alan
Member
Judge Allows 9/11 Suits Against Airlines
Email this Story
Sep 9, 2:14 PM (ET)
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
NEW YORK (AP) - The crashing of a hijacked jetliner was the kind of "foreseeable risk" that the airline industry should have guarded against, a judge ruled Tuesday as he permitted lawsuits related to the Sept. 11 attacks to proceed.
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said negligent security screening could have contributed to the deaths of 3,000 people in the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the crash of a hijacked plane in Pennsylvania.
"The aviation defendants controlled who came onto the planes and what was carried aboard. They had the obligation to take reasonable care in screening," he wrote.
American and United Airlines, the Boeing Co. (BA) and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had attempted to get the suits dismissed, arguing they had no duty to anticipate and guard against deliberate, suicidal aircraft crashes. The defendants also argued any alleged negligence on their part was not the cause of the deaths and injuries.
In his 49-page ruling, Hellerstein said that while it may be true that terrorists had never deliberately flown airplanes into buildings, "airlines reasonably could foresee that crashes causing death and destruction on the ground was a hazard that would arise should hijackers take control of a plane."
"The intrusion by terrorists into the cockpit, coupled with the volatility of a hijacking situation, creates a foreseeable risk that hijacked airplanes might crash, jeopardizing innocent lives on the ground as well as in the airplane," he added.
"In order to be considered foreseeable, the precise manner in which the harm was inflicted need not be perfectly predicted," Hellerstein wrote.
The judge said the evidence he had seen does not support Boeing's argument that the invasion and takeover of the cockpit by the terrorists frees it from liability. The plaintiffs argued Boeing should have designed its cockpit door to prevent hijackers from invading.
He also said the Port Authority, which owns the World Trade Center property, "has not shown that it will prove its defense of governmental immunity as to negligence allegations made by WTC occupants."
Spokesmen for the Port Authority, Boeing and the airlines did not immediately return calls seeking comment Tuesday.
Marc Moller, a lawyer who represents several hundred victims and relatives of victims, said the ruling created an opportunity that some families were concerned might not exist.
"They are important findings but they are preliminary," he said. "He has not said that the airplanes are liable. He said that that if the plaintiffs can prove their case, the airlines could be liable. The litigation risks lie ahead and they are great."
The judge noted in the ruling that he was required to view the allegations in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs at this stage of the legal process. The decision was based on the cases of about 70 of the injured and dead.
As a result of the ruling, court officials were preparing for a possible legal onslaught at the Manhattan courthouse as early as this week as some people choose lawsuits over applying to the federal victims compensation fund. To receive a payout from the fund, families must agree not to sue airlines or other entities.
Dec. 22 is the last day families may apply to the federal victims compensation fund, created by Congress to provide financial aid to the families of those killed or injured in the attacks, and to protect the commercial aviation industry from crippling litigation.
As of late August, 2,275 claims had been filed. But roughly 1,700 families had yet to decide whether to enroll with the fund or join lawsuits against the airlines, security companies and government agencies.
The average payout so far has been about $1.5 million, with the highest award $6.8 million. The minimum payout is $250,000.
The fund has made offers averaging $1.41 million to 398 families thus far. About 1,600 families have filed papers stating an interest in applying for the fund.
Posters note: I have absolutely no idea concerning where this suit will go, if it goes anywhere, however the following points remain, and have perhaps effected the District Court's ruling.
1. The pilots of the hjijacked airliners were unarmed.
2. Nothing in the law prohibited their being armed, correct me if I'm wrong.
3. Had they been armed, they MIGHT have been able to defend their aircraft, the crews and passengers from the hijackers taking control, providing at days end, an entirely different ending.
4. The unarmed state of the pilots reflects a decision taken by the airlines, in particular the management thereof.
5. While elements of fault or blame might be attributal to others, it strikes me that the enabling factor in the hijacking was, and remains the fact that the pilots had no viable means of defense, a condition derived from decisions made by the airlines and their management. There is no getting away from that.
Email this Story
Sep 9, 2:14 PM (ET)
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
NEW YORK (AP) - The crashing of a hijacked jetliner was the kind of "foreseeable risk" that the airline industry should have guarded against, a judge ruled Tuesday as he permitted lawsuits related to the Sept. 11 attacks to proceed.
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said negligent security screening could have contributed to the deaths of 3,000 people in the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the crash of a hijacked plane in Pennsylvania.
"The aviation defendants controlled who came onto the planes and what was carried aboard. They had the obligation to take reasonable care in screening," he wrote.
American and United Airlines, the Boeing Co. (BA) and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had attempted to get the suits dismissed, arguing they had no duty to anticipate and guard against deliberate, suicidal aircraft crashes. The defendants also argued any alleged negligence on their part was not the cause of the deaths and injuries.
In his 49-page ruling, Hellerstein said that while it may be true that terrorists had never deliberately flown airplanes into buildings, "airlines reasonably could foresee that crashes causing death and destruction on the ground was a hazard that would arise should hijackers take control of a plane."
"The intrusion by terrorists into the cockpit, coupled with the volatility of a hijacking situation, creates a foreseeable risk that hijacked airplanes might crash, jeopardizing innocent lives on the ground as well as in the airplane," he added.
"In order to be considered foreseeable, the precise manner in which the harm was inflicted need not be perfectly predicted," Hellerstein wrote.
The judge said the evidence he had seen does not support Boeing's argument that the invasion and takeover of the cockpit by the terrorists frees it from liability. The plaintiffs argued Boeing should have designed its cockpit door to prevent hijackers from invading.
He also said the Port Authority, which owns the World Trade Center property, "has not shown that it will prove its defense of governmental immunity as to negligence allegations made by WTC occupants."
Spokesmen for the Port Authority, Boeing and the airlines did not immediately return calls seeking comment Tuesday.
Marc Moller, a lawyer who represents several hundred victims and relatives of victims, said the ruling created an opportunity that some families were concerned might not exist.
"They are important findings but they are preliminary," he said. "He has not said that the airplanes are liable. He said that that if the plaintiffs can prove their case, the airlines could be liable. The litigation risks lie ahead and they are great."
The judge noted in the ruling that he was required to view the allegations in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs at this stage of the legal process. The decision was based on the cases of about 70 of the injured and dead.
As a result of the ruling, court officials were preparing for a possible legal onslaught at the Manhattan courthouse as early as this week as some people choose lawsuits over applying to the federal victims compensation fund. To receive a payout from the fund, families must agree not to sue airlines or other entities.
Dec. 22 is the last day families may apply to the federal victims compensation fund, created by Congress to provide financial aid to the families of those killed or injured in the attacks, and to protect the commercial aviation industry from crippling litigation.
As of late August, 2,275 claims had been filed. But roughly 1,700 families had yet to decide whether to enroll with the fund or join lawsuits against the airlines, security companies and government agencies.
The average payout so far has been about $1.5 million, with the highest award $6.8 million. The minimum payout is $250,000.
The fund has made offers averaging $1.41 million to 398 families thus far. About 1,600 families have filed papers stating an interest in applying for the fund.
Posters note: I have absolutely no idea concerning where this suit will go, if it goes anywhere, however the following points remain, and have perhaps effected the District Court's ruling.
1. The pilots of the hjijacked airliners were unarmed.
2. Nothing in the law prohibited their being armed, correct me if I'm wrong.
3. Had they been armed, they MIGHT have been able to defend their aircraft, the crews and passengers from the hijackers taking control, providing at days end, an entirely different ending.
4. The unarmed state of the pilots reflects a decision taken by the airlines, in particular the management thereof.
5. While elements of fault or blame might be attributal to others, it strikes me that the enabling factor in the hijacking was, and remains the fact that the pilots had no viable means of defense, a condition derived from decisions made by the airlines and their management. There is no getting away from that.