Massport seeks release from 9/11 suit

Last unsettled case from attacks goes to court this week

July 24, 2011|By Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff

Nearly 10 years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks transformed air travel and robbed a confident nation of its sense of security, the Massachusetts Port Authority is facing a federal lawsuit that is forcing officials there to re-live some of the agency’s darkest days.

If lawyers fail to persuade a federal judge to release Massport from a negligence case filed by a Boston family, Logan International Airport could be exposed to its first liability claim in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and a messy public trial airing claims that weak security and hapless management contributed to the national tragedy.

The Bavis family, which has steadfastly refused to settle its suit against United Airlines, Massport, and other defendants, will get their first day in court Wednesday, when US District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein will hear arguments on whether Massport should remain a defendant in the wrongful death case of Mark Bavis. It is the last Sept. 11 case that has not been settled and would be the only one to proceed to trial.

Bavis was a 31-year-old hockey scout who was killed when United Flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center South Tower after being hijacked by terrorists who boarded at Logan.

The Bavis family did not respond to requests for comment. Their case is supported in court by lawyers for World Trade Center Properties LLC and other the property owners who are also suing United and Massport.

A trial is scheduled for November, but lawyers for Massport hope to persuade the judge to release the agency on summary judgment, arguing that federal law gave the airlines sole responsibility for security.

“There simply is no connection between Massport’s responsibilities and the terrorist attack on September 11th,’’ James J. Welna, a security consultant and witness for Massport, said in a report filed with court documents in the case. “Massport’s approach to checkpoint security was entirely consistent with both federal regulations and industry standards at the time.’’

But the plaintiffs want to hash out at trial, for the first time, what exactly went wrong on Sept. 11, 2001. They view this case as their last chance to hold airports accountable for security problems that they believe contributed to the attacks. And they suspect they may unearth details that were not explored during the federal 9/11 Commission probe, which catalogued myriad security breakdowns preceding the terrorist attacks.

Advertisement
Advertisement
|
|
|
|