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

[87iroc]

Emotional decisions rarely work out well, but wow.

Yep....I think they 'should' have settled...but I 'understand' the woman's sorrow. I don't know HOW she feels...hope I never do...but when the pain cuts so deep, a mere couple of years isn't going to soften the blow much.

 

[jamil]

Yep....I think they 'should' have settled...but I 'understand' the woman's sorrow. I don't know HOW she feels...hope I never do...but when the pain cuts so deep, a mere couple of years isn't going to soften the blow much.

Yep. She let her feelings prevent her from seeing the outcome. Rather than getting a much smaller settlement than she thought she deserved, she now has to pay. That has to sting even worse. I do feel sorry for her. Being that bitter can't be a great existence.

 

[Hookeye]

There is no way the people were going to win.
If they did, then any place than bans personal protection (guns) would be held liable.
I think it went much higher (protective aspects) than corporate.
Reeks of conspiracy.

 

[churchmouse]

Yep....I think they 'should' have settled...but I 'understand' the woman's sorrow. I don't know HOW she feels...hope I never do...but when the pain cuts so deep, a mere couple of years isn't going to soften the blow much.

No amount of money is going to mend that pain. It will not replace those lost. It will not bring peace.

Edited to satisfy Grammar police.....

 

[Hookeye]

GFZ' were never about protection.
It was to make for killing fields and leverage emotions, against lawful firearm ownership.

So there's no way a lawsuit was going to win. Not even a respectable amount for pain/suffering.
The opposition played it smart, probably crooked, and didn't want this type of press.

So they offered a minor amount, insulting (but only to those it was offered). Low enough to be funny for them.
Countered by the threat of massive amounts owed, should they not take it.

Even with this making the news, it'll be forgotten soon enough.

Nobody gives a crap. Nobody ever does, ever has. This country went to crap a long time ago.
It's just going to get worse.

For God's sake..........Hillary kills and runs for friggin' office. Her idea is for more GFZs.

 

[87iroc]

No amount of money is going to mend that pain. It will not replace those lost. It will not bring piece.

I believe it. Also believe she's in too much pain to realize it.

 

[david890]

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.

First, those "greedy plaintiffs" lost loved ones in the shooting. How about "grieving families" instead?

Second, there's no doubt that Cinemark knew its security was lax regarding the emergency exits. I suspect everyone here has tried/succeeded in entering a theater via an emergency exit; it's almost a rite of passage. Having an alarm on an emergency exit that has been opened, or is open for an extended period, is reasonable, as would be requiring someone in mgmt to investigate such an alarm.

Third, Cinemark *did* have security on hand, given the midnight showing of the movie and the size of the crowds expected.

The alarm on the exit might have resulted in mgmt confronting Holmes outside of the theater. That person(s) most certainly would have been shot and killed by Holmes, and the shooting would have alerted the security on hand.

 

[david890]

No amount of money is going to mend that pain. It will not replace those lost. It will not bring piece.

So, lawsuits with respect to defective products are pointless? Takata should be forgiven for their crappy, exploding airbags, or Johnson & Johnson for hiding the evidence that talc caused cancer?

You'd be given corporations free reign to do whatever they wanted, without fear of consequences.

["Peace", not "piece"]

 

[jbombelli]

First, those "greedy plaintiffs" lost loved ones in the shooting. How about "grieving families" instead?

Second, there's no doubt that Cinemark knew its security was lax regarding the emergency exits. I suspect everyone here has tried/succeeded in entering a theater via an emergency exit; it's almost a rite of passage. Having an alarm on an emergency exit that has been opened, or is open for an extended period, is reasonable, as would be requiring someone in mgmt to investigate such an alarm.

Third, Cinemark *did* have security on hand, given the midnight showing of the movie and the size of the crowds expected.

The alarm on the exit might have resulted in mgmt confronting Holmes outside of the theater. That person(s) most certainly would have been shot and killed by Holmes, and the shooting would have alerted the security on hand.

Lol.

 

[churchmouse]

So, lawsuits with respect to defective products are pointless? Takata should be forgiven for their crappy, exploding airbags, or Johnson & Johnson for hiding the evidence that talc caused cancer?

You'd be given corporations free reign to do whatever they wanted, without fear of consequences.

["Peace", not "piece"]

Just sharing a thought .
Grammar NAZI remark and all you seriously think my statement had the 1st or anything to do with corporate failings. A Corperation did not make a product that failed and caused this tragedy.

Really, what exactly are you thinking. There is zero comparison here.
I was commenting on the pain involved.

Grammar response expected.

 

[jamil]

First, those "greedy plaintiffs" lost loved ones in the shooting. How about "grieving families" instead?

Second, there's no doubt that Cinemark knew its security was lax regarding the emergency exits. I suspect everyone here has tried/succeeded in entering a theater via an emergency exit; it's almost a rite of passage. Having an alarm on an emergency exit that has been opened, or is open for an extended period, is reasonable, as would be requiring someone in mgmt to investigate such an alarm.

Third, Cinemark *did* have security on hand, given the midnight showing of the movie and the size of the crowds expected.

The alarm on the exit might have resulted in mgmt confronting Holmes outside of the theater. That person(s) most certainly would have been shot and killed by Holmes, and the shooting would have alerted the security on hand.

Kids sneaking into movies through the emergency exits happens, of course, but I don't think it happens enough that theater management really cares much about any lost revenue. Still, I don't think anyone at Cinemark or any theater, or even theater goers, for that matter, ever expected some nutbag to go in the "out" and start shooting people. I just don't see having a world where every business must be held accountable for every possible way that harm could befall their customers. If there's negligence, or malice, and it causes harm, yeah, of course people should be able to hold those businesses accountable.

But for this, the shooting was tragedy enough, but the added tragedy in the final settlement is that the shooting victims have to pay now. And that's something they brought on themselves. They had a chance to actually get something. I wouldn't call it greed. It's as I said earlier, some of them just couldn't abide taking so much less than what they suffered. But now they not only have nothing to show for it, THEY have to pay. To me, that's just senseless. The judge told them that he was going to rule in favor of Cinemark and that they should come to a settlement. I think that was beyond fair. In the end, if Cinimark was found not responsible, its time to do some soul searching for the victims. The blame belongs primarily with the shooter.

 

[churchmouse]

Lol.

Most of this members responses are worded in a fashion to incite.
Not sure of his motivations but we are all entitled to our opinions.
He has drawn the attention of the staff on multiple occasions.

Again.....opinions.

Waiting to be graded. I apologize that my late 60's Public High School education is not up to speed.

 

[jamil]

So, lawsuits with respect to defective products are pointless? Takata should be forgiven for their crappy, exploding airbags, or Johnson & Johnson for hiding the evidence that talc caused cancer?

You'd be given corporations free reign to do whatever they wanted, without fear of consequences.

["Peace", not "piece"]

No one said that. You're going far beyond what he said.

On the grammar, why care? Maybe there's a way to make it work. Sometimes maybe gettin' a little piece of somethin' gives 'em peace. I'm not gonna judge.

 

[churchmouse]

No one said that. You're going far beyond what he said.

On the grammar, why care? Maybe there's a way to make it work. Sometimes maybe gettin' a little piece of somethin' gives 'em peace. I'm not gonna judge.

I fixed it.....

 

[jbombelli]

Most of this members responses are worded in a fashion to incite.
Not sure of his motivations but we are all entitled to our opinions.
He has drawn the attention of the staff on multiple occasions.

Again.....opinions.

Waiting to be graded. I apologize that my late 60's Public High School education is not up to speed.

I know. I'm laughing at the obvious baiting.

 

[Rookie]

He's a shooter in training, so I just ignore him.

 

[jamil]

Most of this members responses are worded in a fashion to incite.
Not sure of his motivations but we are all entitled to our opinions.
He has drawn the attention of the staff on multiple occasions.

Again.....opinions.

Waiting to be graded. I apologize that my late 60's Public High School education is not up to speed.

I just don't see a need to grammar-douche people. I've rarely seen it done to be friendly. On the other hand, I think it's fine to mention someone's misused word or whatever for poking some friendly fun, like bending it into an unintended alternate meaning that's funny.

 

[churchmouse]

He's a shooter in training, so I just ignore him.

I have seen some good points and info from him.
His posts are always read by a few of us.

 

[david890]

Kids sneaking into movies through the emergency exits happens, of course, but I don't think it happens enough that theater management really cares much about any lost revenue.

It's not a matter of lost revenue; it's the fact that someone propped open a safety door (my time in the Navy as the Damage Control Petty Officer is kicking in; I took that job *very* seriously, and old habits die hard). What if the movie had been a Disney matinee and some pedophile used that door to snatch a kid from a darkened, noisy theatre? Think there would be a lawsuit then?

Still, I don't think anyone at Cinemark or any theater, or even theater goers, for that matter, ever expected some nutbag to go in the "out" and start shooting people.

That is the same "failure of imagination" that resulted in 9/11. The Israelis had secure cockpits on all El Al flights; why not on US carriers?

I just don't see having a world where every business must be held accountable for every possible way that harm could befall their customers. If there's negligence, or malice, and it causes harm, yeah, of course people should be able to hold those businesses accountable.

I'm not arguing for protection against *every conceivable action*; that's not possible. But as I stated, how many reading this have sneaked into a theater using an emergency exit? How much would it cost to have an alarm on each exit? We're getting to that scene in "Fight Club" where the protagonist says, "Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one." Now that we *know* someone can shoot up a theater via the emergency exit, will that result in alarms on the doors, or are the next victims simply expendable?

But for this, the shooting was tragedy enough, but the added tragedy in the final settlement is that the shooting victims have to pay now. And that's something they brought on themselves. They had a chance to actually get something. I wouldn't call it greed. It's as I said earlier, some of them just couldn't abide taking so much less than what they suffered. But now they not only have nothing to show for it, THEY have to pay. To me, that's just senseless. The judge told them that he was going to rule in favor of Cinemark and that they should come to a settlement. I think that was beyond fair. In the end, if Cinimark was found not responsible, its time to do some soul searching for the victims. The blame belongs primarily with the shooter.

What price would you put on the lives of two of your kids and your own mobility? $10K? $5K? After all, $5K is *something*, but that doesn't begin to cover the cost the victims have had and will experience for the rest of their lives.

Yes, the blame belongs *primarily* with Holmes, but not *exclusively*. That is the issue.

 

[david890]

A Corperation did not make a product that failed and caused this tragedy.

Really, what exactly are you thinking. There is zero comparison here.
I was commenting on the pain involved.

There's no pain associated with the deaths from Takata airbags? *Someone* (or perhaps several) at Takata allowed that design to go forth; why do we hold the corporation liable if we can prove it was the action of a single person (or a few)? We could jail that person and be done with it, but then I doubt the families would be happy with that.

I'm *thinking* that a problem (unsecured exits) existed - AND STILL EXISTS. All those white-knighting Cinemark haven't addressed this fact.