Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 04:38 PM Sep 2016

Aurora shooting massacre survivors ordered to pay Cinemark theater chain $700,000

Source: Salon

Four survivors of the shooting massacre in Aurora, Colorado, now owe the third-largest movie theater company in the country $700,000.

In 2012, 12 people were killed and at least 70 others were wounded when James Holmes walked into the Cinemark’s Aurora Century 16 theater and opened fire.

While Holmes was found guilty in 2015, a group of survivors filed a state lawsuit against Cinemark in 2012, claiming lax security allowed the heavily-armed Holmes to enter the theater and carry out the shooting. Ultimately, a jury of six sided with Cinemark in the civil case in state court, finding that there was no way they could have foreseen the attack and that additional security would have done little to stop Holmes, who was wearing body armor and was armed with gas canisters and multiple firearms.”

Colorado law allows the winning side of civil cases to seek costs. According to the Los Angeles Times, Cinemark’s lawyers at the time told a judge the money was needed to cover the costs of preserving evidence, retrieving and copying records, travel and other expenses – including $500,000 for expert testimony.

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2016/09/01/aurora-shooting-massacre-survivors-ordered-to-pay-cinemark-theater-chain-700000/

103 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Aurora shooting massacre survivors ordered to pay Cinemark theater chain $700,000 (Original Post) Blue_Tires Sep 2016 OP
Time for a GoFundMe 47of74 Sep 2016 #1
Hopefully Cinemark lawyers convince their client that forgiving the debt would be more valuable 63splitwindow Sep 2016 #2
They were dumb to sue in the first place yeoman6987 Sep 2016 #12
Attacking the victims I see. Kingofalldems Sep 2016 #30
Cinemark is also a victim in this case. NutmegYankee Sep 2016 #32
They should have accepted the settlement Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #38
Post removed Post removed Sep 2016 #90
Cinemark is opening themselves up to a boycott. LanternWaste Sep 2016 #3
Exactly! nt avebury Sep 2016 #34
I doubt yet another boycott will fluff dust in the Gobi. Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #97
Fuck Cinemark if they try to collect. Iggo Sep 2016 #4
Clearly not all publicity is good publicity PatSeg Sep 2016 #5
Aurora massacre survivors sued. How did 4 end up owing the theater $700,000? elleng Sep 2016 #6
All but four dropped out of the federal lawsuit. NaturalHigh Sep 2016 #85
All but 4 took the advice given by the lawyers MichMan Sep 2016 #86
Just for pursuing this claim I will never go to a Cinemark Theater again. nt TeamPooka Sep 2016 #7
I'm going to one this weekend Travis_0004 Sep 2016 #26
"Should every business be sued if an armed gunman enters that business." avebury Sep 2016 #36
"there are consequences for allowing armed patrons inside" mwrguy Sep 2016 #43
The theatre was a gun free business. NutmegYankee Sep 2016 #51
This is quite an uneducated statement. MadDAsHell Sep 2016 #56
Wow Cal Carpenter Sep 2016 #84
We really should be thanking the movie industry for our current romance with guns nolabels Sep 2016 #93
Some of the plaintiffs turned down a settlement MichMan Sep 2016 #8
I hope so. Claiming theater liability here sounds weak, at best, to me. Tragic beyond words, YES. 63splitwindow Sep 2016 #9
Suing the theater is really unfair to the theater. A case like this would open up any business to still_one Sep 2016 #16
There is a line of thought in personal injury/wrongful death litigation that if the damages/injury 63splitwindow Sep 2016 #20
By who, personal injury lawyers? n/t MichMan Sep 2016 #35
Both sides of the situation, that's why a settlement offer was made. They don't pay for giggles. 63splitwindow Sep 2016 #37
Heck, if you can't bring food or drinks into the theater, you shouldn't be allowed politicaljunkie41910 Sep 2016 #50
Except that isn't how it happened. He went in first without any weapons, and sat in the front still_one Sep 2016 #54
If they try to collect, I recommend boycotting the tropes NotHardly Sep 2016 #10
I encourage boycotting tropes. Igel Sep 2016 #65
I have simile views about this tale. Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #98
Cue gun fetishists to show up and attack gun victims' families. nt onehandle Sep 2016 #11
More like attacking frivolous lawsuits AllTooEasy Sep 2016 #19
Nope, they should have accepted the settlement Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #28
No way, onehandle. Nobody at DU is low enough to literally grave dance. nt onehandle Sep 2016 #44
If only some random asshole had been there with a legal firearm Orrex Sep 2016 #13
WHAT??? dicksmc3 Sep 2016 #15
I think the poster was being sarcastic AllTooEasy Sep 2016 #21
Gotta think he was being sarcastic. 63splitwindow Sep 2016 #22
The cops thought he was a cop IronLionZion Sep 2016 #25
Unless of course, there were, say, 12 random untrained assholes ... brett_jv Sep 2016 #89
I can't believe his shit!! dicksmc3 Sep 2016 #14
Cinemark offered to settle and were turned down MichMan Sep 2016 #17
If anything the laywers that told the victims to sue the theater in the first place should be still_one Sep 2016 #18
They were advised to settle MichMan Sep 2016 #27
Appreciate the explanation. Thanks still_one Sep 2016 #46
Why in the world should Cinemark pay medical expenses? obamanut2012 Sep 2016 #80
They're paying for making a frivolous lawsuit AllTooEasy Sep 2016 #23
Reading is helpful. GeorgeGist Sep 2016 #24
Not the only frivolous lawsuit for this shooting incident MichMan Sep 2016 #29
The validity of that claim could, IMO, depend on how the shooter presented at purchase time... 63splitwindow Sep 2016 #33
that plainly sucks! chillfactor Sep 2016 #31
They knew what they were doing Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #39
Everyone should be informed that to walk into a Cinemark theater Binkie The Clown Sep 2016 #40
Don't make frivolous lawsuits and you don't have to pay legal fees. FLPanhandle Sep 2016 #41
Would you be happier to walk into a Cinemark theater, christx30 Sep 2016 #42
Ugh, if the theater did that I can well imagine the cries of "Police state" and other cstanleytech Sep 2016 #52
Oh I agree completely. christx30 Sep 2016 #59
Hey I am not arguing since most theaters, grocery stores or other retail stores do not cstanleytech Sep 2016 #61
Again, I agree with you. christx30 Sep 2016 #64
So, Binkie, are you saying there is a theater chain in the US where this couldn't have happened? Nitram Sep 2016 #49
I need to go see a movie Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #53
When hell freezes over and pigs fly. Loki Sep 2016 #45
For defending themselves against a frivolous lawsuit? Travis_0004 Sep 2016 #47
Quite simply, yes. Loki Sep 2016 #55
If someone sued you for something christx30 Sep 2016 #60
Wow obamanut2012 Sep 2016 #79
Not every institution or business owes you damages for the acts of others... Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #99
How do the litigants blame the theater? Nitram Sep 2016 #48
It doesn't specifically how many of the survivors joined the law suit, but let's napi21 Sep 2016 #57
Well you can continue guessing or you could read post #27. cstanleytech Sep 2016 #62
Thanks. I didn't see that before I wrote mine. I still stand by what I said though. napi21 Sep 2016 #67
Foreclose on their house to recover the funds Travis_0004 Sep 2016 #63
You should read the article tammywammy Sep 2016 #72
They had to pay $500,000 for expert testimony against themselves. OMG doc03 Sep 2016 #58
Yup. Igel Sep 2016 #66
With any luck... GummyBearz Sep 2016 #69
Where's Bloomberg and the Brady Bunch? They encourage such suits, but fly when the bill is due. X_Digger Sep 2016 #68
How is a shooting different from a fire? If Cinemark wasn't fully insured they should have been. ucrdem Sep 2016 #70
Generally speaking... Sand Rat Expat Sep 2016 #71
I agree with your post, but... Calista241 Sep 2016 #73
That wasn't my intention, no. Sand Rat Expat Sep 2016 #88
I don't think the issue is negligence; it's responsibility. ucrdem Sep 2016 #74
Why should Cinemark have to make amends? RelativelyJones Sep 2016 #75
Insurance is a cost of doing business, and a reasonable expectation of safety ucrdem Sep 2016 #76
Does the same hold true for Sandy Hook? MichMan Sep 2016 #77
I don't think you understand what insurance is for. X_Digger Sep 2016 #81
Uhg GummyBearz Sep 2016 #82
Respectfully disagree with you in this particular case. Sand Rat Expat Sep 2016 #87
I am not a "big business" apologist by any means, but Cinemark is not in the wrong obamanut2012 Sep 2016 #78
Crazy weapons guy enters your house while you have friends over for a cribbage night Blandocyte Sep 2016 #83
The gun trolls are showing their asses CreekDog Sep 2016 #91
Indeed, yes. Sand Rat Expat Sep 2016 #92
As are the anti-gun trolls hack89 Sep 2016 #95
Well, don't fall face-first when tailing me. Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #100
Interesting, all you have are insults directed at DU members Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #102
Shame. But they have to pay to try to game the system. GOLGO 13 Sep 2016 #94
"there is no intention to actually seek recovery of the court costs" oberliner Sep 2016 #96
Looks like the... deathrind Sep 2016 #101
Lawyers victimize victims HassleCat Sep 2016 #103
 

63splitwindow

(2,657 posts)
2. Hopefully Cinemark lawyers convince their client that forgiving the debt would be more valuable
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 04:44 PM
Sep 2016

in goodwill and favorable publicity than collecting the money.

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
12. They were dumb to sue in the first place
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 05:00 PM
Sep 2016

They were offered a settlement and turned it down even though the lawyer advised against that. Oh well. Lessons learned hopefully.

NutmegYankee

(16,177 posts)
32. Cinemark is also a victim in this case.
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 06:28 PM
Sep 2016

They had to wrongfully incur expenses to defend against a frivolous lawsuit. A jury evaluated the accusations and clearly decided against the plaintiffs (offensive side) arguments.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
38. They should have accepted the settlement
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 06:42 PM
Sep 2016

They were told what would happen if the lawsuit was found to be frivolous. Loser pays the cost of the defendant in Colorado.

Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #12)

MichMan

(11,787 posts)
86. All but 4 took the advice given by the lawyers
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 11:44 AM
Sep 2016

The judge had indicated that he was most likely going to rule against them. All but 4 decided to withdraw per advice of counsel. Because they withdrew, the costs incurred by the theater we the responsibility of the ones that remained.

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
26. I'm going to one this weekend
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 06:04 PM
Sep 2016

I don't blame cinemark. It was a stupid lawsuit. Should every business be sued if an armed gunman enters that business.

What should cinemark have done to prevent this. Is any movie theater in the country capable of preventhing this.

i like Cinemark, they have nice recliners by me, and I can buy a ticket and reserve a specific seat. So I buy the ticket early, but don't have to arrive early to get a good seat.

avebury

(10,946 posts)
36. "Should every business be sued if an armed gunman enters that business."
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 06:37 PM
Sep 2016

If said gunman opens up and shoots people - YES!

Maybe if businesses find there are consequences for allowing armed patrons inside their businesses there might be more blowback for the out of control rights granted to guns versus the safety of the public.

There has to be a way to counter the NRA and uber gun insanity in this country.

mwrguy

(3,245 posts)
43. "there are consequences for allowing armed patrons inside"
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 07:26 PM
Sep 2016

They let him in unarmed, then he jammed a lock on a back door, retrieved guns from his car, and snuck back in the same door.

NutmegYankee

(16,177 posts)
51. The theatre was a gun free business.
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 08:18 PM
Sep 2016

Weapons were prohibited. This lawsuit had to fail, for it would have caused businesses to impose airport like security, which I absolutely oppose.

 

MadDAsHell

(2,067 posts)
56. This is quite an uneducated statement.
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 08:29 PM
Sep 2016

Do you even know what happened in Aurora? Or are you assuming based on soundbite news clips?

Cal Carpenter

(4,959 posts)
84. Wow
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 10:21 AM
Sep 2016

That's off the wall. As the owner/operator of a (very small) business that is open to the public, I think this is an absurd idea. How in the world am I supposed to stop an armed gunman from entering my business? Really, explain that to me.

It may be fair to think that a lot of businesses are more likely targets than others, and if they have the resources they could be more proactive. But you said "every business" and there are plenty of us little business owners who can barely afford to pay ourselves poverty wages, let alone pay for, what, security guards and metal detectors?

Give me a fucking break. And I assure you, I am not a fan of guns. But I can't possibly be held responsible for "NRA and uber gun insanity".

nolabels

(13,133 posts)
93. We really should be thanking the movie industry for our current romance with guns
Mon Sep 5, 2016, 09:44 AM
Sep 2016

Without them making their bucks by exploitation the concept mostly firearms would just be a utiltarian device. Most every tool or device has alternative counterpart waiting to take the wing if another falls out of favor.

I expect the foolishness with firearms to be no different. The horse and buggy era people would have never fathomed today's modern highway.

MichMan

(11,787 posts)
8. Some of the plaintiffs turned down a settlement
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 04:53 PM
Sep 2016

If you read the entire story, they sued together as a group. The theater offered them a settlement that would have paid them, but at least one person turned it down and many withdrew from the case. Ultimately they ended up losing. Rolled the dice and lost.

I suspect they had counsel that was hoping for a large damage verdict and gave them legal advice not to accept the admittedly small settlement. I think their attorneys should be partially responsible for paying the costs that were awarded to the defendent if that was the case.

Edit:Apparently the counsel wanted the plaintiffs to accept the settlement, but not all would agree

still_one

(91,947 posts)
16. Suing the theater is really unfair to the theater. A case like this would open up any business to
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 05:24 PM
Sep 2016

being sued if they don't hire armed security and metal detectors, it just doesn't make sense

The headline of the OP of course is misleading

Of course on the basis of PR the theater isn't too smart either

 

63splitwindow

(2,657 posts)
20. There is a line of thought in personal injury/wrongful death litigation that if the damages/injury
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 05:32 PM
Sep 2016

are serious enough then a claim has merit. Although the damages/injuries here were unthinkably bad and ultimately tragic, I agree that the theater bore no responsibility and to say otherwise would be a disservice to our free society as a whole.

still_one

(91,947 posts)
54. Except that isn't how it happened. He went in first without any weapons, and sat in the front
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 08:27 PM
Sep 2016

row. Twenty minutes into the film, he left the building through an emergency exit, which he propped open, and sneaked back in, and did the horrendous killing.

NotHardly

(1,062 posts)
10. If they try to collect, I recommend boycotting the tropes
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 04:58 PM
Sep 2016

... might as well, although, with the movie season as poor as it has been lately, they probably won't even notice.

Igel

(35,191 posts)
65. I encourage boycotting tropes.
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 09:59 PM
Sep 2016

Let's start with catachresis and move on to erotema.

Zeugma's been quelled, so there's no point in boycotting that particular trope.

We'll save synecdoche and metaphor for last.

AllTooEasy

(1,260 posts)
19. More like attacking frivolous lawsuits
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 05:32 PM
Sep 2016

Suing the theatre? C'mon! I feel for the victims, but suing people costs the plaintiffs money. Your lawsuit better be legit. This suit wasn't. No business, big or small should have to eat this cost.

I feel for the victims and their families, but some jackass(probably a lawyer) convinced them that it was good idea to cash in on a tragedy. Wrong!

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
28. Nope, they should have accepted the settlement
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 06:14 PM
Sep 2016

They knew the consequences of going for deep pockets and losing.

Orrex

(63,084 posts)
13. If only some random asshole had been there with a legal firearm
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 05:13 PM
Sep 2016

He'd have stopped this tragedy before it even started, regardless of Holmes' body armor and armaments.

dicksmc3

(262 posts)
15. WHAT???
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 05:16 PM
Sep 2016

Just what they needed there!! Another asshole with a gun shooting up the place!! Are you nuts?? More people probably would have been killed...
SAD THINKING!!!

IronLionZion

(45,256 posts)
25. The cops thought he was a cop
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 06:00 PM
Sep 2016

Remember that the worthless asshole is still alive. The first police on the scene thought he was police because of his body armor and other gear.

So there were good guys with guns, and they decided not to execute him.

The untrained unofficial unprepared unsuspecting civilian stopping a mass shooting is a right wing fantasy. It's just as incorrect as their fantasies that US citizens look like Trump's supporters or that billionaires will trickle down money to the rest of us.

brett_jv

(1,245 posts)
89. Unless of course, there were, say, 12 random untrained assholes ...
Sun Sep 4, 2016, 05:48 PM
Sep 2016

In which case they all end up shooting at one another in the darkened theater, none knowing who the actual 'bad guy with the gun' was, and dozens MORE people end up dead or maimed ... vs. what actually happened.

dicksmc3

(262 posts)
14. I can't believe his shit!!
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 05:14 PM
Sep 2016

Survivors have to pay for some fool shooting up the theater and killing 12 people?? What is wrong with our justice system?? This is a disgrace and the Cinemark people should be held accountable for the paying the survivors at least for their medical expenses!! BULLSHIT!!

MichMan

(11,787 posts)
17. Cinemark offered to settle and were turned down
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 05:26 PM
Sep 2016

Settlement offer was declined , so it went to trial and the victims did not prevail on their claim against the theater. As the losing side, they were responsible for the winning side costs to defend. Of the 41 plaintiffs, all but 4 could see the handwriting on the wall and withdrew.

still_one

(91,947 posts)
18. If anything the laywers that told the victims to sue the theater in the first place should be
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 05:30 PM
Sep 2016

responsible for the costs. They should never have sued the theater

MichMan

(11,787 posts)
27. They were advised to settle
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 06:10 PM
Sep 2016

I originally thought so as well until I read that they had recommended that the plaintiffs take the settlement. There were a couple that of were stubborn and refused. At that point 37 of the original 41 could see the handwriting on the wall and withdrew making them not liable. Once the judge ruled against the remaining 4, as he had already indicated he might, those 4 were responsible for paying the theater's costs

If the 4 hold outs had separate counsel advising them, they should have been held accountable for paying the award. From what I could tell they all joined together in one lawsuit.

obamanut2012

(25,911 posts)
80. Why in the world should Cinemark pay medical expenses?
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 07:45 AM
Sep 2016

They were legally found not liable, and they ethically aren't liable, either.

This was a bad lawsuit based on anger and greed, and nothing else.

AllTooEasy

(1,260 posts)
23. They're paying for making a frivolous lawsuit
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 05:38 PM
Sep 2016

The shooter, nor the cinema, made that ridiculous call. Suing the theater for lacking enough security against a terrorist attack?! I go to the theater to watch movies, not to be x-rayed and patted down. I go to the airport for that.

GeorgeGist

(25,294 posts)
24. Reading is helpful.
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 05:43 PM
Sep 2016

The plaintiffs are liable for Cinemark's expense of defending themselves against nonsense.

Sometimes it sucks to be wrong.

MichMan

(11,787 posts)
29. Not the only frivolous lawsuit for this shooting incident
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 06:16 PM
Sep 2016

This was the same shooting that prompted the parents of one of the victims to sue the gun retailer that sold the weapon to the shooter. They were encouraged by the Brady center to pursue that lawsuit, and were ordered to pay the legal fees of the gun store when the ruling was for the retailer. They also gambled and lost.

chillfactor

(7,566 posts)
31. that plainly sucks!
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 06:21 PM
Sep 2016

these survivors went through hell..and THEY may have to shell out bucks besides? I say it again....that plain sucks!

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
39. They knew what they were doing
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 06:45 PM
Sep 2016

And they were aware of the consequences if they did not accept the offered settlement and lost the lawsuit

Binkie The Clown

(7,911 posts)
40. Everyone should be informed that to walk into a Cinemark theater
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 06:58 PM
Sep 2016

is to risk not only death, but bankruptcy in case you don't die.

FLPanhandle

(7,107 posts)
41. Don't make frivolous lawsuits and you don't have to pay legal fees.
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 07:04 PM
Sep 2016

These people wanted quick money from deep pockets and paid for their greed.

christx30

(6,241 posts)
42. Would you be happier to walk into a Cinemark theater,
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 07:10 PM
Sep 2016

be directed to a metal detector, security wands? Maybe a backscatter scanner? Would that make you feel safe? Maybe armed security patrols behind the theater? Should a theater institute that level of security at their locations? You pretty much have to mortgage the house to afford to go to the movies right now as it is. Do you want to pay for that security? Because you know the theater would pass on those costs to patrons.

cstanleytech

(26,080 posts)
52. Ugh, if the theater did that I can well imagine the cries of "Police state" and other
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 08:20 PM
Sep 2016

assorted complaints over it.

christx30

(6,241 posts)
59. Oh I agree completely.
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 08:52 PM
Sep 2016

It would be WAY more trouble than it's worth to go see a movie. I'd wait until it comes out on DVD. But that's really the only way of 100% stopping a mass shooting at a theater. But even that wouldn't have worked at this one. Holmes went in unarmed, exited in the back of the theater, propped the door open, got his weapons from his car. So maybe... guards or alarms on the doors? Would that have stopped it?
Again, this kind of attack had never happened before. So the theater had no reason to suspect it was a danger.
The guards of Troy had no idea that wooden horses would be a danger.
Maybe we need a team to just sit there and think of every possible attack vector and pay 10's of thousands per theater to institute countermeasures for every possible access point.

cstanleytech

(26,080 posts)
61. Hey I am not arguing since most theaters, grocery stores or other retail stores do not
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 08:57 PM
Sep 2016

have airport level screening of their customers and unless the theater was advertising that they did have that then its unreasonable to assume that they should and thus are at fault for this guys actions.

christx30

(6,241 posts)
64. Again, I agree with you.
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 09:20 PM
Sep 2016

And we wouldn't want that level of security at places we go to daily. At the airport, it's a hassle, but since most of us do not fly daily, we understand a quick bit of inconvenience is kind of expected. But none of us would want that on a daily basis. Want to get some milk? Be prepared for a 45 minute wait to get in and out.
Want to go see Ninja Turtles? Get to the theater 2 hours early.
So if we wouldn't be willing to put up with that kind of security, and if the theater won't set up that security because it would be an expensive way of losing clients ("Tickets are now $45 for adults, $21 for kids. Now let Mark here wand you for weapons. Duck when the drone flies above you&quot , how can anyone hold them accountable for bad things happening?

Nitram

(22,671 posts)
49. So, Binkie, are you saying there is a theater chain in the US where this couldn't have happened?
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 07:56 PM
Sep 2016

Why is this Cinemark's fault?

christx30

(6,241 posts)
60. If someone sued you for something
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 08:55 PM
Sep 2016

you felt was none of your fault, would you allow them to win without a fight?

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
99. Not every institution or business owes you damages for the acts of others...
Mon Sep 5, 2016, 05:58 PM
Sep 2016

The courts have found that police forces are NOT responsible for protecting you from injury, death, and damages as the result of a criminal's actions, and they can't be. So, the same applies for other entities. ANY organization or individual which purports to guarantee such protection would be out of business in a fortnight. Personal protection is your responsibility, and there is no guarantee for that, either.

Not accusing you of this, but there are many Americans, who when they "feel" they have been hurt, believe Someone, Somewhere must pay. Some attorneys make a living by sueing on behalf of these folks, trying to shake out a settlement which might work because the party sued doesn't want to screw with it even if Jesus Christ testified on its behalf. Cinemark was willing to do the same, but as with some others caught up in "GunViolence" suits, they took their chances and fell flat. It is sad the victims of the murderer's violence have to endure this, but they have fallen victim again to a hghly letigious somebody-must-pay culture.

Nitram

(22,671 posts)
48. How do the litigants blame the theater?
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 07:54 PM
Sep 2016

Why try to bankrupt a theater for a tragedy that was not their fault? Do they want us to go through metal detectors and boy searches overtime we go to a movie?

napi21

(45,806 posts)
57. It doesn't specifically how many of the survivors joined the law suit, but let's
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 08:30 PM
Sep 2016

assume it's 1/2 or 35 people. That's $20,000 each. What exactly would happen if NONE of they complied, and paid nothing? Do you really believe the City would jail 35 people? For how long?

I blame their lawyers for deciding to file the case in the first place. They SHOULD have advised them that odds of winning were very low, and the result of a loss could be devastating. If these people weren't told that, the ATTORNEYS should pay the judgement! If they WERE in face advised and decided to take a chance, they they jumped into this, eyes wide open, and they SHOULD pay the $$!

napi21

(45,806 posts)
67. Thanks. I didn't see that before I wrote mine. I still stand by what I said though.
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 10:10 PM
Sep 2016

They were not only greedy, but pretty damn dumb too. Let 'em suffer the consequences.

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
63. Foreclose on their house to recover the funds
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 09:07 PM
Sep 2016

Or garnish their wages.

Its not difficult to collect with a court order.

tammywammy

(26,582 posts)
72. You should read the article
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 12:13 AM
Sep 2016
The judge in the case, District Judge R. Brooke Jackson, gave both sides 24 hours to come to a settlement agreement, urging the survivors to take a settlement from Cinemark. The company offered $150,000 split among 41 plaintiffs. The Times spoke to four people privy to the confidential negotiations:

They decided on a split of $30,000 each to the three most critically injured survivors. The remaining 38 plaintiffs would equally share the remaining $60,000.

Igel

(35,191 posts)
66. Yup.
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 10:07 PM
Sep 2016

In short, they're paying for their act of attempted greed and victimization.

They're being made to pay not because they were victims, but because they attempted to victimize. To make somebody else pay so they could cash in on their victimization. Or perhaps because they needed to find a victimizer in all of what happened that wasn't the killer. It was a foolish attempt, but it was an attempt.

It's a nice, bright world where everybody is either entirely and only bad or good, victimizer or victim. Most people are both, with the extent of they're either varying over time. When they were shot or their loved ones were killed, they were victims. When they attempted to sue the theatre mostly because they wanted money or to share their pain because they needed somebody else to suffer (preferably one with deep pockets), they were victimizers. That, according to a jury and the judge.

 

GummyBearz

(2,931 posts)
69. With any luck...
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 11:09 PM
Sep 2016

With any luck that $500,000 will be spent building guard towers in every Cinemark theater, manned by sharpshooters with the latest rifles and night vision scopes so that people can feel safe as they watch transformers 10.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
68. Where's Bloomberg and the Brady Bunch? They encourage such suits, but fly when the bill is due.
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 10:55 PM
Sep 2016

You'll see the latest AstroTurf Brady / Bloomberg yapping head on the evening news, babbling on about accountability and culture, but damn, they leave skid marks when a court rightfully sees through their shenanigans and hands some unsuspecting victims' families a bill for court costs.

It's all about "getting the victims' families some justice" but then when the bill is due, it's all, "What was your name, again?"

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
70. How is a shooting different from a fire? If Cinemark wasn't fully insured they should have been.
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 11:28 PM
Sep 2016

And if they were they should be ashamed of themselves.

Sand Rat Expat

(290 posts)
71. Generally speaking...
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 12:05 AM
Sep 2016

Bullets aren't flying around during a fire.

Less flippantly, you're comparing apples and oranges. If there had been a fire, let's say, and the theater didn't have proper countermeasures (sprinklers, evacuation points, fire extinguishers, etc.) then I'd say they're absolutely liable for injuries or deaths incurred as a result of the fire.

Now consider what happened in Aurora. Holmes purchased a ticket, like any other patron, and went into the theater. Twenty minutes into the film, he let himself out via a back door, propped it open, and went to his car to retrieve his weapons. Then he went back inside and opened fire.

Exactly what countermeasures could the theater have deployed to stop this from happening? Guard dogs out back? Roving security patrols? Metal detectors at any and all access points? Sharpshooters in the projection booth?

There's nothing short of TSA-level security that could have prevented this, and even that level of security is hardly foolproof. These people were offered a settlement, decided they wanted more money, and rejected it. They pursued the lawsuit and lost. The law in that state says the plaintiff is responsible for the costs if the lawsuit is deemed frivolous, as this one, correctly, was. They got greedy, and now they're paying for it.

It really is that simple.

Sand Rat Expat

(290 posts)
88. That wasn't my intention, no.
Sun Sep 4, 2016, 10:57 AM
Sep 2016

I wasn't holding the TSA up as a pinnacle of security. I was trying to go for something more along the lines of excessive, burdensome, onerous, etc. We all know the TSA's security measures are hardly foolproof.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
74. I don't think the issue is negligence; it's responsibility.
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 01:09 AM
Sep 2016

Something terrible happened to an unsuspecting group of people who'd paid to enter their premises. Whether or not Cinemark was negligent, they have a responsibility to make amends for injuries suffered by their customers, or their insurers do, and if they're taking marching orders from the insurers that's no excuse. They have a responsibility to make amends.

RelativelyJones

(898 posts)
75. Why should Cinemark have to make amends?
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 01:32 AM
Sep 2016

This could have happened, and does happen, in every public place. Why should the business be held responsible for lunatic gun laws?

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
76. Insurance is a cost of doing business, and a reasonable expectation of safety
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 03:25 AM
Sep 2016

is included in the cost of the ticket, as in the cost of tuition or admission to sporting events. If it weren't, it wouldn't be provided, and most people wouldn't risk getting trampled, burned, electrocuted, poisoned, or shot just to see a film they could watch online for three dollars. And people who did would expect to be allowed to arm themselves, and gun laws would get even crazier.

MichMan

(11,787 posts)
77. Does the same hold true for Sandy Hook?
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 07:25 AM
Sep 2016

If as you state, Cinemark is still responsible even if not negligent and should pay anyway; Is the same also true of Sandy Hook Elementary school or the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston?

Should they also be responsible to pay up for allowing the massacres to occur on their premises?

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
81. I don't think you understand what insurance is for.
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 08:31 AM
Sep 2016

Being the victim of a crime is not a winning lottery ticket.

In order to 'make amends', one has to bear some responsibility. In order to be responsible, one has to be at fault, ie, negligent.

 

GummyBearz

(2,931 posts)
82. Uhg
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 08:45 AM
Sep 2016

This line of reasoning is what leads to people suing a hotel when they slip in the shower. I'm sure the lawyers love it...

Sand Rat Expat

(290 posts)
87. Respectfully disagree with you in this particular case.
Sun Sep 4, 2016, 10:55 AM
Sep 2016

If we were talking about someone slipping and injuring themselves on a freshly-mopped floor that lacked a warning sign, I'd say the theater has a responsibility to make amends, because in this scenario they were negligent.

In the case of the Aurora shooting... no. The theater was not negligent. No reasonable countermeasures would have prevented this tragedy, and I for one don't care to have to step through a metal detector in order to see the new Star Wars film this winter.

obamanut2012

(25,911 posts)
78. I am not a "big business" apologist by any means, but Cinemark is not in the wrong
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 07:41 AM
Sep 2016

They were found not liable in the shooting, which they weren't.

They offered a settlement they didn't legally or ethically have to.

ONE plaintiff turned it down.

The judge said, accept it, or you will be liable for legal fees. All the plaintiffs bailed except this woman and three others, probably due to either greedy or incompetent counsel (trust em, I am NOT anti attorney).

The judge said, okay then.

Cinemark will probably drop this if the four plaintiffs still on the suit promise not to appeal.

This actually WAS a frivolous lawsuit.

Blandocyte

(1,231 posts)
83. Crazy weapons guy enters your house while you have friends over for a cribbage night
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 09:29 AM
Sep 2016

Guy harms some of your guests and they, and survivors' families, sue you. You spend many thousands on lawyers to navigate the situation and offer a settlement. The plaintiffs turn down your offer. You then rely on the court to determine whether you are at fault. Court says you're not at fault. Isn't it fair to be reimbursed for your costs?

While you might have insurance for this kind of "liability," if your insurance company insists you're not liable until you spend a bunch of money defending yourself while the court determines liability, you are out a lot of money until the court determines you are not liable. At that point the insurance company isn't paying anything because there's no liability. It would suck to have spent that much money to get the determination you weren't at fault.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
102. Interesting, all you have are insults directed at DU members
Mon Sep 5, 2016, 06:47 PM
Sep 2016

Some of us are just against frivolous lawsuits filed by plaintiffs that were warned.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
96. "there is no intention to actually seek recovery of the court costs"
Mon Sep 5, 2016, 04:09 PM
Sep 2016
Although a source close to the theater chain said that there is no intention to actually seek recovery of the court costs, the theater chain has not issued any statement about its intentions.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-batman-shooting-lawsuit-20160822-snap-story.html

deathrind

(1,786 posts)
101. Looks like the...
Mon Sep 5, 2016, 06:36 PM
Sep 2016

The theater is already offered to waive the fee. That was pretty quick on the theaters part.


"The victims of the Aurora theater shooting have been given an ultimatum: They will not have to pay the nearly $700,000 in court costs they owe the nation’s third largest theater chain if they drop their appeals in a civil case."

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
103. Lawyers victimize victims
Mon Sep 5, 2016, 07:04 PM
Sep 2016

This lawsuit never had a snowball's chance in hell, but the attorneys would keep prodding the victims, of course.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Aurora shooting massacre ...