Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: BAM: cough up $700K .. Aurora cinemark not liable - lizzurds gotta pay

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    BAM: cough up $700K .. Aurora cinemark not liable - lizzurds gotta pay

    http://theweek.com/speedreads/646024...-theater-chain

    Weaver and 36 other plaintiffs quickly removed themselves from the suit, but four stayed on, and the judge ruled the next day in favor of Cinemark. The state court case cost $699,000, and the federal case is expected to be more.


    I doubt that they will get their $700K back and I don't care if they did ... They apparently go by the European rules regarding such things.

    Those 4 folks likely will be on the hook for that $700K. In theory. Reality? Can be different.

    Generally when a judge tells ya to drop a case and their is liability if not done, then hey, you really like rolling that loaded dice !

    I won't live in a state that follows the european rule ... for good reason.

    I have been told several times by judges to settle...sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

    In the real world, not fantasy legal theory world, IMO its harder for a plaintiff to get a win than it is for a prosecutor to obtain a guilty verdict. Our system's broke yo.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    In far too many cases, the cost of fighting even frivolous litigation means that it is cheaper for targeted deep pockets to settle than to fight and win. Some form of loser pay is desperately needed in far more cases.

    Had this suit been mounted by a couple of gun owners who disarmed in accordance with the posted theater policy, I'd be much more sympathetic to the victims.

    Heck, if the basis of this suit were that by posting a gun free zone the theater had created a dangerous environment that attracted criminals, I'd also like to see the suit succeed. I haven't read the suit so if this was the basis, I'm sad to see it fail.

    But if 4 dozen money grubbers decide that someone else is responsible for their safety and they are entitled to retire because something bad happened, I'm less inclined to go along.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    As a whole, Cinemark has been less than sympathetic in the aftermath of one of the worst mass shootings in American history. The following year, after declining to meet with victims’ families, Cinemark offered them free movie passes instead.

    http://jezebel.com/theater-chain-see...s-o-1782898208


    They offered free movie passes? What PR genius thought of that one.

    And now all that "insurance requires no guns" argument is shown to be all bull ....
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 09-01-2016 at 12:19 AM. Reason: rule #19

  4. #4
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post


    Generally when a judge tells ya to drop a case and their is liability if not done, then hey, you really like rolling that loaded dice !
    Can you fix this please. I am unsure about what you had intended to say.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Can you fix this please. I am unsure about what you had intended to say.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Some judges are nice enough to tell you to drop a case, telling you he/she is going to rule against you. In such cases when you decide to still move the case forward you basically know what is going to happen. Some will tell you during discovery motions or other pre-trial stuff. So unless you are willing to go to an appeal, when a judge says to settle or withdraw you should.

  6. #6
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    BAM: cough up $700K .. Aurora cinemark not liable - lizzurds gotta pay

    So the plaintiffs went from a settlement netting a few thousand dollars each to four of them owing 700k, all because 1 plaintiff would not accept it even though he knew victory was not possible. So pay up.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Last edited by lockman; 09-02-2016 at 08:28 AM.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,728
    During opening statements Tuesday, both sides gave previews of their cases.

    The plaintiffs argue that Cinemark failed to take the types of precautions it should have known it needed to take after a string of high-profile mass shootings across the country. Bern said evidence police gathered showed the gunman cased the theater complex at least four times prior to the shooting, including taking cellphone pictures, but theater security never noticed him. There were also large gaps in security camera coverage that allowed the gunman to prepare for his attack unseen by theater employees.

    “They were not prepared for what happened that night,” he said.

    Cinemark argued the attack was an unforeseeable act of singular malice. Taylor said the theater had no history of major violent incidents and was so safe that the Aurora police officers who provided occasional off-duty security there also let their kids work at the theater. No extra security measures would have prevented the attack, he said.

    “We humbly submit to you that this horrible tragedy … is simply not the fault of Cinemark,” Taylor said.
    http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/10...l-trial-opens/

    Typical, smart attorneys making the wrong argument.

    If I were the four I would sue the attorneys for knowingly filing a frivolous lawsuit and not informing us that said suit didn't have a chance in hell of succeeding.
    If the suit claimed that the theater denied the patrons their right to self protection they may have had a slim chance of prevailing. The "no guns" signs denied us our chance of self protection.

    But, for that to succeed the victims would have to show that they normally carry for self protection.

    I would bet none of the victims ever carried.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    I believe that the "should have known" standard will be found to be unreasonable unless it it can be demonstrated that all or many similar mass entertainment venues have responded similarly to such threats. Clearly that has not been the case.

    The Mall Ninja's' Union is likely behind this.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/10...l-trial-opens/

    Typical, smart attorneys making the wrong argument.

    If I were the four I would sue the attorneys for knowingly filing a frivolous lawsuit and not informing us that said suit didn't have a chance in hell of succeeding.
    If the suit claimed that the theater denied the patrons their right to self protection they may have had a slim chance of prevailing. The "no guns" signs denied us our chance of self protection.

    But, for that to succeed the victims would have to show that they normally carry for self protection.

    I would bet none of the victims ever carried.
    Hmmmm...interesting

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •