This website does readability filtering of other pages. All styles, scripts, forms and ads are stripped. If you want your website excluded or have other feedback, use this form.

SSRN-Upside Down? Terrorists, Proprietors, and Civil Responsibility for Crime Prevention in the Post-9/11 Tort-Reform World by Ellen Bublick

success fail Mar APR Oct 10 2008 2009 2012 13 captures 10 Apr 2009 - 06 Jun 2019 About this capture COLLECTED BY Organization: Alexa Crawls Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period. Collection: alexa_web_2009 this data is currently not publicly accessible. TIMESTAMPS

Abstract



| | Email | Add to Briefcase | Buy Hard Copy
Digg | Del.icio.us | CiteULike | Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely


Click Location Below to Start Download       File name: SSRN-id1357523.pdf ;   Size: 550K New York, USA Illinois, USA Brussels, Belgium Seoul, Korea California, USA
Upside Down? Terrorists, Proprietors, and Civil Responsibility for Crime Prevention in the Post-9/11 Tort-Reform World
Ellen M. Bublick
University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law


41 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1483 (2008)
Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08-10

Abstract:     
In the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case a New York jury was asked to apportion liability among all potentially responsible actors. The jury apportioned responsibility for the devastation as follows - terrorists 32%, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 68%. The Port Authority was twice as responsible for the devastation as were the terrorists themselves. Public bewilderment, even outrage, over the jury's verdict has been palpable. But what if the jurors' verdict was correct?

In this article, Professor Bublick argues that the problem with the World Trade Center apportionment is not the particular jury verdict, but rather the tort-reform-produced state apportionment law that, in a minority of jurisdictions including New York, asks juries to divide responsibility between these negligent and intentional tortfeasors. Consequently, the paper argues that courts should avoid all or at least certain intentional-negligent responsibility comparisons. However, the paper then discusses courts' second-best position - to uphold all jury apportionments, even those that assign greater, or perhaps far greater, responsibility to negligent than intentional parties.

Keywords: torts, liability apportionment, negligent tortfeasors, intentional tortfeasors, juries

Accepted Paper Series

Date posted: May 05, 2008 ; Last revised: March 13, 2009

Suggested Citation

Bublick, Ellen M.,Upside Down? Terrorists, Proprietors, and Civil Responsibility for Crime Prevention in the Post-9/11 Tort-Reform World(March 2009). 41 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1483 (2008); Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08-10. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1128414

Contact Information

Ellen M. Bublick (Contact Author)
University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law ( email )James E. Rogers College of Law
1201 E. Speedway
Tucson, AZ 85721-0176
United States
(520) 621-5600 (Phone)
(520) 621-9140 (Fax)

Feedback to SSRN (Beta) Feedback to SSRN (Beta)

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 481
Downloads: 55
Download Rank: 88,545
People who downloaded
this paper also downloaded:

1. Dispatches from the Tort Wars: A Review Essay
By Anthony Sebok

2. Ten Half-Truths About Tort Law
By John Goldberg

People who downloaded this paper also downloaded:
1. Dispatches from the Tort Wars: A Review Essay
By Anthony Sebok

2. Ten Half-Truths About Tort Law
By John Goldberg

© 2009 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use
This page was served by apollo4 in 0.141 seconds.