Atlantis Online
March 29, 2024, 06:50:00 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Towering Ancient Tsunami Devastated the Mediterranean
http://www.livescience.com/environment/061130_ancient_tsunami.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

1993 World Trade Center bombing

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 1993 World Trade Center bombing  (Read 513 times)
0 Members and 53 Guests are viewing this topic.
Britney Shubert
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4890



« on: January 17, 2009, 05:27:03 pm »

Legal responsibility

The victims of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings sued the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for damages. A decision was handed down in 2006, assigning liability for the bombings to the Port Authority. The decision declared that the agency was 68 percent responsible for the bombing, and the terrorists bore only 32 percent of the responsibility. In January 2008, the Port Authority asked a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan to throw out the decision, describing the jury's verdict as "bizarre".[32] On April 29, 2008, a New York State Appeals Court unanimously upheld the jury's verdict. Under New York law once a defendant is more than 50 percent at fault, he/she/it can be held fully financially liable.[33]

It has been argued that the problem with the apportionment of responsibility in the case is not the jury's verdict, but rather New York's tort-reform-produced state apportionment law. Traditionally courts do not compare intentional and negligent fault. When the Port Authority's very duty was to take care to prevent terrorist attacks, it makes no sense to diminish the Port Authority's liability because a terrorist attack took place. The Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability recommends a rule to prevent juries from having to make nonsensical comparisons like the terrorist-Port Authority comparison in this case. However, if a jurisdiction does compare these intentional and negligent torts courts' second-best position is to do just what the NYS Appeals Court did -- to uphold all jury apportionments, even those that assign greater, or perhaps far greater, responsibility to negligent than intentional parties
Report Spam   Logged


Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy