The Revenge of Palsgraf
If you're a lawyer or at least a second semester first year law student, you know what this tort case is and the kind of debate it elicits. Well, over at Mark Shea's blog, there's been some grumbling by Mr. Shea and various commenters about a ruling by a federal district court judge that the 9/11 terrorist attack was a "foreseeable risk." Such a ruling effectively opens the door for several civil lawsuits that have been filed by survivors of 9/11 victims against some of the airlines and airplane manufacturers whose planes got hijacked and destroyed.
As you'll see in his comment boxes, if you bother to look, I have initially taken what appears to be a minority position; that is, I think the judge's ruling might be correct, and that the airlines and manufacturers could be held liable for negligence. Since I haven't read Palsgraf in quite some time, I'm wondering if my position here falls under the Cardozo perspective on liability or the Andrews perspective. Little help from gallery.