W000358
Friday, November 16, 2001 12:39 AM
As an advocate for my sister in law and her 3 children, surviving next of kin of my brother, who was killed in the North Tower WTC on
September 11, 2001, and all other surviving members of the victim's families, I have great concern for how the victim compensation
fund compensation fund will be determined and administered.
Bottom line, it is clear that the government and airlines were negligent parties in this catastrophe. Everyone agrees that some form of compensation is owed to the victims of this tragic event. I implore you to be fair and to not to further our pain by haphazardly or inconsistently executing the fund.
In any court case we ask what was the crime, who was the victim, who was negligent and how do we compensate the victim or family of the victim. Jury trials cost money, take time and cause unnecessary stress to the victims and are a drain to the overall court system. For this reason we have settlements. In order for settlements to work, there must be an overall feeling of "win/win". The government "wins" by consolidating its claims and therefore consolidating expenses. The victims, although never a "win" in a case like this, are protected from a lengthy, costly and painful process and can concentrate on the difficult task of trying to put the pieces of their shattered lives back together in some way.
It is clear that the US Gov't, along with the airlines, were negligent in their responsibilities to the American people. It is an atrocity that the American people put their trust in the government to protect its citizens, and yet, even in the tumultuous climate of Arab unrest, (not to mention fairly recent terrorist attacks that have hit pretty "close to home" with fair warning that other attacks were inevitable), . that our government has spent more time and energy attempting to prosecute a president for his "extra curricular personal affairs" and trying to reign in Microsoft's control of the PC software market, just to name a few. Clearly, priorities and resources were not appropriately assessed. Additionally, our intelligence communication to other federal agencies that perhaps could have assisted or thwarted the terrorist activities long before they occurred were grossly insufficient.
Those who lost their lives, and their families are in the thousands. There are thousands of children like my niece and nephews who will never know their father. There are thousands of women, and men, who like my sister-in-law are now single parent households, not by choice. Lastly, my brother and the 5,000 like him who were victims September 11, miss out on the wonderful lives they built for themselves. They were cheated and robbed. They lost their freedom; the freedom they thought they had when they went to work September 11, 2001. They had no choice that day but to die at the hands of a faceless enemy; an enemy our government knew was there.
In a jury trial, compensatory and punitive damages are often awarded. Typically, punitive damages are emotional awards made by juries that never seem to meet the actual crime but are to "teach a lesson" to those responsible. Certainly, this is one of the most emotional cases to ever fall into the justice system. While I don't expect each victim to receive an "emotionally inflated award", the least I expect is an award that covers future earnings of each victim and takes into account pain and suffering (a non-variable amount across all victims.) I also strongly oppose the government deducting or "taking into account the collateral sources for which a claimant is eligible" (i.g. life insurance). Again, in order for a settlement to work, the execution of the fund must be consistent across victims. It would be extremely unfair to penalize those who planned and saved for their families futures. These and other assets have nothing to do with the damages that occurred as a result of 9/11. The net worth of the victims' families should not be an offset to damages, as it would result in awarding more in damages to those who did not sacrifice and save for their families futures. Additionally, taking into account the value of one's assets would be prejudicial.
I believe the following issues need to be addressed.
-Future earnings until average life expectancy.
-Number of children
-Adjustment for cost of living increases.
-A lump sum acknowledging pain and suffering payable to each surviving spouse and dependant child consistent across all victims.
-I see no logic in taking into account the collateral sources for which a claimant is eligible. First of all there is too much subjectivity.
Secondly, no victim should be penalized because of his/her attempt to insure himself for the benefit of his/her dependants. (If he/she thought terrorism of this scale was even remotely likely, I am sure many of those who had life insurance policies, would have policy values far greater than those they had at the time of their untimely deaths). Why should the government be allowed to reduce their commitment and responsibility to and thereby penalize those who have suffered from this horrible tragedy because some of these people had life insurance.
-Other deductions should only be those funds directly obtained from Federal sources, (i.e.. FEMA), not from charitable sources.
-No family should be forced to live below the standard of living they had while the deceased was living.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. I hope and trust that the United States government is able to do the right thing in this extremely difficult situation.
Individual Comment
Omaha, NE