Criminal or DUI
Select Your State Alaska Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware D.C. Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

October 27th, 2005

"Port Authority in NYC Found Guilty in 1993 WTC Bombing"

In a decision with national implications a six-member jury in New York found the Port Authority guilty of negligence in guarding the World Trade Center from terrorist attacks. The case revolved around the 1993 bombing that killed six people and resulted in 1,000 injuries.

The State Supreme Court decision was based on testimony that said the WTC underground parking structure was operating in unsafe conditions. These unsafe conditions were a major factor in allowing the bombing to occur. There is no specific award tied to the decision yet, but it is expected to cost the Port Authority a lot.

The ruling comes as one of the most important moments in the 12-year legal battle that the Port Authority has been involved with since the bombing occurred. The jury reached its decision after one day of deliberation. This particular case consisted of four weeks of testimony and presentations.

The legal battle consists of over 400 plaintiffs who all have lawsuits against the Port Authority. The people involved include those injured in the blast, family members of the killed people, and businesses operating in the building. The jury decision opens the gates to individual claims against the Port Authority seeking redress for pain and suffering, loss of wages, and business related damages.

The total amount sought from the Port Authority in all the lawsuits combined could reach $2 billion and will be decided through separate cases and settlements.

The case hinged on evidence that the Port Authority knew as early as 1985 that their facilities were unsecured and records show that their own investigations clearly showed gross violations of their own procedures. The 1985 report, issued by the Port Authority’s Office of Special Planning, outlined the possibility of a terrorist attack. The Port Authority failed to recognize its role in protecting itself from such an attack, according to the bulk of testimony at the trial.

The report even outlined a scenario in which a vehicle carrying a bomb could be parked in the public parking area. The driver of the vehicle could even escape and then could blow up the explosive from an outside location. The report then issued several different recommendations for securing the building, most of which were ignored.