Wait, what? Aurora massacre survivors end up owing theater $700K after suing

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • SEIndSAM

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    48   0   0
    May 14, 2011
    111,131
    113
    Ripley County
    Wasn't they warned early that their case had almost zero chance of prevailing, yet they went ahead anyway?
    If so, they need to pony up the cash.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    I guess I'm a bit confused, other than crazy dude, who SHOULD be held responsible?
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    36,179
    149
    Valparaiso
    That is an interesting result. I don't know all the facts, but it seems to me that some attorneys probably made that uncomfortable call to their malpractice insurers.
     

    Double T

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   1
    Aug 5, 2011
    5,955
    84
    Huntington
    I don't know, the place was a GFZ. I think they should be held culpable, especially if they in turn had no one on the payroll as dedicated security and/or armed security. However, the "no guns" signage in Colorado does not carry the weight of law, unless the place/business is listed in the state code. That may have been the Theater's ticket out of this.

    While I disagree with most frivolous lawsuits, this one I could probably get behind IF they were trying to hold the theater responsible for their safety IF the signs actually carry the weight of law. Colorado is like Indiana in these regards though.
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    26,342
    113
    NWI
    You need to adjust your sarchasometer, where I come the fun is in people not realizing you are being sarchastic.
     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    9,331
    113
    Texas
    This is interesting:

    Cinemark was not liable for the shooting, and U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson, who oversaw the federal case, was about to issue an order saying as much.The federal lawsuit was effectively over.

    But Jackson wanted the survivors and Cinemark to end the case with a settlement. It was 8 a.m. June 23. For the next eight hours, attorneys for both sides inched closer to a deal.

    Did the judge also tell Cinemark they were about to win? Granted they probably deduced this after they won in the state court, but still seems odd to me as outside observer that the judge was trying to steer things this much.

    >>ETA: Oh wait, now I see. The case itself had been decided, this part of the process was just about whether Cinemark was going to get all of the $700K they requested. Makes a little more sense now that the judge would like to see a settlement rather than an appeal of the $700K judgment drag things out.


    The deal came with an implied threat: If the survivors rejected the deal, moved forward with their case and lost, under Colorado law, they would be responsible for the astronomical court fees accumulated by Cinemark.

    This is what happened when another set of parents who worked for the Brady bunch sued Lucky Gunner ammo and lost. I don't know that LG has ever collected tho. I emailed them awhile back to ask if they ever, and they basically said they didn't want to comment on it.
     
    Last edited:

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    26,342
    113
    NWI
    I think it is the judge's job do direct the course of a trial according to the law.
     
    Top Bottom