In Re World Trade Center Bombing Litigation

957 N.E.2d 733 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D is a public entity. Among its properties, the WTC was a key facility developed, constructed, and operated by D. D is a public entity. Among its properties, the WTC was a key facility developed, constructed, and operated by the Port Authority. D employed a security force of 40 police officers assigned on a full-time basis to a precinct located within the confines of the WTC. A second, separate contingent of officers was assigned to the PATH railroad station located within a subgrade level of the complex. Numerous security personnel were deployed at D's other facilities, tunnels, and bridges. Reserved parking was patrolled routinely by D officers. Terrorists drove a van containing a fertilizer bomb into the WTC parking garage and set it off. The blast crater was six stories, and six were killed and hundreds injured. Six hundred and forty-eight plaintiffs commenced 174 actions against D for injuries sustained as a result of the bombing. The gravamen of the claims was a negligent failure by D to provide adequate security--i.e., the failure to adopt the recommendations in the security reports; to restrict public access to the subgrade parking levels; to have an adequate security plan; to establish a manned checkpoint at the garage; to inspect vehicles; to have adequate security personnel; to employ recording devices concerning vehicles, operators, occupants, and pedestrians; and to investigate the possible consequences of a bombing within the WTC. D claimed governmental immunity and moved for summary judgment. D also claimed the attack was unforeseeable. The motion was denied in that the negligent acts were from D’s proprietary capacity as a landowner and not an exercise of a governmental function. At trial, D was found liable for negligently failing to maintain the WTC parking garage in a reasonably safe condition. The jury apportioned 68% of the fault to D and 32% to the terrorists. Court denied D's motion to set aside the verdict. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed; D failed in its capacity as a commercial landlord to meet its basic proprietary obligation to its commercial tenants and invitees reasonably to secure its premises, specifically its public parking garage, against foreseeable criminal intrusion.' P was eventually awarded $824,100.06. D appealed.