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)

People & Company News

MN100: McDonough Marine Service

The Company: Bernard P. McDonough created the company in 1945 by leasing barges from his construction company into the marketplace. Through a series of new and used barge additions,

MN100: MarineCFO

The Company: Founded in 1992, UA Business Solutions was a pioneer in the field of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and an early Microsoft Partner. The ERP evolution

MN100: All American Marine, Inc.

The Company: All American Marine Inc. was founded in 1987 and specializes in the construction of custom tailored aluminum boats from 30 to 150 feet LOA. Today,

Legal

El Faro Captain Ordered Crew to Abandon Ship before Sinking

The captain of the doomed El Faro cargo ship sounded an alarm for his crew to abandon the vessel shortly before it sank last fall in a hurricane near the Bahamas, killing all 33 onboard, the U.

Foreship Establishes Tallinn Subsidiary

Naval architect and marine engineering company Foreship has created a wholly-owned subsidiary located in Tallinn to strengthen ties with shipowners, shipyards and

UASC's Dismal Performance

United Arab Shipping Company (UASC), which is close to merging with Hapag-Lloyd, revealed enormous deficits and a massive debt in its key financial figures, says Alphaliner.

 
 
Maritime Contracts Maritime Security Maritime Standards Offshore Oil Pipelines Pod Propulsion Ship Electronics Ship Repair Ship Simulators Shipbuilding / Vessel Construction
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: 0.0905 sec (11 req/sec)