Nash v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

51 A.D.3d 337 (2008)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Nash v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

New York Supreme Court
51 A.D.3d 337 (2008)

Facts

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) (defendant) owned the World Trade Center, two skyscrapers in New York City. Beneath the buildings was an underground parking facility with 2,000 spaces that was open to the public. In 1984, Port Authority’s police superintendent issued a report stating that the World Trade Center was at high risk of a terrorist attack and noted specifically that the public parking lots were susceptible to a car bombing. The World Trade Center’s executive director sought the advice of an engineering consultant, who opined that a terrorist attack was not only possible but probable given the vulnerability of the buildings via the parking lots. In 1985, a report prepared by the Port Authority’s Office of Special Planning (OSP) stated that the World Trade Center was a prime target for a terrorist attack due to its symbolism, accessibility, and vulnerability, and that the parking lot was vulnerable to a car bombing in which the terrorist would drive the car into the lot and exit the premises before a time-sensitive bomb would explode. OSP recommended that the public parking lots be eliminated. Port Authority rejected that recommendation, citing inconvenience and revenue loss. Between 1985 and 1993, similar high-profile buildings heightened their safety measures to prevent car bombings. On February 26, 1993, terrorists drove a vehicle into the parking lot, parked, and left the vehicle after lighting a timed fuse that caused an explosive to detonate. Six people died, and hundreds were injured. Linda P. Nash (plaintiff) and other bombing survivors sued Port Authority, contending that the bombing was foreseeable and Port Authority was negligent in failing to take precautions. A jury found Port Authority negligent and responsible for most of the harm resulting from the attacks. Port Authority appealed, arguing that although the bombing was foreseeable, it was not likely and therefore Port Authority was not responsible for taking increased precautions to safeguard the parking facility.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Lippman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership