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 Cinemarks 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, Cinemarks 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/
47of74
(18,470 posts)63splitwindow
(2,657 posts)in goodwill and favorable publicity than collecting the money.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)They were offered a settlement and turned it down even though the lawyer advised against that. Oh well. Lessons learned hopefully.
Kingofalldems
(38,361 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)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)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)
Post removed
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Cinemark is opening themselves up to a boycott.
avebury
(10,946 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Iggo
(47,487 posts)PatSeg
(46,794 posts)This is really, really stupid on the part of Cinemark.
elleng
(130,131 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)MichMan
(11,787 posts)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.
TeamPooka
(24,155 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)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)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)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)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)Do you even know what happened in Aurora? Or are you assuming based on soundbite news clips?
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)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)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
63splitwindow
(2,657 posts)still_one
(91,947 posts)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)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.
MichMan
(11,787 posts)63splitwindow
(2,657 posts)politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)to bring a rifle in.
still_one
(91,947 posts)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)... 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)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.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)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)They knew the consequences of going for deep pockets and losing.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Orrex
(63,084 posts)He'd have stopped this tragedy before it even started, regardless of Holmes' body armor and armaments.
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!!!
AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)...do to the their use of the word "asshole".
63splitwindow
(2,657 posts)IronLionZion
(45,256 posts)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)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)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)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)responsible for the costs. They should never have sued the theater
MichMan
(11,787 posts)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.
still_one
(91,947 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)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)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)The plaintiffs are liable for Cinemark's expense of defending themselves against nonsense.
Sometimes it sucks to be wrong.
MichMan
(11,787 posts)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.
63splitwindow
(2,657 posts)chillfactor
(7,566 posts)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)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)is to risk not only death, but bankruptcy in case you don't die.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)These people wanted quick money from deep pockets and paid for their greed.
christx30
(6,241 posts)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)assorted complaints over it.
christx30
(6,241 posts)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)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)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" , how can anyone hold them accountable for bad things happening?
Nitram
(22,671 posts)Why is this Cinemark's fault?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I would be glad to support them and I am sure I will be quite safe.
Loki
(3,825 posts)Put them out of business.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Loki
(3,825 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)you felt was none of your fault, would you allow them to win without a fight?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)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)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)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 $$!
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)napi21
(45,806 posts)They were not only greedy, but pretty damn dumb too. Let 'em suffer the consequences.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Or garnish their wages.
Its not difficult to collect with a court order.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)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.
doc03
(35,148 posts)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)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)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)And if they were they should be ashamed of themselves.
Sand Rat Expat
(290 posts)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.
Calista241
(5,584 posts)Did you just hold up the TSA as the pinnacle of security?
Sand Rat Expat
(290 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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.
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)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)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)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.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 5, 2016, 01:13 AM - Edit history (1)
Sand Rat Expat
(290 posts)Because being anti-frivolous lawsuit and being pro-gun are identical positions...
hack89
(39,171 posts)with their ignorance of the law.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Some of us are just against frivolous lawsuits filed by plaintiffs that were warned.
GOLGO 13
(1,681 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-batman-shooting-lawsuit-20160822-snap-story.html
deathrind
(1,786 posts)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 nations third largest theater chain if they drop their appeals in a civil case."
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)This lawsuit never had a snowball's chance in hell, but the attorneys would keep prodding the victims, of course.