Perhaps the garage should have been closed to the public, perhaps every vehicle should have been searched, perhaps the [a href="http://www.echeaprayba
nsunglasses.com/"][strong]ra
y
bans on sale[/strong][/a] should have closed the garage entirely and required building occupants to rely on public transit. Every possibility was probably discussed at one point but only two of those 350 threats involved the garage and so the Port Authority decided to keep the garage open.
A New York jury in 2005 decided the Port Authority was negligent for failing to predict the truck bombing and take measures to prevent it, giving it 68% of the responsibility for the terrorist attack. In so doing the jury treated the attack like a mugging in a poorly lit Wal-Mart parking lot. But the appeals court overturned, saying a) the Port Authority is a governmental entity, not a [a href="http://www.echeaprayba
nsunglasses.com/"][strong]ra
y
ban sale[/strong][/a] commercial landlord and b) its assessment of the risks and responses to them were governmental acts subject to immunity.
It’s a disappointing decision for the plaintiffs and their lawyers, but the majority on the court balanced the right to compensation against the need for the government to make decisions without expensive second-guessing by jurors who have been blessed with 20/20 hindsight. ↓
|
