United Airlines Not Responsible for Security Lapse on 9-11- Federal Judge

American Airlines Boeing 767 Reg N334AA

American Airlines Boeing 767 Registration N334AA (The aircraft…AA Flight 11… that was flown in to WTC 1 on September 11, 2001)

A federal judge ruled that United Airlines is not responsible for suspected security lapses at the Portland International Jetport in Maine, which allowed 2 hijackers to ultimately board a flight [American Flight 11] that crashed in to one of the World Trade Center towers on September 11th, 2001.

The claims brought against United by Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center property, will be dismissed.

‘The decision concerned the destruction of 7 World Trade Center, which collapsed hours after being pierced by debris from the crash of AMR Corp’s American Airlines Flight 11 into 1 World Trade Center.

Two of the hijackers on Flight 11, Mohammed Atta and Abdul Aziz al Omari, had begun their trip to New York at the Portland International Jetport. There, they boarded a flight by US Airways carrier Colgan Air to Boston’s Logan Airport, from where they connected onto the American plane.

Silverstein argued that because United was among the carriers that operated Portland’s only security checkpoint, it was legally responsible for the screening of all passengers, and had missed a “clear chance” to prevent the hijacking.

The judge, however, found that Chicago-based United owed no duty of care to Silverstein’s 7 World Trade Co LP, which had leased Tower 7.’

“It was not within United’s range of apprehension that terrorists would slip through the (Portland) security screening checkpoint, fly to Logan, proceed through another air carrier’s security screening and board that air carrier’s flight, hijack the flight and crash it into 1 World Trade Center, let alone that 1 World Trade Center would therefore collapse and cause Tower 7 to collapse,” he wrote.’

The federal judge who made the ruling, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, has presided over almost all U.S. litigation over the Sept. 11 attacks.

The case is World Trade Center Properties LLC et al v. American Airlines Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-03722.

Source

Photo: Florian Kondziela (planepictures.net)

Comments

  1. Richard Wyeroski says

    I thought I knew how low attorneys would go with take frivolous cases to make money, but this one sure takes the cake!

    Rich Wyeroski

  2. JENNIFER says

    As someone that has competence in UK Law I have always had problems with how Law is practiced in the United States but reading this report that a case re: Terror attacks on World Trade Center Sept.11 2001, cheers my heart because someone has been brave enough to see sense and dismiss a speculative attempt to gain from the deaths of thousands, be it intentional or not, NOTE MY LAST COMMENT!!

    As lease holder of property, he should have had enough insurance cover to compensate his loss and even if the usual insurances do not cover terrorism, the business has ways of getting by this restriction so this was a desperate attempt to recover a loss that is frankly trivial given the human cost of the incident.

    The Emperor Nero blamed Christians for his actions and he did not last long thereafter once his errors were exposed, some lawyers need to reflect upon their reason for being in law before diving in where the water is unsafe!

  3. David says

    I don’t have any law competence but I agree with you both, lawyers, solicitors, whatever they call themselves have one goal which is to generate income. Weather a case has merit or not it seems there are plenty that will convince clients they have a “good case” and then when things fall apart pre or post hearing they will use the old chestnut ; there are two sides to everything and on the day we lost, then move on to the next case with clean hands.

  4. JENNIFER says

    There is a new comment to United Airlines Not Responsible for Security Lapse on 9-11- Federal Judge.
    Comment Link: http://airnation.net/2012/11/22/united-airlines-not-responsible-wtc/#comment-24714
    Author: David
    Comment:
    I don’t have any law competence but I agree with you both, lawyers, solicitors, whatever they call themselves have one goal which is to generate income. Weather a case has merit or not it seems there are plenty that will convince clients they have a “good case” and then when things fall apart pre or post hearing they will use the old chestnut ; there are two sides to everything and on the day we lost, then move on to the next case with clean hands.
    Permalink: http://airnation.net/2012/11/22/united-airlines-not-responsible-wtc/
    Manage your subscriptions: http://airnation.net/comment-subscriptions?sre=JENNYJET%40HOTMAIL.CO.UK&srk=9a931df4681df2ac476301ee0affb61c

    David Sir, I have pasted an email in order to respond quickly as the Air Nation site has failed again to update to my eyes in UK at 20:25 GMT.

    My reply is to agree with you, Law is a bear pit of activity with the main aim of making money from generating fee income with justice taking a secondary position. This is why I decided not to take up the opportunity to practice and stay with the academic joys of theory and teaching without the probable damage of practice and of course the relative poverty as a result.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook