• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
http://theweek.com/speedreads/646024/survivors-aurora-shooting-have-pay-least-700000-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.
 
U

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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-seeks-700k-in-legal-fees-from-families-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 a moderator:
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Freedom1Man said:
Can you fix this please. I am unsure about what you had intended to say.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

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.
 
lockman

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
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:
color of law

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,949
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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.
Click to expand...
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/1...ims-cite-security-flaws-as-civil-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.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
color of law said:
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/1...ims-cite-security-flaws-as-civil-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.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...interesting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top