Court allows September 11 lawsuits to proceed

Wednesday, September 10, 2003
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected motions by the defendants to dismiss lawsuits brought by persons injured by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and by decedent representatives. These plaintiffs brought suit against the airlines, airport security companies, airport operators, the airplane manufacturer, and the owners and operators of the World Trade Center, alleging negligence. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting, among other things, that they owed no duty to plaintiffs and that they could not reasonably have anticipated that terrorists would hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings. The court ruled that defendants owed duties to plaintiffs sufficient to withstand motions to dismiss. Defendants were in positions to protect plaintiffs from harm. Defendants knew that terrorists had engaged in suicide missions and that they had hijacked airplanes in the past. While they may not have been able to anticipate this particular attack, defendants had an obligation to institute measures to reasonably deter terrorist attacks. While I seldom include district court opinions in the Maritime Items, particularly when the cases are not maritime in nature, this case is important because it provides guidance regarding how a future court might deal with liability for terrorism in the maritime sector. Owners and operators of ships and others in the industry, such as facility operators, should carefully review their security situation, despite the current absence of many specific legal requirements. There were few legal requirements for the defendants in these cases, yet the court found sufficient cause for the claims to go forward. Terrorists have already made attacks in the maritime arena. Your goal as a ship or facility owner or operator is to not be a target. In light of recent events, two lessons can be learned: (1) compliance with all applicable legal requirements is required, but not necessarily sufficient; and (2) virtually anything is now considered foreseeable. In re September 11 Litigation , No. 21 MC 97 (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2003). (Source: HK Law)
Maritime Reporter June 2015 Digital Edition
FREE Maritime Reporter Subscription
Latest Maritime News    rss feeds

People & Company News

Buoys in Disputed Waters Roil South China Sea Dispute

Buoys stretched "as far as eye could see" - Philippine sailor. The Philippine navy recently found a large steel marker bearing Chinese inscriptions and hundreds

White House: Iran Talks Deadline Could Slip

The White House said Tuesday's deadline for negotiators in Vienna to come to a final, firm agreement on Iran's nuclear program could slip. When asked if President

SUNY Maritime College to Host e-Navigation Underway 2015

The State University of New York Maritime College will host the e-Navigation Underway 2015 – North America conference from September 28 to 30 on its Throggs Neck, N.

Legal

Buoys in Disputed Waters Roil South China Sea Dispute

Buoys stretched "as far as eye could see" - Philippine sailor. The Philippine navy recently found a large steel marker bearing Chinese inscriptions and hundreds

K&L Gates Welcomes Martinko

The Washington D.C., office of global law firm K&L Gates LLP has welcomed Stephen Martinko as a government affairs counselor in the public policy and law practice.

ST Marine Launches First LMV for RSN

Singapore Technologies Marine Ltd (ST Marine), the marine arm of Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd (ST Engineering), held the Launching ceremony for the first

 
 
Maritime Contracts Maritime Security Maritime Standards Naval Architecture Offshore Oil Pipelines Ship Electronics Ship Simulators Shipbuilding / Vessel Construction Winch
rss | archive | history | articles | privacy | contributors | top maritime news | about us | copyright | maritime magazines
maritime security news | shipbuilding news | maritime industry | shipping news | maritime reporting | workboats news | ship design | maritime business

Time taken: 0.1420 sec (7 req/sec)