## Facts

- The Port Authority owned and operated the World Trade Center complex, including a subterranean public parking garage.
- Years before February 26, 1993, the Port Authority received internal and external security assessments warning that the World Trade Center was a likely terrorist target and that the public garage was vulnerable to a vehicle-bomb attack.
- Reports described a scenario in which a car or van carrying explosives would enter the public garage, be parked, and detonate after the perpetrators left; measures such as eliminating public parking, staffing entrances, and conducting vehicle checks were recommended.
- The Port Authority rejected or did not meaningfully implement the recommended measures, citing concerns such as inconvenience and revenue loss.
- On February 26, 1993, terrorists drove a rental van loaded with explosives into the garage, left it near critical infrastructure, lit a timed fuse, and exited; the explosion killed six people, injured hundreds, and disrupted essential services.
- Injured plaintiffs, including Linda P. Nash, sued the Port Authority under a premises-liability theory alleging breach of a landlord’s duty to maintain reasonably safe premises in light of a foreseeable risk.
- The actions were consolidated for a liability trial; the jury found the Port Authority negligent and allocated it the majority share of fault.
- The trial court denied the Port Authority’s motion to set aside the verdict, and the Port Authority appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Port Authority’s operation and security of the World Trade Center parking garage was a governmental function entitling it to immunity or a proprietary landlord function governed by ordinary negligence principles.
2. Whether the Port Authority owed a duty to take reasonable security precautions against a terrorist vehicle-bomb attack and whether that risk was foreseeable on this record.
3. Whether the evidence supported proximate cause and the jury’s comparative-fault allocation despite the intentional criminal acts of third parties.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the liability judgment against the Port Authority.
- It held the claim sounded in proprietary premises liability and was not barred by governmental immunity.
- It concluded the bombing was foreseeable given the Port Authority’s documented, specific prior warnings about a vehicle-bomb attack through the public garage.
- It held the evidence supported findings of breach, proximate cause, and the jury’s apportionment of fault.

## Legal Principles

- A public entity acting as a commercial landlord may be treated as performing a proprietary function and held to ordinary premises-liability standards.
- Foreseeability may be established by concrete, specific prior warnings identifying the hazard and its likely manner of occurrence.
- A landlord’s failure to take reasonable precautions against a foreseeable risk can constitute negligence even when the immediate harm is inflicted by intentional third-party criminal conduct, if the omission is a substantial contributing cause.
- Where the record supports competing inferences on reasonable precautions and causation, a jury’s negligence and comparative-fault determinations will be upheld on appeal.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a negligence verdict arising from the World Trade Center garage bombing, reasoning that the Port Authority acted as a proprietary landlord, had specific advance notice of the vehicle-bomb risk, and could be held liable under ordinary premises-liability principles for failing to take reasonable security measures that the jury found would have reduced the likelihood or impact of the attack.


Nash v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 51 A.D.3d 337 (1st Dep’t 2008)