Latest Breaking News

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

103 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Aurora shooting massacre survivors ordered to pay Cinemark theater chain $700,000 [View all] 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