IN RE SEPTEMBER 11 LITIGATION - 1 Torts O2.pdf

279IN RE SEPTEMBER 11 LITIGATION Cite as 280 F.Supp.2d 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) In re SEPTEMBER 11 LITIGATION No. 21 MC 97(AKH). United States District Court, S.D. New York. Sept. 9, 2003. Victims who were injured, and surviv- ors of victims who where killed, in terror- ist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001 brought action against airlines, airport security companies, owners and op- erator of building destroyed in crash, and aircraft manufacturer. On defendants’ mo- tion to dismiss, the District Court, Heller- stein, J., held that: (1) under New York law, duty of airlines and airport security companies to secure aircraft against poten- tial terrorists and weapons smuggled aboard extended to ground victims of crashes; (2) crash of the planes hijacked by terrorists was within the class of foresee- able hazards resulting from negligently performed security screening by airlines; (3) federal statutes and regulations provid- ing for protection of passengers and prop- erty on aircraft in the event of air piracy did not preempt plaintiff’s negligence claim under New York law; (4) owners and oper- ators of office building owed duty under New York law to building’s occupants to create and implement adequate fire safety measures; (5) plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to alleged legal proximate cause against owners and operators; (6) plain- tiff’s allegations were sufficient to establish manufacturer’s duty under Virginia and Pennsylvania law; and (7) failure of manu- facturer to design impenetrable cockpit door was proximate cause of crashes. Motion granted in part and denied in part. 1. Torts O2 New York choice of law dictates that the state in which the tort took place has the strongest interest in applying its con- duct-regulating rules. 2. Torts O2 Under Virginia law, the substantive law of the place of the tort controls. 3. Negligence O210 Under New York law, threshold ques- tion in any negligence action is: does the defendant owe a legally recognized duty of