U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-03-2016, 12:18 PM
 
1,957 posts, read 1,331,192 times
Reputation: 3290

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
It's retributive.

They're sending a warning. DO NOT SUE US ('US' being not only Cinemark, but corporations in general) BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T WIN WE WILL DESTROY YOU FINANCIALLY. Win or lose, Cinemark can absorb the loss (their liability insurance will cover any judgments). But some customer with a grievance, whether it's this complaint or any other? It's a roll of the dice - either they win in court or they are financially ruined.

Cinemark couldn't care less about the $770k court fees. They and a great many other corporations want it known that filing a lawsuit is too great a gamble for the average person, so the next time someone has a legitimate case for negligence, they'll still think twice about whether or not to act.
No, this has nothing to do with corporate America. They have the right, but its certainly in poor taste, and id be willing to bet they could eat the costs without a care compared to the families who may have lost the bread-winners.... Unless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by imagardener View Post
If you had lost a loved one due to violence you would look for someone to blame, and some lost fathers and mothers who were the financial support of their family. It would take someone stone cold to say "no" to a lawyer who came to you telling you that they could get you justice and some money.

I doubt that the theatre will prevail in their countersuit however. It's done to warn others and if there are shareholders they are doing due-diligence to get money back, probably from insurance that victims had.

I hate going to movie theaters, rude people, too hot, too loud and now fear of violence from nuts.
I never would have considered that it could have just been some shyster lawyer who talked all these people into suing in there time of grief. If it were the case, I guess then I hope the lawyer would have to pay back all the legal fees (if he took the case pro bono or something); but if this was something I see as grieving family members did, (and you know it probably wasn't all of them originally behind the idea, just all included to strengthen a case), then I think the theater should have just cut them some slack.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2016, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,016 posts, read 16,015,200 times
Reputation: 12623
Quote:
Originally Posted by adriver View Post
Yahoo!

I think this is complete crap. I didn't agree that the victims should be suing the theatre because they didn't have enough security; you can't plan for a psychotic gunman to be out to kill people everywhere you go, but personally, this is just scum of the gene pool LOW.. I hope people start boycotting this theatre because of this move. They should be happy they won, and let everyone move on with there lives.
Why? Going for attorney fees in frivolous lawsuits is common and one of the things that keeps frivolous lawsuits in check. Very unfortunate incident but I'd call the lawsuits frivolous. Understanding that there's a lot of bleeding heart types, I don't think they made the right decision. It's a bad PR move although I don't have any issues with them going for attorney fees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2016, 12:24 PM
 
5,273 posts, read 12,381,750 times
Reputation: 5771
I support the theater.

The people who brought the lawsuit knew, for a fact, it was a money grab. The theater refused their attempt at legal extortion and won. Now they are entitled to their certain costs as the prevailing party. I'd get them as well. It sends an appropriate message- First to people seeking free money knowing they aren't entitled to it; and, Second to plaintiff attorneys who chase ambulances. And that message is that some people cannot be blackmailed. They stand up and punch back. I approve. I'm sick and tired of this lawsuit crazed society.

I put a thread about tort reform in Great Debates and a plaintiff attorney came along and hijacked it and turned it all around. Plaintiff attorneys are just below pedophiles on my list of detestable people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2016, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,016 posts, read 16,015,200 times
Reputation: 12623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
It's retributive.

They're sending a warning. DO NOT SUE US ('US' being not only Cinemark, but corporations in general) BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T WIN WE WILL DESTROY YOU FINANCIALLY. Win or lose, Cinemark can absorb the loss (their liability insurance will cover any judgments). But some customer with a grievance, whether it's this complaint or any other? It's a roll of the dice - either they win in court or they are financially ruined.

Cinemark couldn't care less about the $770k court fees. They and a great many other corporations want it known that filing a lawsuit is too great a gamble for the average person, so the next time someone has a legitimate case for negligence, they'll still think twice about whether or not to act.
No, they have to go beyond that. They have to prove the lawsuit was in bad faith. By no means does losing a lawsuit mean it was in bad faith. To me, this was bad faith. It's not somebody suing because their nacho cheese was too hot and they burned their mouth and losing. That's much less a bad faith lawsuit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2016, 12:46 PM
 
2,541 posts, read 2,147,036 times
Reputation: 3822
Quote:
Originally Posted by adriver View Post
I think this is complete crap. I didn't agree that the victims should be suing the theatre because they didn't have enough security; you can't plan for a psychotic gunman to be out to kill people everywhere you go, but personally, this is just scum of the gene pool LOW.. I hope people start boycotting this theatre because of this move. They should be happy they won, and let everyone move on with there lives.
Boycott the theater for what?????
These people actually sued the theater company? That's insanity! The theater does not owe these people a damn thing. The theater is not to blame for the fact that some crazed gunman chose that particular venue. It's ridiculous that these people even sued the theater to begin with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2016, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
9,087 posts, read 8,238,314 times
Reputation: 19662
The theater has as much right to sue the survivors as the survivors did suing the theater.

You want to sue someone? You better be prepared to be sued right back.

Remember the gay cake? As soon as Whole Foods sued that preacher right back he dropped the charges and said he lied.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2016, 12:51 PM
 
Location: in my mind
4,752 posts, read 6,502,549 times
Reputation: 9476
I can honestly say that if my husband, son, brother, sister, daughter, cousin, mother, father, etc had been killed in this shooting, I would not sign up to sue the theater.

No matter how extreme my emotional state would have been, I would know that its not the theater's fault this happened.

Unless every single theater in the country had armed security at every entrance, and this ONE theater didn't .... which of course isn't the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2016, 01:06 PM
 
5,230 posts, read 5,142,801 times
Reputation: 6221
Quote:
Originally Posted by adriver View Post
Yahoo!

I think this is complete crap. I didn't agree that the victims should be suing the theatre because they didn't have enough security; you can't plan for a psychotic gunman to be out to kill people everywhere you go, but personally, this is just scum of the gene pool LOW.. I hope people start boycotting this theatre because of this move. They should be happy they won, and let everyone move on with there lives.

So it's okay for people to sue the theater because they figure the theater has deep pockets, so it's then okay for them to spend tons of money on legal fees? I bet if you were a business owner and someone tried to sue you because they figured they could get some money out of you, not because it was really your fault, you wouldn't feel the same way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2016, 01:25 PM
 
436 posts, read 353,780 times
Reputation: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by adriver View Post
Yahoo!

I think this is complete crap. I didn't agree that the victims should be suing the theatre because they didn't have enough security; you can't plan for a psychotic gunman to be out to kill people everywhere you go, but personally, this is just scum of the gene pool LOW.. I hope people start boycotting this theatre because of this move. They should be happy they won, and let everyone move on with there lives.
I don't know, people are so "lawsuit happy"

Jesus warned us that the love of money was the root of all evil.

Since the victims themselves were murdered in the shooting, the close family member would be eligible for Life Insurance settlements, that should have been enough.

If the victims, no life insurance yet, that was the victim's family members' fault, and can not be the fault of the movie theater.

This was a random terrible, violent act. The family members should have been wise enough to understand that, and *not* have gone after the movie theater. I think they should pay up.

Always going after the "deep pockets" 'ya know...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2016, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,016 posts, read 16,015,200 times
Reputation: 12623
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanCrossroads View Post
Boycott the theater for what?????
These people actually sued the theater company? That's insanity! The theater does not owe these people a damn thing. The theater is not to blame for the fact that some crazed gunman chose that particular venue. It's ridiculous that these people even sued the theater to begin with.
Yup. If you actually listen to the plaintiffs' argument at trial they're at fault because they didn't have CCTV cameras everywhere, armed security on site, and armed patrols on the exterior. That's more security than I see going into secure facilities like courthouses. I've certainly never been to a movie theater which had armed security patrolling both the interior and exterior of the building. Maybe there's an armed security guard out front if it's a bad neighborhood, not that one armed security guard would really have mattered. He walked up and presented a ticket.

You'd really need to have something like TSA screening or what you get going into secure state buildings. That's completely unreasonable. If they had that, no one would go to that theater. They'd go elsewhere as tacking off your belt, watch, emptying pockets is a hassle. We grudgingly tolerate it going into certain secure government buildings like courthouses or when flying. That' doesn't mean we'd tolerate it to go to a movie theater or grocery store or restaurant or the mall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:51 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top