US court: Negligence not cause of 3rd WTC collapse


The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said it was "simply incompatible with common sense and experience to hold that defendants were required to design and construct a building that would survive the events of September 11, 2001."

The 2-to-1 decision upheld the rulings regarding World Trade Center 7 by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who had written that the claims by the Consolidated Edison Co. of New York and its insurance companies were "too farfetched and tenuous" to survive. Con Ed and the insurance companies had claimed that a company owned by developer Larry Silverstein and other defendants could be held liable. Hellerstein had dismissed various defendants in a series of rulings.


Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote in the majority decision that Con Ed's interpretation of liability would mean that those who designed and constructed the building would presumably be liable if it "collapsed as a result of a fire triggered by a nuclear attack on lower Manhattan."

The judge wrote that while concepts that would allow an entity to pursue a liability claim "must, by their nature, be fluid, at the end of the day they must engage with reality."


Con Ed had claimed negligence resulted in part because Tower 7's tenants were allowed to install diesel backup generators.



Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to messages for comment. Bud Perrone, a Silverstein spokesman, said he was pleased with the appeal ruling.



