Judge Rules Ground Zero Worker Can Sue City, Port Authority

Sept. 13, 2002
A cleanup worker employed by Grace Industries who received permanent injuries resulting from his employment at Ground Zero can sue the city of New York for negligence, a federal judge ruled this week.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein rejected a bid by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to move the case from state to federal court. The Port Authority argued that the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act gave a federal court, the Southern District of New York, jurisdiction over all cases stemming from the September 11 terrorist attack.

The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, enacted shortly after the attacks on Sept. 22, 2001, created a federal cause of action for damages "arising out of the hijacking and subsequent crashes" on Sept. 11. The law gave the Southern District jurisdiction over all legal actions "resulting from or relating to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes."

In an article published in today's New York Law Journal, Hellerstein is quoted as saying, "Congress did not intend to oust state court jurisdiction in cases such as this involving injuries common to construction and demolition sites generally, and risks and duties not alleged to be particular to the special conditions caused by the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11."

Christopher Graybill allegedly was injured when a 1,000-pound girder was dropped into his work area from a hydraulic claw machine. Graybill sued, claiming the city of New York and the Port Authority were negligent because they failed to comply with New York Labor Law.

The Port Authority, which was the landlord of the World Trade Center, argued that the Air Safety Act limited the financial liability to the insurance coverage held by an "air carrier, aircraft manufacturer, airport sponsor or person with a property interest in the World Trade Center," ie., the Port Authority. According to the Port Authority, the lawsuit should be handled in federal court because if alls under the act.

"There is no suggestion in the text of the Air Safety Act, or its legislative history, that Congress intended to displace the traditional functioning of state laws and state adjudicatory bodies in this kind of dispute," Hellerstein ruled.

About the Author

Sandy Smith

Sandy Smith is the former content director of EHS Today, and is currently the EHSQ content & community lead at Intelex Technologies Inc. She has written about occupational safety and health and environmental issues since 1990.

Sponsored Recommendations

Free Webinar: ISO 45001 – A Commitment to Occupational Health, Safety & Personal Wellness

May 30, 2024
Secure a safer and more productive workplace using proven Management Systems ISO 45001 and ISO 45003.

ISO 45003 – Psychological Health and Safety at Work

May 30, 2024
ISO 45003 offers a comprehensive framework to expand your existing occupational health and safety program, helping you mitigate psychosocial risks and promote overall employee...

DH Pace, national door and dock provider, reduces TRIR and claims with EHS solution

May 29, 2024
Find out how DH Pace moved from paper/email/excel to an EHS platform, changing their culture. They reduced TRIR from 4.8 to 1.46 and improved their ability to bid on and win contracts...

Case Study: Improve TRIR from 4+ to 1 with EHS Solution and Safety Training

May 29, 2024
Safety training and EHS solutions improve TRIR for Complete Mechanical Services, leading to increased business. Moving incidents, training, and other EHS procedures into the digital...

Voice your opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of EHS Today, create an account today!