Sept. 11 Victims Can Sue Airlines, Boeing and Landlord
Victims of the Sept. 11 hijackings can sue the airlines, the landlord and the aircraft maker involved, a federal judge ruled, brushing aside arguments that the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were so extraordinary as to absolve the defendants of negligence.
The decision, coming as New York City prepares for the second anniversary of the attacks Thursday, sets the stage for an exhaustive public airing of what was done, and what could have been done, to prevent thousands of deaths.
CAST YOUR VOTE
Do you agree with the ruling that allows airlines to be sued for negligence in the Sept. 11 attacks? Participate in the Question of the Day.
READ MORE
See the full text of the court's decision.
See complete coverage on War on Terror.
"Now we'll have a chance to decide whether America was at fault instead of the foreigners," said Stephen Sugarman , a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. "And that's very much what Congress and the president were trying to avoid" by establishing the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, which injured victims and surviving family members could tap in exchange for forgoing the right to sue.
Separately, a group of large insurers said they would file suit Wednesday against Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Sudan and dozens of individuals and organizations that the insurers say are responsible for billions of dollars in Sept. 11 losses. The lawsuit -- brought by insurers linked to Chubb Corp., Munich Re Group's American Re unit, Zurich American Insurance Group, One Beacon Insurance Group and Crum & Forster Insurance Co. -- seeks $300 billion in damages and recovery for claims against property, workers-compensation and other insurance policies, according to Elliott Feldman, a partner with Cozen O'Connor, the law firm representing the insurers. Other insurers are likely to join the litigation.
The law firm expects the lawsuit to be consolidated with two similar lawsuits filed last year by the families of people killed in the attacks, he added.
The insurers' suit seeks to recover some of the damages from assets belonging to the defendants and frozen by the U.S. government under antiterrorism legislation, Mr. Feldman said. The insurers have already paid out or reserved for more than $4 billion in claims.
GIRDING FOR BATTLE
A federal judge ruled that Sept. 11 victims can sue for negligence. Here are some of the many claims:
American Airlines, United Airlines: Should have screened passengers to keep terrorists from boarding.
Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J., Larry Silverstein's WTC Properties: Didn't design building safely or provide adequate evacuation plans.
Boeing: Should have built cockpit doors that could prevent terrorists from breaking in.
Although possibly unprecedented in scope, the lawsuit is in many ways standard insurance-industry practice writ large, said John Minor, head of insurance broker Aon Corp.'s political-risk insurance practice. "Pursuing recoveries or minimizing losses is standard insurance-company practice," he said. "This is a bit more creative than we've seen, but these are fairly unique circumstances."
For survivors and victims of the attacks, the decision by Judge Alvin Hellerstein in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, crystallizes a choice: take a guaranteed payout from the fund, or take their chances in court. So far, the fund, which uses actuarial formulas to ascribe a value to each life, has made payouts ranging from $250,000 to $6 million, with an average award of $1.5 million.
About 2,400 claims have been filed with the fund, compared with about 70 victims or survivors who have sued. With the fund's filing deadline of Dec. 22, more than half the eligible claimants have yet to act. Legislation has been introduced to extend the filing period to Dec. 31, 2004, but it isn't likely to pass.
Kenneth Feinberg, the fund's head, says he has redoubled efforts to persuade victims' families to file claims. The court ruling "doesn't say they are going to win, it doesn't say they won't have to wait 10 years to see any funds, it doesn't say they won't have to pay their attorneys' bills," Mr. Feinberg says.
Still, he says, his main worry wasn't that more victims might consider suing rather than filing with his fund. "I am much more concerned with the people who haven't done anything," he says, people who because of grief or fear have failed to seek any compensation.
Vesente Velamuri of Woodbridge, N.J., who lost her husband in the trade center, is one of several undecided victims who met with Mr. Feinberg Tuesday in Iselin, N.J. If her family joins the lawsuit, she says she worries "they'll end up paying attorneys fees" and getting little to compensate for her husband's lost wages.
Marc Moller, of the New York law firm Kreindler & Kreindler, which represents many of the plaintiffs, says litigation is an option for two kinds of cases: those in which the fund doesn't offer enough to satisfy the survivors and those in which "the plaintiff is more interested in accountability than compensation."
In his 49-page ruling, Judge Hellerstein rejected the defendants' core argument: that they couldn't, he wrote, "reasonably have anticipated that terrorists would hijack several jumbo jet airplanes and crash them, killing passengers, crew, thousands on the ground and themselves." While the scope of the Sept. 11 attack was unprecedented, he found, such dangers as hijackings, crashes and fires were well-known and plaintiffs were entitled to argue that the defendants hadn't taken adequate precautions against them.
The plaintiffs accuse American Airlines and United Airlines, which each had two planes hijacked, as well as airport-security companies, of lax security by allowing terrorists on board. The airlines previously accepted liability for their passengers but contended they owed nothing to victims on the ground or in the World Trade Center. The aviation defendants, Judge Hellerstein wrote, "perform their screening duties not only for those boarding airplanes, but also for society generally."
Although the airlines' losses were capped by Congress at a total of $6 billion, their parent companies, AMR Corp. and UAL Corp., said they would seek to reverse the decision. "We continue to believe that we are not liable for the events that occurred that day," said AMR spokesman Todd Burke.
The lawsuits accuse the World Trade Center's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the operator of the complex, developer Larry Silverstein's WTC Properties LLC, of failing to construct the buildings properly and of providing inadequate evacuation plans.
Howard Rubenstein, a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, says the New York developer's closely held group "strongly disagrees" with the judge's decision and would seek to appeal.
"The fact that the Twin Towers stood for as long as they did and allowed many thousands of people to evacuate safely in the face of the unprecedented, deliberate crashes of two fuel-laden airplanes traveling in excess of 500 miles per hour is a testament to the strength of the buildings and the brilliance of their design," he said.
Boeing Co., which manufactured the 757 and 767 jets that were hijacked, was sued over the design of its cockpit doors, which the plaintiffs allege let terrorists in too easily.
A Boeing spokesman says lawyers for the Chicago company hadn't reviewed the judge's decision, but that Boeing will seek an appeal. "From our perspective, terrorism -- not negligence -- is the issue at hand here," the spokesman says.
Boeing has maintained that until Sept. 11, 2001, the primary driver behind the design of cockpit doors was safety, not concern about terrorists breaking in and taking over the controls. The older doors had breakaway panels that would allow the pilots to kick them out for quick escape in the event of an emergency. They were also ventilated so that air pressure between the cabin and the cockpit stayed the same during the changes in cabin pressurization that occur on every flight.
Following the terrorist attacks, the government mandated that all airlines replace the old doors with redesigned doors capable of withstanding an assault from the passenger cabin. That process was completed earlier this year. At the same time, however, there has been no evidence that any of the Sept. 11 hijackers forced their way into the cockpit by breaking down doors. Instead, they apparently attacked flight attendants and passengers in the main cabin, prompting the pilots to open the doors to investigate.
911受害者获准起诉航空公司、WTC所有者和波音
一位美国联邦法官裁定，911事件的受害者可起诉航空公司、世贸中心(WTC)所有者及经营者以及相关飞机制造商，之前的一种论点认为针对WTC和五角大楼的自杀性袭击太过惊人，被告应被免于提起疏忽指控，但法官的这一裁定打消了这一论调。
纽约明日将迎来911两周年纪念日，该裁定为公众全面了解这一事件奠定了基础，他们将获知，当时为挽救数千个生命采取了哪些措施以及本应该采取什么措施。
加利福尼亚大学伯克利分校(University of California, Berkeley)的法律教授史蒂芬?舒格曼(Stephen Sugarman)称，“现在我们将有机会判定错是在美国而非外国人。”他说，美国国会和总统于2001年设立了911受害者赔偿基金(Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund)，目的正是在于避免向公众披露美国的不对。这个赔偿基金为受伤者和死者亲属提供赔偿，作为交换，他们放弃提起起诉的权利。
另外，几家大型保险公司称，他们周三将对本?拉登(Osama bin Laden)、基地组织(al Qaeda)、沙特阿拉伯、伊拉克、伊朗、苏丹以及数十个个人和组织提起诉讼，保险公司表示，他们应对911事件造成的数十亿美元损失负责。这一诉讼是由与Chubb Corp.，Munich Re Group子公司American Re，Zurich American Insurance Group，One Beacon Insurance Group和Crum & Forster Insurance Co.等保险公司提起的，据代表这些保险公司的律师事务所Cozen O'Connor的合伙人埃利奥特?费尔德曼(Elliott Feldman)称，他们针对为财产、工人赔偿和其他保险条款进行的索赔索要3,000亿美元赔偿和补偿。其他保险商也有可能加入这一诉讼。
费尔德曼补充说，该律师事务所预计这起诉讼将与去年由911遇难者家属提起的两起类似诉讼整合到一起。
费尔德曼称，保险公司希望通过该诉讼拿被告人被美国政府依反恐怖主义法冻结的资产来补偿他们支付的部分赔偿金。保险商已经或者准备支付超过40亿美元的索赔金。
怡安保险公司(Aon Corp.)负责政治风险险种的主管约翰?米诺(John Minor)称，尽管该诉讼案的规模可能史无前例，但是从许多方面看这是标准的保险行业的操作。他说，“弥补或减少损失是保险公司的标准操作，这一次较我们以往所见更具创造性，但这是因为当前环境极为特殊。”
对911的幸存者和遇难者来说，曼哈顿美国地区法院阿尔文?赫尔斯特恩(Alvin Hellerstein)法官的裁定在他们面临摆明了一个选择：要么从赔偿基金中获得一份可靠的赔偿，要么去法庭碰碰运气。迄今为止，根据保险精算师的计算公式，赔偿基金给每位遇难者支付了25万-600万美元，平均支付额为150万美元。
该基金迄今收到了大约2,400份索赔要求，与此相比，只有70名遇难者亲属或幸存者向法庭提起了诉讼。赔偿基金的申请截至日是12月22日，至今符合赔偿条件的人仍有超过一半没有提出索赔。尽管有人提出了一个将申请截至日延至2004年12月31日的法案，但通过的可能性不大。
赔偿基金的负责人肯尼斯?芬博格(Kenneth Feinberg)称，他在加倍努力劝说遇难者亲属提出索赔申请。他说，法庭的裁定“并没有表明他们肯定会胜诉，并且没有告诉他们可能要等上10年才能得到赔偿，也没有说他们不需要支付律师费。”
但他表示，尽管有更多的遇难者可能考虑提起诉讼而不向基金申请赔偿，但这不是他最大的担心。他说，“我更担忧那些到现在还没有采取任何行动的人。”这些人由于悲痛或者恐惧迄今仍未申请任何赔偿。
新泽西州Woodbridge的Vesente Velamuri在911事件中失去了丈夫，她是周二在新泽西州Iselin与芬博格会面的几个未下定决心的遇难者亲属之一。她说，如果她加入诉讼，她担心“最后将不得不支付律师费”并只获得少量的赔偿。
纽约律师事务所Kreindler & Kreindler的马克?莫勒(Marc Moller)是众多原告的代表，他说，在两种情况下诉讼是一个选择：赔偿基金的赔偿金额不能令幸存者满意；原告更关注责任的认定，对赔偿并不在意。
赫尔斯特恩法官在长达49页的裁定书中驳斥了被告的主要观点，即他们不能预见到恐怖份子会劫持数架飞机用来攻击，以及由此导致乘客、机组人员、地面数千人和他们自己的死亡。尽管911事件是史无前例的，但是赫尔斯特恩法官发现，诸如劫机、坠机和火灾的危险是众所周知的，原告有权认为被告未能采取足够的预防措施保护他们。
原告起诉美利坚航空公司(American Airlines)和联合航空公司(United Airlines）以及负责机场安全的公司存在安全疏忽，得以让恐怖份子登机。这两家航空公司各有两架飞机被劫持。两航空公司先前表示愿意对他们的乘客承担责任，但是坚持认为他们对地面或世贸中心的遇难者不承担任何责任。赫尔斯特恩法官写道，两家航空公司被告“履行他们的安检职责不仅是为了搭乘他们飞机的乘客，也是为了广泛的大众。”
尽管航空公司的损失由于国会出资60亿美元相助而得到控制，但是他们的母公司AMR Corp.和UAL Corp.称，他们将会竭力推翻这一裁定。AMR发言人托德?贝克(Todd Burke)称，“我们仍然相信，我们对那天发生的事件不负有责任。”
诉讼案指控WTC的所有人－新泽西和纽约港务局、以及WTC的经营者－地产商拉里?西尔佛斯坦(Larry Silverstein)的WTC Properties LLC，称该建筑物的设计存在缺陷，并且他们没有提供足够的疏散方案。
西尔佛斯坦的发言人霍华德?鲁本斯坦(Howard Rubenstein)说，公司“强烈地不同意”法官的裁定，并将提起上诉。
他说，“两架载有燃料的飞机史无前例的以时速超过500英里的速度蓄意撞击双子塔，但这两座高楼屹立长时间不倒，让数千人得以安全撤离，这是其力量和卓越设计的证明。”
被劫持飞机的制造者波音公司(Boeing Co.)也被提起指控，原告称，波音757和767飞机驾驶员座舱门设计存在缺陷，得以让恐怖份子轻松闯入。
波音发言人称，公司还没有对法官的决定进行评估，但是波音将寻求上诉。发言人称，“从我们的角度看，恐怖主义－－而非疏忽－－才是问题所在。“
波音坚称，在2001年9月11日之前，设计驾驶员座舱门的主要出发点是安全问题，而不是恐怖份子破门而入夺取飞机这种情形。以前的门有逃脱控制板，飞行员在面临紧急情况时可藉此功能快速逃脱。座舱门还装有通风设备，功能是当机舱压力变化时候让机舱和座舱的气压保持一致，机舱压力的变化是每一架飞机都会发生的情况。
在恐怖袭击之后，美国政府命令所有飞机更换旧的座舱门，代之以重新设计的可抵抗来自机舱攻击的门。更换工作已经于今年早些时候完成。但同时没有证据显示，911事件中的劫机者是将门摧毁然后强行进入座舱的。相反，显然，他们先是袭击机舱的乘务员和乘客，以此促使飞行员打开座舱门一探究竟。
