http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/ny...=1&oref=slogin

Now the PANYNJ, NYC, American Air, United Air and other are being sued for what happened on 9/11... http://www.accidentattorneys.com/Sep...Litigation.cfm

Comments?

- NCSU

 

Ok, what do airlines need to do so that they are not negligent?

My question is, where do we draw the line?

If somebody breaks into my house and shoots my wife can I sue the builder for not building a secure dwelling? Can I sue my HOA for not providing sufficient security for my complex? Can I sue the police for not being there at the time of the break in?

When a driver's front tire blows out and they lose control of their vehicle and slam into my truck, injuring me so that I can no longer work, can I sue the company that made the vehicle? Can I sue Ford for not making a safe enough truck? What about the tire manufacturer for making a tire that was susceptible to decompression? What about the local DOT for not keeping the road clear of any debris that might cause a blow out?

I guess what I'm getting at is the saying that "You can't engineer for Crazy and you can't cure Stupid".

So then let's sue the government for putting its people at risk without a 'sufficient' plan for protecting them!

- NCSU

 

Comments like this are why most believe lawyers are scum

 

I hate the fact that there's a huge difference between common sense and the law.

 

OMG, and sueing someone will make it all better. What a mentality.
Hey the weather sucks today, who can I sue?
Absolutely sickening.

 

Should I sue birds for pooping on my car?

 

The airlines can only be held liable if they had reason to suspect that such an attack could take place - or by some depraved indifference they carelessly neglected to put reasonable safety procedures in place. What is deemed reasonable will be decided by a jury. The TSA and FAA are more likely to be responsible for not mandating higher security requirements.

 

Some interesting points brought up with this. While common sense would tell us that one is not responsible for the other, if you add in the pretense of what went on with the original WTC bombing it would change that.

Not ridiculing your post in any way just using it as a base for the argument of the victims of the original WTC bombing.


Lets say the builder, in an attempt to cut cost, used substandard locks which allowed the criminal easy access to your home. In the eyes of the law you would have a very good case for a wrongful death lawsuit.

Its a bit more of a longshot here. If your HOA is responsible for providing security to your complex, and given a reasonable level of threat existed prior to the incident, and even with this reasonable level of threat your HOA cut back security measures or did not increase them then there is a possibility you could win a civil judgement against them.

It really depends on the circumstances. There have been cases where a victim, or victims family, have sued the local PD and won due to things like a slow response time to a 911 call.

Look at the Firestone tires they were sticking on Fords, there were lawsuits and victims were paid. As for the DOT, if you can prove that they knew about the debris, pothole, cracked street, whatever prior to the incident and had sufficient time to work on it then yes you can.

The problem with the original WTC bombing is the Port Auth. of NY had information of a possible attack on the building. They brought in security experts to survey the property and give them a report on it weak points as well as things they thought needed to be done in order to stop a possible attack. They(Port Auth.) had the reports and suggestions in hand for a long enough time period to enact the changes but out of either cost or loss of revenue(by cutting off public parking) they chose not to make any changes. Responsibility for this can be laid at there feet as they were aware of the problem and made no attempt to correct it.

 

The TSA cannot be held responsible for something it wasn't around for (9/11)... but the US government can for ignoring warning signs (I.e., middle easterners taking flying lessons for commercial aircraft).

 

Good correction about the TSA, I meant the DOT

 

After 2 attacks is the government doing enough now to prevent another?

 

I suppose it's winchester's fault also when I get shot by a thug for 5 dollars also right!!!!!

You people make me sick!!

 

Most of the people who would sue the Gov. for not protecting from the terrorist attacks will also be suing when their loved ones get killed in combat!

 

No it is not Winchesters fault you are comparing apples to oranges.

To be quite honest I am not for or against any of this I am simply stating facts.

When the WTC was taken down by planes, that is the terrorist's fault. There is no reasonable way anyone could protect a building against something like that.

However

PANYNJ HAD REASONABLE SUSPECION that there might be an attack on the building. They believed this info enough to bring in security experts to review the building, its security, and advise them on a way to make it more secure. They recieved a report with one of the key points in this report being to cut out public parking, as at the time it was thought only a vehicle could contain enough exposives to do any serious damage to the building, and only allow parking by permit. Low and behold a vehicle driven into the building under the guise of public parking detonated a bomb killing people. If that does not make them liable to some extent I don't know what does. It would have been a different matter all together had they not had a prior threat and a report stating that one of the main security threats was the very thing that resulted in these peoples death.

It might be a hard thing to comprehend for some but maybe one day when you are wearing the daddy pants and supporting a household you will understand it. For example I am 29, my wife does not work and I bring home the money. What I make pays for the cars, house, everything. If something were to happen to me there is no way in 3 lifetimes my wife could support herself the way I do. For that reason I have ALOT of life insurance but some people do not think that far ahead, I am young nothing is going to happen to me right. Now I walk across the street and get run over by an 18 wheeler, my fault I should have looked both ways, but to say there is no blame to lay at the PANYNJ's feet is just wrong.

Now don't get me wrong there are wayyyy more frivilous lawsuits out there than justifiable ones. People wanting to take you to the cleaners over a simple fender bender and things of that nature, but to condem every lawsuit based on that is wrong.

 

TruBlu
I put on the daddy pants last July!

I agree that's what life insurance is for. Just because not everyone thinks ahead enough to get life insurance for their family that doesn't mean that the families have the right to sue when some terrible accident happens to their loved ones.

Sorry I don't mean to attach you personally. I'm sure you are nice, intelligent person. But it sounds like your going overboard a bit with the lawsuit argument.

We'll call it a difference of opinion but sometimes people must take ownership of their own fate!

Talking about a homeowner that gets robbed/killed. I think it is their own fault for moving to a shady neighborhood, not sufficiently protecting themselves, and most importantly it is the fault of the robber/killer for being a menace to society.