Now would be a good time for the judge to say "Fuck it, the jurors are idiots and the terrorists are 100% liable for terrorism."

Well then, let's just shut down New York City.
Everybody go elsewhere, last person, turn out the lights!

Who are these jury people, anyway?

"I wish I had a font to make that phrase all blooddrippy-Halloween scary"

Here you go, Ace.

Or, uh, here you go, Symes.

You got that one right Ace. The Port Authority doesn't get robbed by that decision, the taxpayers do.

I wish they'd rebuild them, parking lots and all.

Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot!!!!

Actually, Rick Rescorla, the storied head of security at Merrill Lynch (and the LT featured on the cover of "We Were Soldiers Once - and Young.") did a security survey of the WTC in 1990 and specifically noted the weak point of the underground garage supports.

He was ignored by the Port Authority.

Jury in NY---"Make 'em pay?"
JUry--""Done!"

As it ever been.

"Actually, Rick Rescorla, the storied head of security at Merrill Lynch (and the LT featured on the cover of "We Were Soldiers Once - and Young.") did a security survey of the WTC in 1990 and specifically noted the weak point of the underground garage supports.

He was ignored by the Port Authority. "

And I and many others have noted the continued vulnerablility of the NYC Tunnels and Bridges.

Do you propose we shut them down to prevent frivolous lawsuits?

Megan, where you been?

I think they were also assisted by this argument: we're not unreasonable, planes flying into buildings - no one could forsee that but a truck bomb in the parking garage was obvious. Now we just have to wait and see what they'll argue in the plane case.

"Megan, where you been?"

Heya Weasel. :) Moving house, really busy with work, etc etc

Here's the problem: A plane into a tall building IS foreseeable. Hell, remember the plane that ran into the Emprie State Building back in the 40's (round them I believe.) Kinda strange to imagine, but you *could* imagine it.

Same thing with underground parking. Now the beef in this case was the public part of underground public parking, but still, those buildings were cities, full of people coming and going. Were we really to forbid the public from any convenient parking (and have WTC business owners suffer from decreased foot traffic) because someone might decide to use it to commit a criminal., terrorist act? It's not like Dan Ackroyd's Big, Fun "Bag-o-Glass" for kids.

We all recognize that someone could break into our house and steal our gun and use it to kill another. Suppose we use a shitty lock on our gun case padlock, one just strong enough to keep out kids from playing with them. Does the mere fact that we could certainly foresee someone breaking in, stealing the guns and using them to kill another in a crime mean we are 2/3 responsible for that later killing, the killer only 1/3?

Does the owner or architect of America's next temptingly tall building-icon 2/3 responsible for terrorist action cause it's now 'super-foreseeable' criminals would drive a plane into it? Not sure why not based on the logic here. No more tall buildings. No more underground public parking.

I remember reading a book once about negotiation tactics. One of the things discussed was the effectiveness of men crying. Apparently, it's so shameful for men to cry that it even embarasses people who are witnessing it. They don't know how to deal with it.

Um, this is not the completely-insane verdict you're making it out to be.

First, let's stipulate: the apportionment of fault seems fucked. So I'm not going to defend that.

However. As Althouse points out, there appears to have been some pretty compelling evidence that the PA was made aware that this was a problem, and made a conscious choice not to fix it. And while you don't have to take precautions against every known or foreseeable risk, the greater the harm that's likely to result from any given risk (even a small risk), the greater the precautions you're expected to take against it. If there's a small chance the mere sight of my enormous cock might kill Ace, then I'll be expected to keep my pants on; otherwise, I've breached my duty of reasonable care.

And, yeah, I'm sure the wailing and gnashing of teeth influenced the jury. A trial is part showmanship, for crying out loud, and if the PA wasn't prepared to meaningfully rebut a weepy witness, then that's their own damned fault.

here's the font you're all after

bloody fonts galore

A real need for tort reform a real need to end this litigation nonsense and what about the terrorists? did,nt they do the attacks? so damn stupid

There are a million different ways they can hit us. And protecting against them is in most cases basically self-defeating. It would add costs and make operation of said facilities too expensive, initiating a shutdown fo those facilities. As someone rightly pins out, are we to eliminate tall buildings and underground parking in big cities?

What was the recommended actions that the PA could have taken and didn't? Were they reasonable and cost effective to implement? I am willing to give benefit of the doubt if these questions are answered reasonably. However, apportionment of blame in this case is fubar.

However, we can only slow them down or make it harder for them to commit their acts. A determined terorist can do many things, especially if they are suicidal in the process. Steven Den Beste knows ways to do things as that are so relatively easy that he won't even talk about them.

If this lawsuit got through, then the sovereign immunity waiver provisions of the New York version of the Tort Claims Act must be extremely liberal.

Mark, clipping just for clarity:

New York ... must be extremely liberal.

Yes?