Port Authority not liable in WTC bombing

New York's highest court Thursday ruled that the Port Authority is immune to negligence claims spurred by the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

In a 4-3 decision, the State Court of Appeals said the authority was entitled to "governmental immunity" for its security deployment at the site. Such immunity is necessary to grant latitude to position security forces "without fear of legal reprisal," the majority said, reversing decisions by lower courts.

"Governmental entities cannot be expected to be absolute, infallible guarantors of public safety," Judge Theodore Jones wrote for the majority. "But in order to encourage them to engage in the affirmative conduct of diligently investigating security vulnerabilities and implementing appropriate safeguards, they must be provided with the latitude to render those critical decisions without the threat of legal repercussion."

The bombing killed six people and injured about 1,000. Six men were convicted, including Ramzi Yousef, who was tied to al-Qaida, according to Reuters.

The attack sparked 648 plaintiffs to file 174 negligence claims against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. They claimed their injuries and losses were caused by the authority's alleged breach of duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.

Earlier in the long-winding case, a jury had found the Port Authority to be negligent and that its negligence was a significant factor in allowing the bombing to occur. The jury apportioned 68 percent of the blame to the authority and 32 percent to the terrorists. The Port Authority asked the high court to set aside that verdict.

Many of the claims already had been settled, and the ruling is unlikely to affect them, a court spokesman said. But it might mean the agency won't have to pay outstanding claims. There is one large claim outstanding, by tenant Cantor Fitzgerald, a brokerage and investment bank, seeking hundreds of millions of dollars.

In large part, the case hinged on whether the court believed the Port Authority was performing a "governmental" function in providing security for the building and thus allowed wider immunity or was acting merely as a commercial landlord. It was the former, a majority of judges agreed.

The three judges in the minority said there was sufficient evidence during the trial to support the jury's finding of liability.

"The Port Authority's status as a government entity does not shield it from liability because the alleged negligence stemmed from proprietary activities taken in its capacity as a commercial landlord," Judge Carmen Ciparick wrote for the dissenters.

"From a moral standpoint, there is certainly no comparison between the reprehensible conduct of the terrorists and the negligent omissions attributed to the Port Authority," Ciparick continued. "But the jury's task was not to assign moral blame . . . the Port Authority's failure to implement discrete and basic security measures in the public parking area of the commercial building complex arose from the exercise of its proprietary -- rather than governmental -- obligations."

Victor A. Kovner, the attorney who represented the plaintiffs, called the ruling "surprising and deeply disappointing."