The agency that owns the World Trade Center has been found negligent for not doing enough to thwart a deadly 1993 terrorist bombing in a parking garage beneath the twin towers, a ruling that likely opens the door to more litigation.
A six-person jury ruled Wednesday that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the bistate agency that operates the trade center, didn't heed warnings by its own security consultants that the garage was vulnerable.
The verdict means relatives of the six people killed and the hundreds of other victims and businesses affected by the blast may proceed with lawsuits for monetary damages against the Port Authority.
The agency vowed to appeal the verdict. "The Port Authority is confident it will prevail," lawyer Marc Kasowitz said.
The trial spotlighted an attack that was overshadowed by the devastation of Sept. 11, 2001, but which was horrific nonetheless. The noontime blast on Feb. 26, 1993, blew a gigantic crater in the garage, filled the 110-story twin towers with smoke, wrecked their power and emergency systems, and spread fear across New York.
Eileen Olsen, sister of Donna Olsen, a plaintiff who died before the case came to trial, was in court to hear the verdict. "I think it's great," she said. "The Port Authority did not fulfill its responsibility."
The jury determined that the agency was 68 percent liable for the bombing and that terrorists were 32 percent liable - a ruling that a lawyer for the agency found stunning.
"To hold the Port Authority twice as liable as the terrorists for the 1993 bombing stands logic, rationality, and reason on their heads," Kasowitz said.
Jurors said they were swayed by a 1985 report written by the Port Authority's own security officials, who warned the 400-slot garage was a likely attack site.
The report recommended closing the public parking area of the garage, and suggested providing guards at entrances, restricting pedestrian entry and conducting random searches of vehicles.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs cited the report as proof that the Port Authority could have protected the building long before the attack, but did not want to because it was inconvenient and costly.
"They should have closed the garage," lead plaintiff lawyer David J. Dean said after the verdict. "Lives would have been saved, and 1,000 people would not have been hurt."
Dean said the 68 percent finding of liability means the Port Authority will be 100 percent liable for any money damages later juries award to victims.
A juror, Rafael Garcia, 34, said the fact that the 1985 report cited the parking garage as a possible attack site "was the key" in helping the jury reach its verdict. He said its warnings were "eerily accurate."
Killed in the blast were John DiGiovanni, 45, a dental equipment salesman; Wilfredo Mercado, 37, who worked as a purchasing agent for a hotel in the center; Steve Knapp, 48, a Vietnam veteran and avid fisherman; Monica Smith, 34, a secretary pregnant with her first child; Robert Kirkpatrick, 61, a locksmith; and William Macko, 57, a heating and air-conditioning mechanic.
The verdict came after almost 12 years of legal delays in the civil case. The Port Authority's last appeal, to try to get the case thrown out, was rejected last year, clearing the way for the trial.
Kasowitz said nothing would have deterred resourceful terrorists - obsessed with bombing a building that was an icon of democracy and capitalism - from finding a way to unleash an attack.
"The plaintiffs want to blame the Port Authority for the murderous acts of fanatical terrorists who schemed for years and traveled thousands of miles" to carry out the attack, Kasowitz told the jury.
During the trial, state Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Figueroa ordered lawyers to avoid mention of the Sept. 11 attack because it was irrelevant to the 1993 bombing. Six people were convicted in federal court and sentenced to life in prison for their roles in the 1993 bombing.
The trial on liability, while not a class action, affected some 400 individuals in more than 100 lawsuits. Their cases were consolidated for the sake of judicial efficiency.
IN THE FORUMS:
Disagree with the verdict? Can a company really be more to blame for a terrorist attack than the terrorists themselves? You make the call:
Discuss in our forums: click here for thread.
