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

[jamil]

Cinemark knew, or should have known, that the exits could be propped open. That's the language one typically hears in a negligence case. Cinemark has 522 theaters with 5,888 screens, so I have no doubt they employ a corporate security officer whose job is to make sure things like this don't happen, or, at the very least, to try and mitigate the harm. It doesn't look like that person did their job, as a certified whack-job was able to defeat their security.

As for the movie-goers, what more could they have done to protect themselves? They weren't allowed to carry (per Cinemark's own rules), so Cinemark assumes a higher standard of care in that case. Perhaps the victims should have been wearing some Level 4 body armor, if they truly wanted to feel safe. Yeah, let's put the onus on the victims...

BTW, I was mistaken about the security on hand that night. There was none. Other Cinemark complexes did have guards, but not at Aurora.

I know that exits can be propped open. That should be obvious to any observer. Yet I go to the theater quite aware of that security issue. So does everyone else. Yet they still go.

I think someone else opined about the no guns policy similar to what I think about it. I usually ignore the policy and carry anyway. I've never had an issue but if they noticed and asked me to put it in my car or leave, I'd leave and ask for a refund if I've already paid. If signs carried the weight of law, I would agree with you that Cinemark would carry a higher burden to protect moviegoers.

 

[Woobie]

I never said armed guards at every exit, did I? However, alarms on doors ARE generally accepted safety measures, and it's not an expensive proposition. The doors are already one-way locking; a simple switch connected to an alarm is just a few dollars. Using a CCD camera to monitor the doors wouldn't be very expensive either.

No, you didn't say armed guards. But you did tacitly admit alarmed doors would create a commotion every time a movie ended. Your response was that a smart engineer could figure it out. Yet you continue to trot out this idea that for just a few bucks a door we could put alarms and cameras on them. Which is it? R&D on this new technology won't be cheap, so it blows everything else you say out of the water. And theatres will simply not use a simple alarmed door. Even the theatres that already have them have disabled the alarms out of courtesy to their customers.

Would alarms and cameras have stopped Holmes? We'll never know...

I highly doubt it. Yet you find them negligent for not installing equipment that you have no clue if it would have been effective that night.

.

 

[churchmouse]

.

Agreed

 

[david890]

[Cut & paste, as Woobie embedded his response]

No, you didn't say armed guards. But you did tacitly admit alarmed doors would create a commotion every time a movie ended.

I did no such thing. Do not put words in my mouth. An alarm could be disabled when the movie is over, could it not??

Your response was that a smart engineer could figure it out. Yet you continue to trot out this idea that for just a few bucks a door we could put alarms and cameras on them. Which is it? R&D on this new technology won't be cheap, so it blows everything else you say out of the water.

"R&D on this new tech"? You mean a reed switch and a wireless CCD camera?

And theatres will simply not use a simple alarmed door.

That's where the CCD camera comes into play. Someone can monitor the door remotely instead of having an usher run down and check manually.

Even the theatres that already have them have disabled the alarms out of courtesy to their customers.

If a theater has disabled its alarms, it is opening itself to a great deal of liability! They demonstrate that an alarm is needed, then disable it? Really? Please list these theaters so I can avoid them...

Yet you find them negligent for not installing equipment that you have no clue if it would have been effective that night.

You just admitted that some theaters have installed alarmed doors, so obviously some people think: a) an alarm is needed; and b) that it will be effective in some cases.

You have no clue if CC will be effective with every situation. Some? Sure. Most? Maybe. Every? No.

In the case of Aurora and Holmes, you would have faced a guy with an AR with a 100-round drum mag and body armor. Are you so proficient that you could have drawn, fired and stopped Holmes while a theater full of panicked people were trying to get away from him? You're that good???

 

[indiucky]

.

"Suave...G. D. you are one suave *&&%%$..." Dennis Hopper, Blue Velvet...

Very well said Woobie...

 

[HoughMade]

If the attack was unforeseeable as found by a state court jury, why would the same attack be foreseeable to a federal court jury?

 

[T.Lex]

If the attack was unforeseeable as found by a state court jury, why would the same attack be foreseeable to a federal court jury?

More oracle-like jurors?

 

[jamil]

If the attack was unforeseeable as found by a state court jury, why would the same attack be foreseeable to a federal court jury?

Because *someone* has to pay, and it has to be someone who has deeper pockets than the person actually responsible.

 

[david890]

If the attack was unforeseeable as found by a state court jury, why would the same attack be foreseeable to a federal court jury?

A specific attack is unforeseeable; knowing that doors lack sufficient security is foreseeable, per Woobie's post that some theaters have installed door alarms. What did they know - or suspect - that Cinemark with its 5,900 theaters did not?

Different jury, different views. "12 Angry Men" and all that.

My ultimate points in this thread are as follows:

1) DHS has identified venues such as indoor and outdoor theaters to be "high-value" targets, and made recommendations in 2011, a year before Aurora; Cinemark knew or should have known it was at risk. To suggest otherwise is to suggest incompetent security personnel and incompetent legal counsel regarding liability for lax security.
2) Cinemark had revenue of $2.9 billion in 2015; even at $1,000 per door, with 6 doors per screen, and 5,900 screens in the US and Latin America, their cost to upgrade security would be 1.2% of their revenue, and that's a one-time cost. As noted previously, their liability insurance might cover a large part of this, or at least could be amortized over several years. Shiat, I'd wager they could get some federal tax break from Congress to cover the entire cost; the struggling Entertainment-Industrial Complex, after all. I'm sure Lee Roy knows GWB; they both live in the DFW area. GBW (and GHWB, to an extent) still have contacts in Washington, so it wouldn't have been hard to push a little rider through on some bill to give them the tax break.
3) Lee Roy Mitchell, founder and Executive Chairman of Cinemark, was paid $2.3M in 2015. Mr. Mitchell could afford to chip in, to make sure his customers are a *bit* safer, or do you think he has a need for even more money at age 79? His damn home is valued at $9.1M. God forbid he move to a $5.8M shack and help the families of the 12 killed at HIS theater.

Cinemark could have gained some valuable press and public support by offering aid to the families of those killed. They could have assumed NO liability, but still have ponied up some cash, if nothing more than by offering to donate (likely a tax write-off!) a weekend's revenue - roughly $15M - to the families of those killed and to the wounded. That may not have pleased all the plaintiffs, but it wouldn't have required them to sue and Cinemark ending up looking like the bad guys.

The "insult to injury" of making the remaining plaintiffs pay up is another lost chance for good press.

Finally, given the cost of tickets and concessions, the risk, the other patrons who make a trip to the theater a nightmare, and streaming services at home, theaters may very well be on the way out. Such actions by Cinemark aren't helping them.

Done with this thread. Y'all go ahead and feel good about Cinemark's victory over the "morons", as MARMION calls them. You know, the VICTIMS.

 

[jamil]

A specific attack is unforeseeable; knowing that doors lack sufficient security is foreseeable, per Woobie's post that some theaters have installed door alarms. What did they know - or suspect - that Cinemark with its 5,900 theaters did not?

Different jury, different views. "12 Angry Men" and all that.

My ultimate points in this thread are as follows:

1) DHS has identified venues such as indoor and outdoor theaters to be "high-value" targets, and made recommendations in 2011, a year before Aurora; Cinemark knew or should have known it was at risk. To suggest otherwise is to suggest incompetent security personnel and incompetent legal counsel regarding liability for lax security.
2) Cinemark had revenue of $2.9 billion in 2015; even at $1,000 per door, with 6 doors per screen, and 5,900 screens in the US and Latin America, their cost to upgrade security would be 1.2% of their revenue, and that's a one-time cost. As noted previously, their liability insurance might cover a large part of this, or at least could be amortized over several years. Shiat, I'd wager they could get some federal tax break from Congress to cover the entire cost; the struggling Entertainment-Industrial Complex, after all. I'm sure Lee Roy knows GWB; they both live in the DFW area. GBW (and GHWB, to an extent) still have contacts in Washington, so it wouldn't have been hard to push a little rider through on some bill to give them the tax break.
3) Lee Roy Mitchell, founder and Executive Chairman of Cinemark, was paid $2.3M in 2015. Mr. Mitchell could afford to chip in, to make sure his customers are a *bit* safer, or do you think he has a need for even more money at age 79? His damn home is valued at $9.1M. God forbid he move to a $5.8M shack and help the families of the 12 killed at HIS theater.

Cinemark could have gained some valuable press and public support by offering aid to the families of those killed. They could have assumed NO liability, but still have ponied up some cash, if nothing more than by offering to donate (likely a tax write-off!) a weekend's revenue - roughly $15M - to the families of those killed and to the wounded. That may not have pleased all the plaintiffs, but it wouldn't have required them to sue and Cinemark ending up looking like the bad guys.

The "insult to injury" of making the remaining plaintiffs pay up is another lost chance for good press.

Finally, given the cost of tickets and concessions, the risk, the other patrons who make a trip to the theater a nightmare, and streaming services at home, theaters may very well be on the way out. Such actions by Cinemark aren't helping them.

Done with this thread. Y'all go ahead and feel good about Cinemark's victory over the "morons", as MARMION calls them. You know, the VICTIMS.

I hope you don't break something when you finally climb down from your moral high horse. You've managed to convince me that you mostly believe Cinemark is liable because they have deep pockets. That is fully 2/3 of your argument. The other third is a mistaken belief that a 2011 "FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY" DHS document means every theater should have implemented every suggestion pertaining to an indoor theater. And yes, that would mean every suggestion, because they'd have to foresee every attack to foresee any attack.

 

[scoutsniper]

greedy bastards deserve it. went from victims to money hounds when they kept pressing for a pay out.

where does everyone think you rate money for a incident like this? the guys in jail. maybe if the guy was a rich SOB then sure sue for some of his ****. but to try to take money from a third party company/people blows my mind.

no one rates anything in this world.

 

[Mark-DuCo]

Just curious about david890's argument here, Lets apply this to something that doesn't involve a corporation, say you have people over one evening and you leave an outside door unlocked while they are there. An armed robber comes in and and one of your guests is killed. Is it ok for that guests family to sue you?

 

[jamil]

greedy bastards deserve it. went from victims to money hounds when they kept pressing for a pay out.

where does everyone think you rate money for a incident like this? the guys in jail. maybe if the guy was a rich SOB then sure sue for some of his ****. but to try to take money from a third party company/people blows my mind.

no one rates anything in this world.

Well, hold on. I honestly don't think it's greed. I think it's emotional pain and some of them were unable to abide not feeling a sense of justice. They really blamed Cinemark, and not getting a settlement means they didn't get what they were seeking for vindication. Though I don't believe Cinemark was responsible, I still think the victims have a right to hurt. They just need to accept that the only vindication they can really get has already happened. The guy responsible for it is in jail.

Just curious about david890's argument here, Lets apply this to something that doesn't involve a corporation, say you have people over one evening and you leave an outside door unlocked while they are there. An armed robber comes in and and one of your guests is killed. Is it ok for that guests family to sue you?

Oh, it depends on how rich the homeowners are. If they are, then of course they are responsible. And further, I saw a video once where police recommended that homeowners keep their doors locked. Not doing everything the police recommend all the time automatically makes rich homeowners responsible. Additionally, because the police recommend it, they should have foreseen the armed robber.

Of course, if you don't agree, then I should just hoist my nose high in the air and be seen leaving you to your immoral thinking.

 

[Woobie]

A specific attack is unforeseeable; knowing that doors lack sufficient security is foreseeable, per Woobie's post that some theaters have installed door alarms. What did they know - or suspect - that Cinemark with its 5,900 theaters did not?

Different jury, different views. "12 Angry Men" and all that.

My ultimate points in this thread are as follows:

1) DHS has identified venues such as indoor and outdoor theaters to be "high-value" targets, and made recommendations in 2011, a year before Aurora; Cinemark knew or should have known it was at risk. To suggest otherwise is to suggest incompetent security personnel and incompetent legal counsel regarding liability for lax security.
2) Cinemark had revenue of $2.9 billion in 2015; even at $1,000 per door, with 6 doors per screen, and 5,900 screens in the US and Latin America, their cost to upgrade security would be 1.2% of their revenue, and that's a one-time cost. As noted previously, their liability insurance might cover a large part of this, or at least could be amortized over several years. Shiat, I'd wager they could get some federal tax break from Congress to cover the entire cost; the struggling Entertainment-Industrial Complex, after all. I'm sure Lee Roy knows GWB; they both live in the DFW area. GBW (and GHWB, to an extent) still have contacts in Washington, so it wouldn't have been hard to push a little rider through on some bill to give them the tax break.
3) Lee Roy Mitchell, founder and Executive Chairman of Cinemark, was paid $2.3M in 2015. Mr. Mitchell could afford to chip in, to make sure his customers are a *bit* safer, or do you think he has a need for even more money at age 79? His damn home is valued at $9.1M. God forbid he move to a $5.8M shack and help the families of the 12 killed at HIS theater.

Cinemark could have gained some valuable press and public support by offering aid to the families of those killed. They could have assumed NO liability, but still have ponied up some cash, if nothing more than by offering to donate (likely a tax write-off!) a weekend's revenue - roughly $15M - to the families of those killed and to the wounded. That may not have pleased all the plaintiffs, but it wouldn't have required them to sue and Cinemark ending up looking like the bad guys.

The "insult to injury" of making the remaining plaintiffs pay up is another lost chance for good press.

Finally, given the cost of tickets and concessions, the risk, the other patrons who make a trip to the theater a nightmare, and streaming services at home, theaters may very well be on the way out. Such actions by Cinemark aren't helping them.

Done with this thread. Y'all go ahead and feel good about Cinemark's victory over the "morons", as MARMION calls them. You know, the VICTIMS.

Since you're so happy to spend Cinemark's shareholders money, you must have taken a good look at their P&L. I'm assuming you realize revenue in no way equates to profit or available cash. What is their EBITDA? I'll bet $35 mil would be a very significant portion of that. You quote their 2015 revenue. What was it in 2011 when they were supposed to react instantaneously to this report, even though budgets for the year were already set?


Technologically, you have to vet the equipment. It isn't a matter of cobbling together some reed switches and cameras. Who is going to run the switches? Another paid employee? That shoots the one time expense theory in the head. A PLC? Takes time to write the program and test it. Also adds another layer of equipment. How about maintenance? Or installation? Usually anything more than mundane maintenance requires a specially trained team to roll out the installation. They will be required to live on the road doing installations at the various sites. Who is the vendor for that kind of specialized labor? Are their people working on other projects, or available immediately?


If you can make all of the money and logistics happen in a year, you're a better man than anyone I've ever worked with.

 

[jamil]

Since you're so happy to spend Cinemark's shareholders money, you must have taken a good look at their P&L. I'm assuming you realize revenue in now way equates to profit or available cash. What is their EBITDA? I'll bet $35 mil would be a very significant portion of that. You quote their 2015 revenue. What was it in 2011 when they were supposed to react instantaneously to this report, even though budgets for the year were already set?


Technologically, you have to vet the equipment. It isn't a matter of cobbling together some reed switches and cameras. Who is going to run the switches? Another paid employee? That shoots the one time expense theory in the head. A PLC? Takes time to write the program and test it. Also adds another layer of equipment. How about maintenance? Or installation? Usually anything more than mundane maintenance requires a specially trained team to roll out the installation. They will be required to live on the road doing installations at the various sites. Who is the vendor for that kind of specialized labor? Are their people working on other projects, or available immediately?


If you can make all of the budgets and logistics happen in a year, you're a better man than anyone I've ever worked with.

Why does their bottom line, or how rich the CEO is, have anything to do with their responsibility? Ether they could have foreseen it and therefore had a responsibility to take steps to prevent it, or they didn't.

It doesn't matter if they were in deep debt, or rolling in dough. The only reason people bring that up is to make a moral judgement of them. Maybe that helps them to feel better than everyone else, congratulating each other on their superior morality and all, but that doesn't answer the question of responsibility.

 

[Woobie]

Why does their bottom line, or how rich the CEO is, have anything to do with their responsibility? Ether they could have foreseen it and therefore had a responsibility to take steps to prevent it, or they didn't.

It doesn't matter if they were in deep debt, or rolling in dough. The only reason people bring that up is to make a moral judgement of them. Maybe that helps them to feel better than everyone else, congratulating each other on their superior morality and all, but that doesn't answer the question of responsibility.

Absolutely. Well said.

My point, from a practical perspective, is that even if we could determine some responsibility, based on this report, to increase security measures, there still would be no liability on the part of Cinemark given the impossibility of the time and resources available prior to the shooting.

 

[Amishman44]

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.

Several of them pushed through with the case...and it was only during last-minute negotiations that all but four (4) of the plaintiffs bailed on the suit.

From my experience...lawyers who take cases on a contingency basis have made the choice to take the risk of loss upon themselves... that's part of the risk they as lawyers have in their choice of profession.

The lawyers need to stop crying and get over it!

 

[HoughMade]

More oracle-like jurors?

That's a sound theory.

Because *someone* has to pay, and it has to be someone who has deeper pockets than the person actually responsible.

Another astute observation.

 

[jamil]

Several of them pushed through with the case...and it was only during last-minute negotiations that all but four (4) of the plaintiffs bailed on the suit.

From my experience...lawyers who take cases on a contingency basis have made the choice to take the risk of loss upon themselves... that's part of the risk they as lawyers have in their choice of profession.

The lawyers need to stop crying and get over it!

I don't think the issue is lawyer fees. The judge ordered the plaintiffs to pay court costs. I don't think the lawyers are on the hook for that.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Cinemark will not pursue award of $700k in legal fees against Aurora shooting litigants—they agreed to drop appeal. | Reuters