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

[nakinate]

If someone breaks in and murders my family can I sue Wells Fargo since they hold the mortgage on the property?

 

[LCSOSgt11]

The Cinemark corporation should also go after the ambulance chasers that in some way, shape, or form represented the "aggrieved" families. I don't see the plaintiffs here bringing the suit forward without any form of legal counsel.

 

[ljk]

Wanted cash in on a tragedy, ended up getting bit in their asses.

 

[Mgderf]

My friend, you and your aversion to purpleocity confuse the snot out of me sometimes.

This has GOT to be one of those Rhino terms, one which defies logic.
Or maybe it's his inner Barney showing itself.

 

[68NOVA]

The people suing the theater, apparently watch too many movies.

 

[MilliJac]

Wanted cash in on a tragedy, ended up getting bit in their asses.

Zone for Guns? I could get behind that.

 

[nipprdog]

View attachment 49725

You need to adjust your sarchasometer, where I come the fun is in people not realizing you are being sarchastic.

 

[bobzilla]

Zone for Guns? I could get behind that.

I was thinking "Zero F-n Give-a-f's"

 

[HoughMade]

I think cinemark has a golden opportunity to buy some really good publicity here for the sum of 700k...

If I was one of the plaintiff's attorneys, I would certainly be trying to sell this to them.

 

[2A_Tom]

View attachment 49725

I am used to it. I was IN MI (I know, I know) and the problem is MI people can not talk about anything, for fear the knowlege they share could have been read somewhere besides the newspaper.

 

[jbombelli]

This is interesting:



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.




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.

Nondisclosure agreement most likely. Have we heard the other side crowing about it at all? If not then I would bet they reached some sort of settlement.

I've signed a couple of those in my life prior to getting paid.

All I can say if someone asks is "those situations were resolved." Or I have to pay back money.

 

[JettaKnight]

I love these feel good stories.

Justice prevails.

 

[Clay]

Zone for Guns? I could get behind that.

Zero
F****
Given

 

[bgcatty]

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.

Say what? The test here was: Was there a duty to protect and was it foreseeable for the theater to think or know that some maniac was going to attack the theater? In other words would a reasonable man (the theater management) have foreseen that Holmes or someone like him was going to shoot up the theater thus giving rise to a duty to protect? Not here! There is no way the theater could have foreseen this tragedy coming. The greedy plaintiffs and their attorneys were looking to hit the jackpot regardless of what the rules of law are. This type of frivolous litigation has got to stop.

 

[87iroc]

All but one plaintiff wanted to take settlement of like 150k. The one that didn't was a woman who lost 2 children in incident and was paralyzed.

 

[jamil]

All but one plaintiff wanted to take settlement of like 150k. The one that didn't was a woman who lost 2 children in incident and was paralyzed.

Emotional decisions rarely work out well, but wow.

 

[CTS]

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.

No, absolutely not. Let's say you have a nephew who likes guns but you've seen him repeatedly exhibit unsafe handling skills so you tell him he's not allowed to have a gun in your house. During a visit, someone breaks into your home and shoots him leaving him paralyzed. Do you think it's fair if you're held liable?

At the end of the day we are all responsible for our own protection. If you choose to enter a gun free zone and follow their wish for you to disarm, you're voluntarily making a decision to disarm. Even if the signs did have the force of law, nobody is forcing you to go see a movie there. Now if Holmes had sent the theater a letter saying "Hi, at xx time I'm going to go into your theater and shoot a bunch of people up" and they did nothing about that, that's one thing, but this occurring was not an event they could reasonably foresee happening.

 

[Woobie]

I feel sorry for these families. I can't imagine their heartache following the tragedy.

I don't know if they received bad counsel from a greedy ambulance chaser, or were turned down by good lawyers until they shopped around enough and found someone who would take the case. In the first instance, they are to blame, but I have some sympathy. In the second, I have no sympathy. It should have dawned on them. We'll probably never know which was the case.

But justice was served, and I am glad.

 

[jamil]

I feel sorry for these families. I can't imagine their heartache following the tragedy.

I don't know if they received bad counsel from a greedy ambulance chaser, or were turned down by good lawyers until they shopped around enough and found someone who would take the case. In the first instance, they are to blame, but I have some sympathy. In the second, I have no sympathy. It should have dawned on them. We'll probably never know which was the case.

But justice was served, and I am glad.

That's the thing. All the justice they were due was served when the only person responsible for this was sentenced to life without parole. Beyond that, if he were wealthy, I could see them suing him. But no one else is responsible for what he did.

 

[Woobie]

That's the thing. All the justice they were due was served when the only person responsible for this was sentenced to life without parole. Beyond that, if he were wealthy, I could see them suing him. But no one else is responsible for what he did.

Exactly. My point was that the lawsuit had a just outcome. It's really a completely separate issue from the murders altogether. The only connection is emotional.