Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D is a public entity. Among its properties, the WTC was a key facility developed, constructed, and operated by D. D is a public entity. Among its properties, the WTC was a key facility developed, constructed, and operated by the Port Authority. D employed a security force of 40 police officers assigned on a full-time basis to a precinct located within the confines of the WTC. A second, separate contingent of officers was assigned to the PATH railroad station located within a subgrade level of the complex. Numerous security personnel were deployed at D's other facilities, tunnels, and bridges. Reserved parking was patrolled routinely by D officers. Terrorists drove a van containing a fertilizer bomb into the WTC parking garage and set it off. The blast crater was six stories, and six were killed and hundreds injured. Six hundred and forty-eight plaintiffs commenced 174 actions against D for injuries sustained as a result of the bombing. The gravamen of the claims was a negligent failure by D to provide adequate security--i.e., the failure to adopt the recommendations in the security reports; to restrict public access to the subgrade parking levels; to have an adequate security plan; to establish a manned checkpoint at the garage; to inspect vehicles; to have adequate security personnel; to employ recording devices concerning vehicles, operators, occupants, and pedestrians; and to investigate the possible consequences of a bombing within the WTC. D claimed governmental immunity and moved for summary judgment. D also claimed the attack was unforeseeable. The motion was denied in that the negligent acts were from D’s proprietary capacity as a landowner and not an exercise of a governmental function. At trial, D was found liable for negligently failing to maintain the WTC parking garage in a reasonably safe condition. The jury apportioned 68% of the fault to D and 32% to the terrorists. Court denied D's motion to set aside the verdict. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed; D failed in its capacity as a commercial landlord to meet its basic proprietary obligation to its commercial tenants and invitees reasonably to secure its premises, specifically its public parking garage, against foreseeable criminal intrusion.' P was eventually awarded $824,100.06. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.