Judge to weigh whether WTC owners can seek money from airlines over 9/11

[happyslug]

28. You missed the point, the case pointed out liability in areas where they was no regulations

In the case of the locks on the Cockpit, it had been recommended since the 1970s. The FAA did not require locks NOR BANNED THEM, thus it was up to each airline to install them or not to install them. In the 1930s it was NOT required for barges to have radios to receive weather reports, but such radios were NOT banned and given this was a COASTAL barge traffic, even then regulated by the US Coast Guard (Being involved with interstate shipping is why the case was in Federal Court).

The holding was simple, if the cost to prevent a loss was low, the fact that it is NOT required is not a defense. Compared to the cost of a door without a lock, a door with a lock was only marginally more expensive (In fact the FAA required replacement of all doors without locks with door with locks after 9/11 for even replacing the door was relatively cheap). Thus that an area of the law has extensive regulation is NOT a defense unless it can be show that the Regulation prohibited what would have prevented the loss. In the case of 9/11 the FAA had clearly recommended locks on Cockpits, but had NOT required such locks, thus they was NO REGULATION FORBIDDING LOCKS. Thus the cited 1932 case comes into play.