A judge has ruled that the victims of a 2012 shooting at a Colorado movie theater must pay nearly $700,000 to Cinemark, the movie theater’s owner.
While the verdict may shock average citizens, one legal expert says he’s not surprised.
The court ruled the payment must be made to pay back Cinemark’s legal fees after the victims unsuccessfully sued the theater chain.
Jurors in the lawsuit ruled in Cinemark’s favor over 28 victims and their families. The plaintiffs argued the nation’s third-largest theater chain should have done more to prevent the attack that killed 12 people and left more than 70 others injured, but lost.
However, Cinemark offered to settle with the plantiffs in the lawsuit for $150,000 and to improve safety according to the lawsuits demands.
“The plaintiffs and their attorneys all seemed to agree. 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,” The Los Angeles Times reported. But, “the deal came with a worrisome caveat : If the survivors rejected the deal, moved forward with their case and lost, under Colorado law, they could be responsible for the astronomical court fees accumulated by Cinemark.”
One of the plantiffs rejected the deal. Three others joined him and moved forward with their case, while the 37 others withdrew.
On June 24, the judge ruled Cinemark was not liable for damages. Now, the four are liable for the court costs.
Legal experts say they’re not surprised with the result. A judge last week dismissed a similar lawsuit in federal court.
“A blind guy in a dark alley could have seen [this verdit] coming,” one of the original plantiff’s attorney, Phil Hardman, said.
Do you agree with this settlement? Or is this injustice? Comment below!
The Associated Press contributed to this article
It is unconscionable and is against public policy in having an undue chilling affect on people bringing suits. Everyone should be able to have their day in court with out this sort of penalty. I hope they just declare bankruptcy and the movie theater gets nothing.
I hope everyone in the area boycotts the movie theater and if it is a chain they entire country boycotts the movie theater chain.
Ah just like slimy corrupt COMEY said Crooked Hell had no “intent” neither did the movie theatre. No “intent”. Blame it on the idiot perp. Bring back a swift death penalty immediately.
Well said Wendy. I agree.
Wendy you a correct I agree.
There wss nothing wrong with the ruling. In fact, although not heard about often . it is quite common.
If you csr is Stolen And uou sur the insurance company for not paying the Claim. It is very common for the plaintiff (insured) to be assessed legal fees. Who do you think should be responsable? Is the theater expected to absorb these costs?
This was a stupid suit un the first place. How is it their responsability to be proactive for a lunitic?
Amen
To think the theater was responsible was stupid! After 37 withdrew, four ultra stupid got greedy and knowingly grasped at straws at huge risk. They deserve what they got, but will duck out of this responsibility too.
I agree with you. People just love to sue everybody and anybody even when they are not at fault. More suits should be dismissed. Better still hold the President personally responsible because of his leadership where criminals (murders and rapists) should be released if they are poor.
I agree with you completely but please proofread your text or learn how to spell before commenting . It only hurts your credibility ,then people don’t take you seriously
Furthermore, as more potential terrorists are imported/allowed into the US, we will have more and more terrorist attacks here, on more and more businesses (sorry, folks, but we should have been doing a lot more to keep terrorists out of America, for decades – now it’s too late).
Can we afford to have every business where a terror attack occurs shut down by lawsuits? What if a driver like the Muslim in France ran over people on a road here in the US; should all of the businesses along that road be shut down by massive lawsuits brought by the victims’ families?
But people being what they are today, those who think they can grab a big chunk of money don’t CARE if their windfall causes others to lose their neighborhood cafe, laundry, grocery store, day care center, clinic, movie theater, etc.
In my opinion, these victims got just a little too greedy, and it backfired on them.
How about it was a bullshit law suite to begin with.
Do you think it cost nothing to defend your self??????
You, Dawn, are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. This country has got law-suit happy and it has ruined the lives and opportunities of us and our kids. Because of law suits we no longer have diving boards at swimming pools nor pools worthy of being called pools because they are so shallow. That loss just scratches the surface. More deeply are the higher insurance costs because of lawsuits that overcompensate so-called victims. The whole country is paying for the madness of law suits and only the lawyers gain. The RULE should ALWAYS be that the LOSER in every lawsuit ALWAYS HAS TO PAY the other’s attorney and court costs. ALWAYS.
The problem I see is that no one was aloud to bring their concealed carry firearms in this theater. Had there been just one person with a firearm a different outcome would most likely have happened. The theater should be held responsible for these deaths, as they would not allow people to protect themselves. The Theater took that responsibility on to themselves.
I agree our rights according to constitutional law are violated at most all threatres. Your dam right. This is a set up to get our guns no matter who or how many die. I’m so on to the illuminanate and gov’t cronies. Too bad others aren’t awake. If they ever get our guns millions will die like other regemes
OK, Dawn,,,,,In criminal court, for sure, but in Civil Court,,,,Only if you are willing to pay for it.
Just how do you see the theater neglect for this shooting? Just how many theaters that frisked you at the ticket window would you go to?
I do HOPE this makes all these clowns think twice before bringing such a frivolous lawsuit. My only regret is that the lawyers we not required to pony up too.
Why should not the people who brought a (to me, frivolous) lawsuit not nave to pay for the expenses they caused to the other person? Many believe we should have “loser pays” rules in the US.
Just how do you believe the theater should have done what it was doing…a “gun free” zone championed by liberals.
It is not a “penalty” to the suers. It is just reimbursement to the theater for the financial damage they caused.
And I do so wish we could assess the lawyers, too. Esp, for instance, in medical malpractice suits, where people with no comprehension of medical care have a plaintiff paraded before them as a lawyer tries for sympathy (not that there isn’t malpractice, but those suits are settled by the ins company and do not go to trial).
Greed sometimes burns
Go say that a law is flawed just because four people refused to compromise with the cinema owners they now suffer the well known backlash of the loser clause if you sue and wind the loser pays all court cost !! BUT IF YOU LOSE YOU PAY ALL COURT COSTS !!! so greedy four now know how much a jury trial coast !!! Live with it !!!
Well, Dawn, then maybe you wouldn’t mind being strip searched before you enter a theater or stadium? How else can those venues be sure nobody is going to cause harm? Just because we have the right in this Country to file a lawsuit doesn’t mean all lawsuits are justified. If the theater had a facility in disrepair and someone got hurt, or one of the employees harmed a patron, then it would be the theaters fault.
A deranged murderer decides to enter a business and murder people inside, how is that the movie theaters faught. How do you prevent such a thing from happening. The judge made the right decision in this case.
If someone is hurt on your property then your insurance covers it – even if it is totally their fault. The theater did not do anything negligent, so why should they pay? Still, people were hurt on their property, so the ins. should have paid. But wait! If the theater was a gun free zone then they should have been slapped with a 50 million loss. By taking away the 2nd amendment rights of those with permits to carry, they made those customers sitting ducks and should be held responsible, but good luck with that with Obozo appointed judges.
As a working man I could see this and most would not agree with me but the way I look at is, I blame the attorney’s that take on cases like this because they just want to line their pockets (no different then our politicians do) I feel that when attorney’s take on lawsuits they as well as the plaintiffs are subject to paying the defendants court cost and rightly so. If the attorney’s were made to pay 50% and the plaintiffs paid the rest (as it is now if a plaintiff wins the attorney get 10 to 20% f the winnings after they pay that attorney to take the case)
So if attorney’s were forced to pay 50% of the defendants court cost then maybe we would not have so many frivolous lawsuits tying up the court systems. I would like to say ” And that is the way it is” but instead I have to say that is the way it should be
I agree with “politically incorrect” 100% – The judge who accepted the case should also be reprimanded. There was NO CASE.
Smart thinking.
PREACH IT!!! You are exactly right!! There are no ethics in law, and the few who are honest and upright should develop a board to create such as you describe!! Anyway, how could any place of business predict what “CRAZY” does! I’m sure, also, that their FIRST order of business was to discuss and integrate greater safety practices without an “Ambulance Chaser” attorney telling them to! These attorneys (not all but many) prey on grief!!! ????
Good idea Midg,,,,but just where would we find ethical and honest attorneys to man this board? The fix would be in in 20 minutes after they were appointed.
In this Country it’s justice for all as long as you are rich or have a rich backer.
I agree with you 100%. This was a terrible terrorist attack. The theatre had no idea some lunatic was going to show up. The victims probably had no thoughts of suing the theatre chain, but here came the ambulance chasers, as usual, and the greed got everyone by the throat and now they have to pay the consequences. Too bad the attorneys can just walk away.
Oh, I’ll bet the victims were thinking about suing before they got out of the theater! It’s such a well-known way to make a BUNCH of money!
Perhaps the attorneys on the losing side should pay; that would shut down lawsuits that the attorneys deemed as nuisance suits OVERNIGHT!
Attorneys make the laws and they are not even liable for a shiity representation. Like doctors – they call it a practice because they never know it all, so they are practicing and taking your money to do it. Funny, how attorneys spending their entire lives learning the law never know it all, but us every day peons can not use ignorance of the law as an excuse. How the hel l are we supposed to know the law if attorneys don’t know it?
I agree with the verdict. There is risk in about anything we do. We must assume most of that risk. A business cannot be responsible for the actions of everyone or anyone that comes into their business. If that was the law business owners would have to have armed security guards and search people before entry into any venue. Can you picture being searched in line at the ice cream or hot dog stand? This country is going nuts over blame be placed on someone else. If want to sue anyone, sue the lawyers. They are the abusers of the legal system for their own personal gain.
Totally agree
I agree with the judgement they should have kept your mouth shut it was not the fault of the
Bonnie Underwood says:
In our corrupt, insane world it has become, does anyone not think that the theater owner was not horrified, shocked, and pained to know some insane murderous idiot (I call it) would come into his theater and murder wonderful,
innocent people? Of course he was beyond pained, and more… my gosh and to think someone would blame
him, when we should never have to worry about such incidents occurring in a business or anywhere else this
heinous, would have to secure protection for out comes as this. The owner did care deeply, I know they did, and
to think in grief we would put him through the ringer and make his life hell, when the owner would have given anything to see this never happen to our precious victims that are so pained and anguished beyond words… we must be decent and grateful, as victims, this owner cared right along with them. Where is our gratefulness and decency as citizens… we can’t do the blame game out of grief… Look what the protestors that crept in with safe protestors over shootings across our nation, did, but destroy innocent people’s business, and properties, horrifying the innocent so they can get away with crime, yet hollering the police our racists and were not, and lives shot to death and saying they are getting away with murder, when race never entered the picture… it was bad police judgement or maybe not even that. People think they can hit, bad mouth and over ride a police officer when he says put something down, get down on the ground or whatever… the police will deal with wrong actions and if not that will be dealt with… America, our job is to be good citizens and alert and strong when wrong comes along and deal with serious issues without ruining other people’s lives or accusing racism when it is not racism or whatever…. start being good Americans with good sense, so we can accomplish what we need to… I truly hurt for our victims, but come on…
THE THREATRES OWNER ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY WHEN HE TOOK THE ABILITY AWAY FROM US BY DECLARING A GUN FREE ZONE (SO COME AND GET UM THEY CANT GET YOU BACK). Yes yes yes it’s so true it’s deplorably wrong so owner is completely complicit .!!!!!!!
Unless violation of the Second Amendment was one of the charges brought against the theater/theater owner(s), it doesn’t apply in this case.
Another thing – do we know that liberal Colorado does not have an anti-Second Amendment law that makes it illegal to carry guns into many places, including theaters?
If Colorado is the reason for no guns in the theater, then the victims should have sued that liberal, anti-Second Amendment state, not the theater.
the judge was paid off..f/ckin punkj
Never forget, judges are lawyers too. Who do you think they are going to side with?
The judge will side with layers of course…..just is it going to be the Plaintiff’s lawyers, or the Defendant’s lawyers?
Hey Ric,,,,,Take a look at what you said and think about it.
While there seems to be a sueing fever in our country, and I do agree that everyone should get their day in court where appropriate, these four did get the court time and a settlement from a case which in my mind was questionable, they refused the settlement in hopes of getting a better chunk of cash. That really boils down to greed. Oh well.
Common, Richard, “Questionable”????? . The owners were in no way a part of the actions of the suspect and these clowns fot a very fair verdict.
An attorney friend of mine who has long since retired once told me the there was never a lawsuit that couldn;t be settled with a good ass beatin’. I agree. Learn to take of yourself and leave the nanny state out of it.
Sounds as though the judge had no choice: If the survivors rejected the deal, moved forward with their case and lost, under Colorado law, they could be responsible for the astronomical court fees accumulated by Cinemark. They rejected the deal, moved forward, lost their case, and are responsible for the fees accumulated by Cinemark. Why the outrage? They should have been warned by their attorneys of the risk.
We have long been a society “Of the Lawyers, By the Lawyers and For the Lawyers” (which includes prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and most politicians), all of whom are in it FOR THE MONEY. None of them really care about who wins or loses any particular case, much less about the law or “justice”, because THEY ALWAYS WIN.
I think the words ‘all’ and ‘always’ dilute your argument. I have met conscientious as well as scummy attorneys. ‘Some’ are in it for the money and some win ‘often’ but no one wins ‘always’ except Perry Mason, and he was not real either..
Sure OG,,,but you ever see a lawyer go to jail when they lost a criminal case? – They still want their fee, though.
How can they always win when they are on different sides?
Well y in hell would u sue the theater for what the a–hole did!? Would u want to go through security screening when u go to a movie or the grocery store or a restaurant? We’re turning into a police state. Wake up people and stop being a bunch of cry babies. Get a gun and a concealed weapons permit. Protecting yourself is YOUR responsibility!
I agree Sandy. They brought the charges against the theater because they had the big pockets. That’s all. & you’re right about the police state. These. People went to see a violent movie about evil vs ‘good’ whatever that means to them & ended up facing real life evil. What did they do? Blame the theatre. Sheeple.
I agree
Like the Britts say “Spot on”, Sandy.
Remember the guy that said:
“THOSE THAT WOULD SACRIFICE LIBERTY FOR SAFETY DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY NOR SAFETY.”
Guess they were a little tougher back then and didn’t need a nanny state.
Those who are likely the responsible parties are the parents of the perpetrator, but their pockets likely weren’t deep enough.
Why in the hell should the victims be made to pay Cinemark movie theatre chain which makes a lot more than the victims make in a year. That’s injustice on the victims to have to suffer more. There’s a madman murderer who should & ought to have been executed for murdering and injuring the
victims in that movie theatre, but no, let that damned animal murderer live at taxpayers expense in prison. The theatre was negligent in their monitoring
People dressed a certain way & behaving strangely. That animal murderer should have been watched more closely and not be allowed to do that deed of murdering people for fun & enjoyment. The judge in that court should have ruled I. Favor of the victims, not the theatre chain. Victims have NO RIGHTS except to suffer & be victims, that’s the victims only rights. Shame on that judge, ordering the victims to pay the theatre $700,000.00 when they are already suffering more than enough.
I have to assume that these people were advised beforehand by the court, and/or their attorneys. of the consequences of losing their case. If they chose to proceed that was on them. Why do people always seem to want to sue someone other than the perpetrator of the crime? For MONEY, not for justice. We live in a time and world gone mad!
The entitlement mentality of “They have more money so they should have to pay” rather than “were they at fault?” shows the result of the failed education system and of the divisive leadership in our Government. No one is paying Cinemark. They are restoring financial harm these people caused by bringing a frivolous lawsuit in the first place. What is Cinemark supposed to do? Their overhead doesn’t change. Are they supposed to charge one and a half million innocent movie goers an extra fifty cents per ticket to recover the damages? Personal responsibility and accountability must return to our culture.
The education system is failing by conservative standards, but it is succeeding wildly for the communists who announced in the late sixties that they were going to take the US down, starting with infiltrating public schools and indoctrinating decades of students.
Conservative parents have stood by and allowed the indoctrination of their children since at least the late sixties so now we have the “other people should give me their money” society.
What else could we have thought would be the payoff of those decades of communist indoctrination?
MORON PLAIN AND SIMPLE YOU ARE
You have to be kidding me Mr Van Leu.
I take it you have never signed the FRONT of a paycheck. Your statement is right in line with Clinton’s redistribution of wealth. Work hard, Build an empire, and then wait for some clown to take it all away from you because you have more money then they do even though you did nothing wrong.
The worst part is there are more and more people like you that only want to take from those who make. Our country and my way of life is surly doomed. — Hey, bet you don’t stand for the National Anthem or say the Pledge either, do you?
Nanny state Here we come. George Orwell was right. He just missed it by a few decades.
Matthew mok did you even read the whole statement ??? I backed up and read it three times and found not one pro give me give me give me !!!! Statement. Rather he said that this give me attitude was the real problem much like you said sans the profanity !!!
The system works. Protections against frivolous and irresponsible lawsuits need to remain in place.
The theatre HAD a “This Theater is a Gun Free Zone” sign clearly posted….
And in our present, progressive/liberal society…that really should have been enough.
Idiot! It’s only enough to deter law abiding citizens. Do u really believe that criminals care about a sign that says “gun free zone?” Hmm maybe the Easter bunny too? It’s that kind of wacko thinking that has gotten us where we r!!
Sandy, go back an read his post again.
He is not saying the sign is worth anything, other then protecting the theater form any liability. Unless I am the one getting him wrong he is on our side.
Thanks MM. I re-read the email several times and I’m not sure whose side he’s on. However if it’s our way, then my apologies.
No the liberal left did that when they claimed guns unsafe !!! But only make laws that fail to stop the criminals from buying guns !!!!
Exactly, and the shooter did not bring the guns in the front door. He snuck them in the back door. The cinema is only responsible for their own actions and facility (chairs, walkways, emergency exists, ECT.) being safe. There is no guarantee of protection made against other individuals when you enter a public place. The management or store owners no longer have much right to refuse service or profile strange looking people.
So unreal, since when the victims have to pay. I don’t see Cinemark as the victim in any moment. Again the oppression of the powerful over the citizens.
Are you on drugs?
CINMARK is the defendant and the “victim” of this frivolous law suit. In legal jargon “it has no merit” The people who were shot are the plaintiffs (Aggressors) and they cause CINMARK to run up $700,000 in legal fees that they would have never incurred had they not been sued.
Do you think CINMARK should have to bear the cost of defending against this unjust and improper litigation brought against them?
If I brought a suit against you for using the name “Dragon” and then lost the case in court, after a couple of appeals, do you think it would be wrong for me to have to pay for your lawyer? — By the way, silly as it sounds with the discoveries, Interrogatories, depositions,,,and,,,,and,,,and,,,, you could run up a $20,000 lawyer bill so fast you wouldn’t know what hit you and unless the judge ordered me to pay the costs YOU have to pay the 20 large. ,,,,,and I am talking about a totally goof ball lawsuit like me not liking your screen name.
Still think the judge was wrong?
As I mentioned in another post, it’s likely that Colorado moviegoers are prevented by liberal, anti-Second Amendment Colorado from carrying anything to use for self-defense in theaters in that state. In a theater full of armed citizens, a shooter would have lasted almost no time.
But the theater was an easier mark than the State of Colorado.
The plaintiffs’ were offered a legitimate settlement offer likely proportional to the theater’s genuine liability.
While the loss of the plaintiffs was enormous, the main one at fault was the shooter.
The plaintiffs should have been advised by their attorneys about their gamble, and accepted a sure thing.
The rules of the system are known; the risks of litigation likewise. Can anyone explain in the light of society’s (incorrect but ever present) attitude about guns and law enforcement exactly what the theater SHOULD HAVE done that they did not do?
No,,, The offer was what the theater thought is was worth to them to make the case “go away” — The truth is they had NO LIABILITY at all.
The offer was an temp to settle a lawsuit with the plaintiffs and give them something for their angst of survivor syndrome the cinema knew they would win but court cost were building up and the settlement would have ended that and let those people get some money for their troubles from that nite !!! But four greedy persons though the offer ment they were winning and cut the whole groups throats to gain an invisible flag that cost them 700’000$$ they cost them other 34 plaintiffs the settlement would that was all or nothing !!!
To understand this ruling, you need to understand § 13-17-202 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Under that statute, a defendant may make an offer of judgment, saying that a judgment in a stated amount may be entered against it. That is what the theater did. That offer was rejected and the case went to trial. The final verdict was for the theater, so it was obviously less than the offer. Therefore, the plaintiffs were required to pay costs (but not attorney fees) that were incurred by the theater after the offer was made. If the judgment had been more than the offer, the theater would have had to pay the plaintiffs all costs they incurred after the offer.
Everyone involved knew what was at stake in making and rejecting the offer, and most of the original plaintiffs wanted to accept it. It is obvious now that they should have accepted it. I would expect that the theater chain will soon make a very “magnanimous” (i.e, good PR) announcement that it has deep sympathy for the plaintiffs/victims and does not intend to collect any of that $700,000.
There are more than just one way to make the theater chain suffer for the small amount offered to the victims or their families. There can be organized boycotts of their theaters, mass sales of their company shares, etc. Victims may never receive their just compensation for lives lost, as the little old lady who several years ago received millions for burning her leg with a spilled cup of coffee from a drive-through fast food window, but the pain can be applied to the theater chain in many ways.
Haven’t seen boycotts anywhere, for a reason. . ,,,,And get it through your liberal head. CINMARK prevailed in the case because they did nothing wrong and had absolutely no liability. If everybody was like you no one would dare do business of any kind and we would be living in caves.
The complete nanny state is not here yet.
WHY ON EARTH SHOULD A VICTIM OF A CRIMINAL ACT BE MADE TO PAY ?????? The cinema did not bring a known madman in to shoot up the customers !!! That madman came to a random theater that happened to be showing a violent movie and seeing a gunfire zone sign walked right on by with his guns fully loaded and ready to use knowing no one could shoot back !!! YOU WANT TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME FINE GO RIGHT TO THE TOP EVERY ONE OF THE ANTI GUN LOBBIES IN CONGRESS !!!!
But, of course, NO actions against the anti-Second Amendment State of Colorado, which very likely doesn’t allow movie goers to carry weapons to take out a shooter quickly.
This is more than injustice. This is a travesty. These people were at this movie theather to watch a movie and then a kook comes in thinking he’s.the homer and starts shooting people and now cinemark expects them to pay then?. Our country has really gone CRAZY. Victim’s have no rights anymore. The legal systems is all for the perpetrator and screw the victim. Sad.
You are COMPLETLY off the mark here.
Nobody told them to sue Cinmark They did it on their own. They are now being required to pay for the damage THEY did to Cinmark, not because of them being shot. They have to pay because they should have never sued Cinmark in the first place.
Try reading the article again or if you have a reading disability, have a grown up read it to you.
Most countries do not have near as many casrs brought to court because they are not accepted or the plantiffs pay if they lose. Look at it this way an ex spouse continues to file cases against you, you mow have attorney fees that bankrupt you. Is this fair. The people had a choice, they gambled and lost.
Politically incorrect. Your wrong.
Theaters should be responsible to strip search everyone going to the movies.
Jimmy, I stated in my original post that most would not agree with my way of thinking and that is fine but it was a jury that found the theater not at fault and I have to agree with that because this kind of thing could happen anywhere. I don’t know how old you are but do you know where the phrase ” gone postal” came from? If not here is how it happened. A disgruntle postal worker went into a Jack in the box in CA and used a automatic weapon and shot a bunch of people in there.
And your way of thinking is every business in this country has to do strip searches and here is another example.. you decide to have a BBQ at your place with say 20 friends and of course they bring their dates and now one of those dates decides to shoot up your place. Now because you didn’t strip search everyone you are at fault and therefore you are responsible because you didn’t take proper care to ensure everyone’s safety.
The biggest problem with this country is everyone wants to make a quick buck and are sue happy both victims and attorney’s But if there were penalties for plaintiffs and attorney’s for filing frivolous lawsuits (such as the women who got a cup of coffee at a McDonalds drive through and spilled it on herself won over a million dollars because (if you notice now the warning signs on drink containers now say caution hot) the container didn’t say it was hot. Unless you order a iced coffee common sense tells you your coffee is HOT
I for one do not want to be strip searched every place I go and that is no way to live.
Finally! Someone who uses his brain for thinking and not just to fill an empty space. Way to go “PI” . I agree with you, but the problem is this country has become full of “I’m not responsible ” whiners and cry babies! It’s always someone else’s problem to fix. Our courts r swamped with ridiculous lawsuits by these kind of people always looking to blame someone else or make a buck. EXAMPLE: BLM and the like. Blacks r treated the same way as everybody else and I am sick to death of listening to them whine and cry. Get off ur ass and get a damn job and take care of yourself. Don’t break the law and u won’t go to jail. Pretty simple I’d say.
I think so too,
plus a body cavity search and X-Ray, and then jack the ticket prices up to $2500a seat.
No body will get shot then. , or go to the movies, either.
There is a theater near Austin, Texas that has a metal detector that everyone has to walk through before they can get into one of the movies.
Considering how many potential terrorists the liberals are flying into the US, allowing into the US, and allowing to stay in the US, that’s not a bad idea.
Lawyer greed. The lawyers thought hay we are not responsible but if we win a big one we get more. No skin in the game for them and they can walk away if things turn south while those they represent are stuck holding the bag.
The title is wrong. ‘Survivors of Colorado massacre fail in bid to suck money out of whoever they thought could pay’. Why not sue politicians or the US government, the police force, anyone responsible for gun control or policing? The four litigants were greedy Idiots and they lost their case.
Can’t blame the movie theaters. Agree totally about the lawyers. They look at tragedies and see a chance for a lot of cash…so they approach the people “victims” and convince them they will get money and pay the lawyers only if they win. The lawyers are definitely pushing to continue these lawsuits and need to at least share the court costs.
It is a legal system gone amuck.
I have a reasonable expectation of safety when I pay to enter your place of business. It is the “reasonable man” theory of law. Otherwise in today’s dangerous society if I cannot expect some reasonable measure of safety then you should not be permitted to operate. Every mall has security as does many theaters like Regal.
If you cannot protect me you should not be in business or I should not support you business. The judge totally retired here. It just proves big corporations can have the best lawyers where is the justice?
It is the “reasonable man” theory of law. Where did you get this nonsense that someone else is responsible for your safety? “It just proves big corporations can have the best lawyers where is the justice?” Big corporations started out as a small business and just because they have been successful you think they should pay is that it? You are one of those liberals I spoke about that have developed the mindset that someone else is always responsible for your actions and your safety.
The first settlers had to defend their own or perish but as time passed society split into two categories, one became the Republicans who were the hunters and providers (the real men) and the others became known as the Democrats who took the food and prepared it and did the washing and the cleaning. In the beginning these types perished, either by hunger, wild animals, or Indians but as the Republicans evolved as the protectors the Democrats flourished and today you see what we have wound up with, a bunch of characters who believe someone else should always take care of them but now they feel if that protection does not materialize then someone should pay.
” Otherwise in today’s dangerous society if I cannot expect some reasonable measure of safety then you should not be permitted to operate” well I would recommend you learn how to protect yourself, perhaps purchase a gun or a ball bat, why should I be held responsible for your lack of abilities to protect yourself?
This liberal mentality is why we have so much crime, the liberals have pandered to so many for so long promising them so much for free and a better life many actually believe this nonsense. You sir are a prime example of this attitude.
Yes some malls and even some theatres have been forced to start providing security because the area in which they are located has usually changed in a negative way with the surrounding metropolis demographics which brought this necessity. Out here in the rest of the rural nation we know we are responsible for our own and we take proper measures to that end. We do not expect that the lone ranger is coming by on his white horse to save us every time we an issue.
No Phillip.
You are really out in left field with your definition of a “reasonable expectation” Reasonable expectation dose not mean ABSOLUTE expectation. If you think that no matter where you go, no matter what you do, that whoever owns the property will ABSOLUTELY insure your safety you must think we are living in Candyland.
I will give you an example. This morning I had occasion to go pick up some parts from a warehouse that is located just a few blocks from E55 and Quincy in Cleveland. According to the FBI crime stats this area is just behind the Chicago neighborhood where all the well publicized shooting an homicides occur. In other words the second most dangerous place in the country. They have no guards in the parking lot. There are no metal detectors on the OPEN doors. I did not have to present a picture ID enter,,,yet I did have a reasonable expectation that I would get back to my shop in one piece because I have a CCW permit and I was watching the Kooties like a hawk, but if someone came in and robbed me and the other tradesmen and counter men while I was there I would not see any reason the warehouse should be held liable. – They are in the business of selling parts, not providing for my PERSONAL safety. just as Cinmark is in the entertainment business, and NOT in the business of making sure no nut case shoots me. If they sold me a bad part and refused to replace it that is one thing, but my personal safety is not their concern.
So, in the Cinmark case would have felt better if the screwball would have waited across the street and shot the people after they left the theater and were walking down the sidewalk or would you look for someone to blame there too. .
The world is a dangerous place,,,so Dangerous, in fact, that no one ever got out of here alive.
Knock it off with the “victim mentality” where everything that happens is someone else’s fault and try a little personal responsibility and we will all be a lot better off.
I personally am glad at the verdict. It is time that people figure out that you cannot sue someone just because they may have deep pockets. Maybe those who were injured in the shooting in a black church should sue the church for the same reason. When are people going to stop blaming others for their individual failure to protect themselves. The killer was mentally unstable. I would sue the Psychiatric profession for not doing more to stop these unstable people from getting and possessing firearms. In retrospect maybe the victims should the lawyers who ill advised them to continue with a baseless suit!
While I agree the victims should have help with medical expenses, living expenses while recuperating, etc., we’ve become a bit greedy in this country about suing the ‘deepest pockets’ and trying to get rich enough to retire at 30. If they had been willing to accept a reasonable amount, they would have been ok, but they rejected the reasonable amount and held out for the grand prize. This attitude reflects the anti-business attitude taught in our public schools that basically says we should tax and punish big business and take what we can because they can afford it. However, if we had built our businesses from the garage or kitchen table beginnings to paying salaries to hundreds or even thousands of people, we might wonder why everyone wants to punish us for working hard and having a talent for knowing how to run a business. No, I don’t have a business, but I believe in capitalism (not crony, dishonest capitalism), not socialism. We all benefit from capitalism, and would all be hurt by the end result of socialistic ideas – can you say Venezuela?
I am amazed at the liberals here who believe the theatre should pay because a unhinged person decided to come in the front door, then go out the back door and prop it open so he could regain entrance, then go out to the parking lot and load up on weapons and return to shoot the place up. Please give me a break LIB’s, the theatre did nothing wrong here and their offer up front was a kind gesture to help out but these four wanted to get rich (probably LIBERALS) and their plan failed so now they reap what they sewed.
All you people who think the poor victims should be allowed to sue the theatre when they had no hand in this are just plain unhinged as well. This kind of gimme attitude is unfortunately taking this country by storm, heck just look at how many Bernie supporters we had and he was an admitted socialist.
There was a time that it was an embarrassment to take charity much less demand it and now it seems the norm for so many to even riot if they do not get what they want for nothing. This attitude is being taught in our schools and universities by liberal teachers and professors who should not be allowed anywhere near a classroom but that is the state of the current union I am afraid.
I do agree 100% with the attorneys being made to fund 50% if they loose, this would stop so much of this frivolous greed litigation.
Okay A lot of people are not going to like what I’m about to say. First of all I do feel bad for all of the people that were killed and hurt but it is not up to the movie theater to make sure that everyone that comes in there doesn’t have a weapon on them. We live in a free Society and we take a lot of things for granted. If the movie theater was to blame where would you stop where would you draw the line would you draw the line that if you go into a store a grocery store or restaurant and somebody starts shooting up people and killing people that it’s their fault the businesses fault. we cannot live in a constant alert all the time. Where do you draw the line again where do you draw the line. Pretty soon no matter where you go you’re going to have to go through a metal detector. People out there are so sue happy!!!!! Not everyone but there are decent people out there that would take responsibility for their lives and where they go and they’re not looking to make money at somebody else’s expense no matter what the circumstances. Next time you go to a baseball game look on your ticket it has a disclaimer on there if you’re hit by baseball or a flying object from the field you cannot sue them, you have to take responsibility for where you sit and you have to watch all the time look on your ticket for a hockey game if you’re hit by a puck you cannot go after them I know it’s not exactly the same thing but you understand where I’m coming from. Again I feel bad for the people but they can’t take it out on the theater. This theater offered and I’m sure that they will put more things into effect for the safety of the people there.
Lmao!! Love it! About time a sensless lawsuit goes back on greedy people!!
Everyone now a days when they want money without working for it they just find a way to file a lawsuit. They go to the zoo and despite of all the signs and barriers telling people not to stick the hands and touch the lions they do and then the lion bites them and immediately they want to file suit and if they cant win then they say its because its racial motivated
Politically Incorrect is quite right. All attorneys have 4 agendas: 1) The Bar 2) The court 3) money 4) the client, all in that order!
Most mass executions are in gun free zones. Theaters fault, but Democrats will not admit that.
They were all warned that this could happen
Even if you are right u do not always win in
A court suit!!
That particular theater was chosen by the shooter BECAUSE there was a large sign in the front of the building that said that concealed carry was not permitted so he knew that no one else would have a gun to stop him! How anyone can say that the security of the theater was sufficient is beyond me.
Hey, I know a way to recover the 700 large.
Why don’t they sue the rest of the people in the theater for not being armed and returning fire? ,,,, Or even sue each other for not being armed and shooting the suspect. – Too bad nobody had a Chrystal ball. It could have told the girl in the ticket booth not to sell a ticket to the nut job who is the one who is actuality responsible.
Will the liberals please give me a break. Take Personal Responsibility instead of saying anything that happens to you is someone else’s fault. Being the eternal victim AINT cool, cupcakes.
I love this. Not that I lack empathy for the victims’ losses, just that the unfounded litigation should not be free. The theater made a good faith offer, and the victims tried to go for the jugular. But they were going after a guiltless subject. The theater did not shoot anyone. Sue the perpetrator, not the bystander. We have far too much unfounded litigation in this country; maybe a few cases like this will dampen the ardor for such socially destructive behavior.
Boost Netflix & Direct TV etc for sure vs go to movie & get shot up.
Good call.
Any business that prohibits it’s customers from defending themselves and by inadequate security measures allows a customer to be killed or injured should be liable for both compensatory and punative damages.
There is no good reason to post any sign prohibiting weapons if you are not willing to accept full liability for the safety of your patrons.
There isn’t much any place of business can do to prevent someone from sneaking a gun into an establishment and using it. I didn’t follow the case so I don’t know if the plaintiffs had examples of negligence on behalf of the theatre. The requirement that the losing side pays the winning side’s legal bills cuts down on a lot of lawsuits. Sometimes it’s best to try to strike the best deal possible and not press your luck.
What’s criminal is “Gun Free Zones” without proper security! If a citizen is denied his or her 2nd Amendment Right to protect themselves during a criminal action,then the legislation of “Gun Free Zone” policies and makers of them should be held responsible when citizens lose their lives because of treasonous policies! Criminals don’t give a damn about your “LibTard Signs”,you government Idiots!
The movie theater owner is not responsible……..the shooter was! That’s like saying the World Trade Center owner was responsible for not having better security against terrorists in planes attacking. That’s like saying guns do the shooting, rather than the “trigger finger”.
This is what lawyers have done to this country. Sue everybody and hope for a settlement. You wonder why we don’t have jobs today? Who would want to go into business when everybody including the Government wants to sue you? Thats just like the people believe ig corporations should pay tons of taxes. Well the more taxes they pay the less people they can afford to hire. Unless you have been in business you have no clue the costs involved. When was the last time you got a pay check from a poor man or a broke business? Where is the common sense people use to have?
Warner owns the theater. Warner in my opinion, torn down the theater. They could afford too.
I’m a Brit commenting from ‘over the pond’.
I read this whole thread and feel Mr Molk in particular deserves a medal for patience in trying to explain personal responsibility and why the Cinema chain can’t and shouldn’t be held responsible for every potential nutcase who might get into a seat.
I don’t want to be frisked and strip searched going into a cinema thank you!
Asking lawyers to reform the law is like asking Turkeys to vote for Xmas. We have a problem here in the UK too with claim chasing lawyers who walk away with no costs if they lose but get a big payday if they win. Inappropriate awarding of ‘free’ legal aid is part of the problem. I’ve seen placards that demand ‘legal aid for illegal immigrants’ etc.
If only ethics and morality was compulsory teaching in all schools. Victims of no- blame unavoidable tragedies should be awarded automatic no fault compensation. This would cut out a lot of the criminal legal wrangling targeting a cash rich patsy to pay for the costs. And yes, make the lawyers pay when they give bad advice which causes to the client(s) to lose their shirts..
that is all good and fine but there is a flaw in your thinking and with that the flaw is lawyers giving bad advise to their clients would have to be proven which would cause more court hearings. If our corrupt gov’t would get together and pass a law that states if they take a case on and they lose then the lawyer will pay 50% of all court cost and the plaint/plaintiffs will pay the remaining 50% and if they can not pay the cost then all involved will lose their homes and property depending on the value until the cost are paid in full.
This I think would make people and lawyers think really hard before they decide to sue therefore cut down on frivolous lawsuits
forgot, even my idea would probably have flaws in it also and the one I can think of is most gov’t people are attorney’s which means this type of law would never get passed
Who put up the Gun Free Zone notice? That is the guilty party. Anyone who feels insecure in a movie theater should stay home.
Any idiot that wants to do the Lemming Group thing so the shooters will have a full barrel to shoot at can only blame themselves.
If you boycott all movie theaters until they take down the signs, then every one can carry into the theater and not even the most diehard Jihadi will pick that target. jwstx