the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the then-owner of the World Trade Center. This means that the party with the deepest pockets—also known as the taxpayers of New York and New Jersey—will be picking up the tab for most of the losses.
On the day of the 1993 blast, Mario Cuomo, New York's governor at the time, told journalists: “We all have that feeling of being violated. No foreign people or force has ever done this to us. Until now, we were invulnerable.”
Today, playing Monday-morning quarterback more than a decade after the attack, the New York jury has said the Port Authority “should have known” an attack was coming, even if, as Cuomo said, nothing like that had ever happened before. Further, the Port Authority “should have known” to shut down the garage to the public, and to its upstairs tenants, even if, as Cuomo said, no one had felt vulnerable before to a foreign force in the center of Manhattan.
Because the jury apportioned more than half the liability to the Port Authority, the plaintiffs’ principal lawyer, David Dean, said the agency will have to pay 100 percent of any damages for pain and suffering that might be awarded—so-called non-economic damages—as well as 100 percent of any economic damages, such as lost business. As it currently stands, explained Dean, lawyers for the plaintiffs are seeking an estimated $1.8 billion in alleged damages.
Being perfectly efficient, of course, the managers of the Port Authority could have been flawless fortunetellers—better than the CIA, NSA, and FBI—and closed the garage. But then the terrorists might have gone the route of exploding anthrax bombs in the lobby, or crashing jets into the upper floors.
Ralph Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh. He is a regular columnist for The American Enterprise Online.
Stupidity of massive proportions. Did they import these jurors from L.A.?
This sounds more like a California jury.
And where do you find lawyers so cynical and disrespectful of truth to make this kind of case?
It's pathetic isn't it? remember the phrase, "caught red-handed"? Well, that doesn't matter anymore. Now every killer is really just a victim him/herself, and there is always a corporation/city council/small business owner that could have done something more or less that would have kept the killer from going to that extreme.
I am certain that I will see civil war in the U.S. in my lifetime, and that it will start with "targeted assassinations" of people like these lawyers and jurors.
In this case, voters who are, for example, represented in the United States Senate by Chuck "the Schmuck" Schumer, and Her Heinous the Hildebeeste.
That's okay. We'll only shoot them with 32 percent of a bullet.
And where do you find lawyers so cynical and disrespectful of truth to make this kind of case?
__________
The Yellow Pages.
It is very difficult to have good juries. Most people who serve on juries,for protracted cases, have nothing better to do. So it follows that the people on the jury do represent an accurate cross-section of the population.
Actually, they have their own commercials on t.v. really late at night. Here's a good rule of thumb; if the lawyer has a commercial, then he/she need business more than you need a lawyer.
Guys who want money and power over principle. The Port Authority needed to be found responsible because they are the only ones with accessible deep pockets.
You are probably right. Problem is, I'm behind enemy lines.
"Stupidity of massive proportions. Did they import these jurors from L.A.?"
Not stupidity, greed. People were hurt. They deserve to get money for their hurt. The terrorists obviously can't pay anything. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey obviously has a lot of "free money" and/or insurance, so the jury decided it was more at fault so it would have to pay. Common sense means nothing between a party with deep pockets versus a party with shallow or nonexistent pockets. Keep in mind the attorneys would have pressed this argument very strongly because their own fees come from the deep pockets they can hold accountable.
These jurors obviously decided that the Port Authority and/or their insurace companies can just rev up the printing press whenever a large judgment is awarded. Too many of these cases are treated by the jury like a chance to award lottery proceeds to a deserving party. Likely to be overturned on appeal.
"I am certain that I will see civil war in the U.S. in my lifetime, and that it will start with "targeted assassinations" of people like these lawyers and jurors."
Target an Anti-Bush rally in DC and you take care of 90% of the problems plaguing this country. You can fix the other 10% by taking Teddy for a car ride.
At the dog run.
Anyone here ever read "The Onion Field" or see the movie. This case was in the California Court System for nearly a decade, during the 60's. There is one portion of the book and film, where during one of the trials, the lawyer for the criminal stands before the judge and makes outragous claims against the prosecution - "Judge, I move for a mistrail because the prosecutor just looked and me and called me a C***S***er." It was jaw-dropping then but seems common place now!
Oh, I believe it.
I have been preparing for it, aprt of me is welcoming it to cleanse our pallette so to speak. I think it is just a matter of a couple of decades if not sooner before it starts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.