dojW000671.xml

dojW000671.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-26

Monday, November 26, 2001 5:30 PM
comments regarding the Victim Compensation Fund


My name is . I have looked at the rules and regulations
and I have some concerns about the compensation package. In all
honesty, I am having difficulty in understanding the intent of this
proposed Act. Is it to forego lawsuits against the airlines? airports?
NY port authority? Which corporate entities are protected by this Act?




* Economic Loss: Many of the people who died were young and in
the early stages of their career. Therefore it seems reasonable to me
that any method of calculating earning potential would take into
consideration the following factors:
* The victim's age at death
* Their current earnings
* Given that we don't know how a person's career would turn out we
need to make the same assumptions for all:
* their yearly wage would increase
* their would be several promotions over the years
* Although future income is highly unpredictable it is not for us
to make the judgment that a person would make less money as time went
on, or even that they wouldn't climb the corporate ladder. I think it
would be reasonable to identify the natural career trajectory for
someone in their respective field and assume, for purposes of this fund,
that most people would follow this course.
* That said, I think this should be the norm but there should be
some way to challenge this so that a person could successfully challenge
the formula and argue that given their track record, education, etc.
that they very well could have made more money than the formula allows
* In addition, as a person became more financially stable they
would be more likely to contribute to the retirement fund - is this fund
to be used to compensate individuals for what their retirement funds
would have been had they lived? If so, then this numerical amount needs
to take that into consideration


* Noneconomic Loss: Where a person was located should absolutely
be taken into consideration. Those who were on the upper floors and had
no avenue of escape suffered in a way that person should have to. In
all likelihood they probably watched their co-workers and friends die.
They probably watched as they people struggled to take a breath, jumped
out the window, or were catasphrocically burned. Imagine being in a
building burning 100 stories, or more, high and not being able to get
out. Imagine the smoke, the screaming, the realization that you might
die. Yes, location was everything. Imagine knowing that the building
next to you fell and wondering if, and when, yours would fall. Imagine
the streams of water spilling onto you, the incessant noise of the fire
detectors, the screaming, the smell of smoke and jet fuel and the
absolute panic of not being able to get down. Imagine going to the roof
of the building only the door to the exit is locked. Imagine waiting
for help and help never comes.
* Those on the 50th floor or higher (or so) had other concerns.
They could get out but the stairwell was only built for two people.
Because the firefighters were going up (bless their souls) only 1 person
could come down at a time meaning that far fewer people were able to get
out.
* There are stories of doors being locked and people unable to get
down the stairs.
* What about those who were physically challenged and couldn't get
out of the building? Their suffering was great as well.


Somehow, I believe, that the different scenarios need to be
compensated differently.


* Collateral Sources: Regarding compensation; whether a person
has life insurance, a 401K, or other benefits is of no consequence.
Subtracting this amount from a person's compensation is equal to
penalizing someone for having life insurance or other benefits.
Compensation should be the earnings a person would have a made had their
lives not been tragically cut short as a result of their murder.
Whether they had life insurance or other benefits is irrespective of
their earning potential over the course of a lifetime and ought not to
be taken into consideration.


* Limitation on civil action: The towers were build to withstand
the crash of an airplane yet the fire exits were not adequate for people
on the higher level floors to reasonably to get out in case of a fire.
Although a crash of this type and magnitude and carrying this much fuel
was not foreseen, it was highly foreseeable that a fire or an attack of
some sort (remember the 1993 bomb attack on the WTC) could result in
people needing to vacate the building quickly. The fact that there was
an attempt on this building in 1993 and there were no additional
safeguards added so that people on the upper floors could have a
reasonable attempt at escape seems negligent to me. The fact that their
only avenue of escape may have been the roof but the door was locked
again seems negligent. The fact that there were no rescue helicopters
helping to rescue people seems negligent.


* Who should be compensated: Obviously the next of kin; however
there are lots of people suffering. If a victim had a spouse and
parents then the parents should have a claim to pain and suffering
(e.g., noneconomic losses).


These are my initial comments on this Act. I look forward to seeing
what shape the final Act looks like.


Individual Comment
Omaha, NE

2001-11-26