Thursday, October 27, 2005

Kill a lawyer, be 32% liable.

A jury decided that the port authority was responsible for 1993 WTC bombing?!? On what planet does THAT make sense (answer: planet New York):
A jury concluded yesterday that the Port Authority was liable for the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center that killed six and wounded nearly 1,000 people.
And we DON'T need tort reform? How about a guess as to which party in congress is holding up legislation that would prevent this?
As part of the verdict, the jury was asked to assign a percentage value to the liability of both the Port Authority and the terrorists responsible for the blast. They concluded that the Port Authority was 68% liable and the terrorists 32% liable.
These jury members are idiots. I guess it's possible to be completely 'passively' negligent? It's not like the port authority hung signs up welcoming terrorists. If they were 68% liable, then the Federal Government is like 1500% liable (sure such a thing isn't possible, but this jury obviously isn't swayed by facts! ) How did this abomination even make it to trial?
A spokesman for the Port Authority, Pasquale DiFulco, said yesterday it plans to appeal the verdict. "The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was the direct result of a terrorist act, and those terrorists should be found liable. The Port Authority plans to appeal today's decision, and we are confident that the facts and the law will support our positions," he said. "To have a verdict where the Port Authority is held 68% responsible as opposed to 32% for the terrorists - it's an obviously irrational, incorrect conclusion."
Ahh, but terrorists don't have any cash, and it's much easier to blame someone law abiding that the courts can get their hands on.


No comments: