The case, scheduled for November in the US District Court of the Southern District of New York, is the only Sept. 11 wrongful-death case that is unresolved, and the first in which Massport would stand trial for culpability in the hijackings. Though Massport’s internal management was heavily criticized in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, the agency has been dismissed as a defendant from other wrongful-death suits and has not contributed to settlements made to other victims’ families.
In a filing last week, Massport aimed to buttress its case for sum mary judgment, maintaining that, even if better security could have prevented the hijackings, it was not the airport’s role to provide it. Before the transformative terrorist attacks in 2001, passenger screening was the duty of the airlines, who subcontracted with security companies to provide it.
“Massport was not responsible for passenger checkpoint screening on 9/11,’’ Massport’s lawyers wrote in the most recent filing. “Passenger screening is and was no more an airport operator function than flight crew performance and aircraft maintenance.’’
While Bavis’s suit tries to assign Massport “overarching responsibility’’ for airport security, Massport’s lawyers countered, “There is no basis for doing so and such a holding would turn both the pre- and post-9/11 nationwide aviation system on its head.’’
Neither Mary Bavis nor her attorney could be reached for comment yesterday. A spokesman for Massport also declined to speak to the case, pointing instead to the details of the latest filing.
The trial is expected to begin in November and to last about a month, under the orders of US District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of New York, but it remains uncertain whether Massport will be a defendant. A July 27 hearing is scheduled on Massport’s motion for summary judgment.
