Aurora Massacre Victims Owe Theater $700K

[Desdichado]

Many of you I'm sure remember the mass killing at the Aurora, Colorado theater now over four years ago.

Well, the survivors now owe the theater's parent company, Cinemark, $700,000.

They slapped Cinemark with a lawsuit, alleging that the company did not provide adequate security measures. Cinemark proved to the court's satisfaction that a guy dressed like a clown, bearing three guns and smoke bombs was simply unpredictable and that reasonable security precautions would not have prevented it.

The judge then ordered the survivors to drop the $700k to cover the defendant's legal fees.

Out of the frying pan into the fire as it were.

 

[Desdichado]

Obviously, I have my opinions on the matter. But I want to take the temp here before I blather on.

1. Are the survivors getting their comeuppance for resorting to litigation?

2. Is the theater adding, as the article says, insult to injury or simply acting as a company should act by recouping their losses?

 

[blue_ladybug]

Well, when people are at a movie theater, or restaurant or wherever, they DO expect a moderate level of security. No one expects to get shot and killed while watching a movie at a drive-in or eating at McDonalds.. JMO

 

[Desdichado]

Well, when people are at a movie theater, or restaurant or wherever, they DO expect a moderate level of security. No one expects to get shot and killed while watching a movie at a drive-in or eating at McDonalds.. JMO

I think the judge got that part of it right. What was Cinemark supposed to do? Hire Mercenaries?

 

[blue_ladybug]

I think the judge got that part of it right. What was Cinemark supposed to do? Hire Mercenaries?

No, not something that extreme. But at least hire observant, vigilant security. Or add metal detectors at all public establishments such as theaters, malls, schools, restaurants, etc. And since our freedoms get taken away more and more each day, that's exactly what's going to happen--metal detectors and xray machines that you have to go through before entering your favorite public places. After all, they've already been put into use at airports.. just sayin'..

 

[jennymae]

I'm not familiar with the lawsuit, but from what you are saying, it looks like the plaintiffs lawyers did a sub optimal job to begin with. This case doesn't sound like a "winner", and they should have tried to settle it. Having that said, a judge ordering the plaintiff to cover the defendants legal fees in a case like this comes across unusual, he must have felt their case was extremely bad...

 

[Desdichado]

No, not something that extreme. But at least hire observant, vigilant security. Or add metal detectors at all public establishments such as theaters, malls, schools, restaurants, etc. And since our freedoms get taken away more and more each day, that's exactly what's going to happen--metal detectors and xray machines that you have to go through before entering your favorite public places. After all, they've already been put into use at airports.. just sayin'..

"Hyper vigilant" security and airport-style metal detectors would be extremely expensive and deter law-abiding customers from showing up. You can't expect them to be at every establishment, otherwise those businesses will no longer exist.

That and what would Holmes have done if he had seen a metal detector or an unarmed security officer? To stop a man like Holmes at the door, you need Mercs and nothing less.

Airport-izing the country is such a horrible idea on multiple levels.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not familiar with the lawsuit, but from what you are saying, it looks like the plaintiffs lawyers did a sub optimal job to begin with. This case doesn't sound like a "winner", and they should have tried to settle it. Having that said, a judge ordering the plaintiff to cover the defendants legal fees in a case like this comes across unusual, he must have felt their case was extremely bad...

I was thinking the same thing. What kind of attorney's did they hire for this?

 

[blue_ladybug]

"Hyper vigilant" security and airport-style metal detectors would be extremely expensive and deter law-abiding customers from showing up. You can't expect them to be at every establishment, otherwise those businesses will no longer exist.

That and what would Holmes have done if he had seen a metal detector or an unarmed security officer? To stop a man like Holmes at the door, you need Mercs and nothing less.

Airport-izing the country is such a horrible idea on multiple levels.

I agree. It IS an awful idea. But unfortunately, unless the govt can disarm all citizens of their guns, then people will keep getting shot and killed. And I don't see many citizens who would willingly let themselves be disarmed of their weapons. Even though we DO have many other ways of killing each other w/o using guns. It would be nice if they stopped making guns altogether, but that still wouldn't keep some lunatic from killing people.

 

[CeileDe]

People go to movies and restaurants all the time, fully knowing there is no security. If someone doesn't like the security a place offers they shouldn't go there.

 

[Willie-T]

I was thinking the same thing. What kind of attorney's did they hire for this?

Ambulance Chasers?

 

[jennymae]

I'm not familiar with the lawsuit, but from what you are saying, it looks like the plaintiffs lawyers did a sub optimal job to begin with. This case doesn't sound like a "winner", and they should have tried to settle it. Having that said, a judge ordering the plaintiff to cover the defendants legal fees in a case like this comes across unusual, he must have felt their case was extremely bad...

I had to do some reading up on Colorado law, and apparently their legislation says the victor in a civil suit has the right to recover the cost of litigation from the losers. I wonder whether their legal counsel pointed this out before the law suit was filed.

 

[Dude653]

I had to do some reading up on Colorado law, and apparently their legislation says the victor in a civil suit has the right to recover the cost of litigation from the losers. I wonder whether their legal counsel pointed this out before the law suit was filed.

yep... same reason Kentucky had to pay back the legal fees over the Kim Davis lawsuits

 

[Desdichado]

I had to do some reading up on Colorado law, and apparently their legislation says the victor in a civil suit has the right to recover the cost of litigation from the losers. I wonder whether their legal counsel pointed this out before the law suit was filed.

yep... same reason Kentucky had to pay back the legal fees over the Kim Davis lawsuits

It would appear to disincentive frivolity.

 

[Dude653]

This would be a frivolous lawsuit because there is virtually no way this could have been anticipated or prevented

 

[Desdichado]

This would be a frivolous lawsuit because there is virtually no way this could have been anticipated or prevented

At least, no way the Cinema could've completely prevented it.

 

[jennymae]

I guess bottom line is that you're not required by law to prepare for doomsday...

 

[Nautilus]

No, not something that extreme. But at least hire observant, vigilant security. Or add metal detectors at all public establishments such as theaters, malls, schools, restaurants, etc. And since our freedoms get taken away more and more each day, that's exactly what's going to happen--metal detectors and xray machines that you have to go through before entering your favorite public places. After all, they've already been put into use at airports.. just sayin'..

Yeah but up until this event how scared were people of being slaughtered in movie theaters? Adequate security at a movie theater before and after aurora is still cameras at best. No one can predict one time incidents.

 

[Born_Again]

Whatever the solution, remember any added cost would be offset somewhere. So, if you want to pay $30 per person to sit in a theater for 2 hours.... then go ahead. BTW... I'm kind of an expert in this. Things involving this has been my career for about 15 years. I can promise you, active shooter situations are not preventable. All you can do is mitigate the damage/ keep the death toll down a little.

 

[Desdichado]

Whatever the solution, remember any added cost would be offset somewhere. So, if you want to pay $30 per person to sit in a theater for 2 hours.... then go ahead. BTW... I'm kind of an expert in this. Things involving this has been my career for about 15 years. I can promise you, active shooter situations are not preventable. All you can do is mitigate the damage/ keep the death toll down a little.

Like I said, a legal requirement or expectation of that kind would choke the life out of commerce.