Judicial role in mass-tort litigation : damage compensation assessment : World Trade Center site litigation vs. 11-M terrorist attacks judgment

Rosell Abadía, Anna

Judicial role in mass-tort litigation : damage compensation assessment : World Trade Center site litigation vs. 11-M terrorist attacks judgment

Citation

Rosell Abadía, A. Judicial role in mass-tort litigation : damage compensation assessment : World Trade Center site litigation vs. 11-M terrorist attacks judgment. 2013. handle: http://hdl.handle.net/10230/23476

This citation was generated automatically.

Abstract

This paper analyses and compares two different models of damage compensation in mass-tort litigation through the study of two leading cases from different legal systems: World Trade Center Site Litigation and Audiencia Nacional Judgment 65/2007, from 31st October./nDue to the complexity generated by a mass-tort case, the judge has been required to assume an active role in both proceedings. As a result, two different innovative judicial techniques have been applied, which will be the main object of this paper analysis./nIn World Trade Center Site Litigation the court has used its inherent “managerial judging” powers in a pre-trial stage to move lots of resources to encourage and achieve a fair damage compensation settlement for the plaintiffs, whose injuries resulted from cleaning efforts in 11-S terrorist attacks site./nIn Audiencia Nacional Judgment 65/2007, from 31st October, the court awarded high damage compensation amounts to direct victims from 11-M terrorist attack within an advanced ad hoc distribution compensation method that can be compared with Damage Schedules Act, which is a standard instrument applied in road accident damage compensation.