Prof. Hadfield examines the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund
—By Lori Craig
At first take, most Americans might say that the terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks shoulder most, if not all, of the blame.
Talk to victims of the attacks and their family members, however, and a different picture emerges.
Professor Gillian Hadfield surveyed and talked to more than 150 victims or family members and found that, while the terrorists topped their list of parties who share responsibility for the lives lost, airline security firms, United States intelligence agencies and President George W. Bush were also at fault. In fact, only 25 percent of the victims she surveyed thought that the terrorists shared more than half the responsibility for the thousands of deaths.
 |
| Prof. Hadfield spoke about her paper, "Framing the Choice between Cash and the Courthouse" |
“If you were personally involved in this, you may have a very different appreciation for where the fault falls for Sept. 11,” Hadfield said.
Hadifeld’s talk was the second in a series of faculty discussions launched by the law school this spring.
Hadfield made the discoveries about shared responsibility during a larger examination of participation in the Victim Compensation Fund. The fund guaranteed victims and family members a settlement (on average about $2,000,000 for the death of a relative) if they waived their right to sue any party for what happened. It was a “stunning success,” in the words of its administrator Kenneth Feinberg. About 97 percent of victims participated — a payout that totaled $7 billion. Only 100 lawsuits were filed; all but six are now settled.
“How do potential plaintiffs think about the decision to take a check versus filing a lawsuit? Do they frame that exclusively in monetary terms?” Hadfield said. “The amount people were going to get out of that fund was probably at least as high as what they would have gotten in court.”
Clearly, however, the decision was not an easy one, as nearly half of the claims to the fund were filed in the last month of the two-year filing window, Hadfield said.
For those who chose the fund, the biggest factor was the emotional distress of litigation, according to Hadfield’s research. Other major factors were the speed of receiving payment through the fund versus a lengthy trial; a feeling that litigation would not accomplish a particular outcome; and the sense of closure offered by the fund.
More than half of those who participated in the fund said the decision was “difficult,” citing concern about the fairness of payments, the lack of accountability without litigation, and a feeling that the money was meant to keep families quiet.
Hadfield read one response: “We didn’t get money for a mistake. We got money because they didn’t want us to sue. A civil suit with subpoena power would have exposed stuff that they didn’t want exposed. … I’m not buying that they were generous.”
Hadfield was able to survey only 10 of the 100 people who ended up filing lawsuits — a number too small to analyze statistically. She said they felt taking money for their losses was wrong, or that their desire to see someone punished outweighed the monetary benefit.
Those who sued wanted facts, accountability and change, Hadfield said. This leads to an examination of the costs and benefits of steering victims away from litigation, which is costly and time-consuming, rather than fixing the system.
“We’ve got to think carefully about all the pressure toward alternative dispute resolution and settlement: Was that a good thing?” Hadfield said. “I think we have to be careful about that conclusion. We also lose things if we don’t think about a more efficient way to accomplish some of those goals.”
Previous Article
