The New York Times had a pretty interesting story today about what happened to 9/11 victims who sued
in court, including why they went that route. While the story focuses on money, we found it much more interesting to hear, in the victims' own words, why they chose to go to court.
It should first be noted that the legal hurdles 9/11 victims faced were pretty huge. The airlines had already received immunity from litigation, which is why Congress tacked onto the immunity bill, the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund—basically an entitlement program that afforded 9/11 victims a pretty good avenue for compensation. They were also able to get expert legal help through Trial Lawyers Care, a pro bono project established by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (now known as the American Association for Justice) to help victims litigate before the fund.
Some chose to go to court against airline security companies and others, however. The late 9/11 widow and victims’ advocate, Beverly Eckert, used to emphasize that their primary motivation was a desire for moral justice, real accountability, and getting to the bottom of what happened on that terrible day.
And those are the exact sentiments found by victims quoted in the Times today. “It was never a risk to me because it was never about getting more money,” said Julie Sweeney Roth, who sued United Airlines and other defendants over the death of her husband, Brian D. Sweeney, 38, who was aboard United Flight 175 when it hit the south tower of the trade center. “I wanted to know why and how this happened in this country….If suing for money is how I have to do it, then that’s what I’m going to do.”
One of the attorneys said that “the lawsuits had turned up mountains of material that helped explain the security lapses that allowed the attacks to take place” and while so far, the defendants have required this information to stay confidential, “the plaintiffs in the three unresolved lawsuits are seeking to have it made public as part of any settlement.”
Interestingly, the Times also reported that some of those who opted not to sue felt “discomfort, regret, shame, anger” about not doing so because the suits “might have provided more information, accountability and change.” One widow even “agonized over whether applying to the fund might do a disservice to her husband and other victims’ families, because suing seemed to be the only way to find out why the attacks happened.”
Ultimately, for us, today’s Times story might have been titled, “Why We Fight.” Lawsuits do more than compensate the injured and hold wrongdoers accountable. They also have a unique and powerful way of getting to the bottom of things, and affording a sense of justice for those who have been hurt.
Comments