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.
I certainly see the theaters point and agree with them. I'm 99% sure that the lawyer who filed the case took it on contingency anyway so even if the theater prevails in the lawsuit the money will not come out of the family's pockets. The money will come out of the lawyers pocket, is how it works when they take a case on contingency.
Debate recently between me and a friend. He's a lawyer.
Re: Frivolous lawsuits.
My stance: People are too litigious today.
His position: We have too many lawyers in this country.
After a friendly discussion I concede his point: if there was a shortage of lawyers in this country then they wouldn't take cases like this, or cases like spilling hot coffee on yourself.
"You want to sue for what? For how much? Sorry, I don't have time for that. I have real work to do".
But they will always find someone willing to take the case....
After a friendly discussion I concede his point: if there was a shortage of lawyers in this country then they wouldn't take cases like this, or cases like spilling hot coffee on yourself.
You should probably read up on the hot coffee case if you think it in any way relates to this case. McDonalds knew their coffee was dangerously hot and would cause third degree burns within seconds of being spilled. They had also compensated other burn victims (the woman who sued, was only wanting her medical bills payed), but continued to disregard the safety of their customers. Cinnemark Theatres were not previously aware of this attack happening, and nothing like that had ever happened before. There was no reason for them to believe something like that would happen. For them to have extra security measures in place when no other movie theater did just doesn't make sense.
I feel very sorry for the families. But I think suing the Theater was also a dick move. It was beyond their control.
The managers/owners of Cinemark, could and should have taken higher security measures for a midnight showing of the "Dark Knight." The nerve of the theatre chain, to be suing the people hurt and families killed in this violent rampage.
To be sitting in a theatre enjoying a film and have some nutcase, for no reason, other than he had failing grades and wanted to make a name for himself is an outrage.
The theatre should have been torn down but no, they re-modeled the nightmare. A botanic garden or park, something, should have replaced the ugly theatre, to honor the slain and gravely injured people.
The managers/owners of Cinemark, could and should have taken higher security measures for a midnight showing of the "Dark Knight." The nerve of the theatre chain, to be suing the people hurt and families killed in this violent rampage.
To be sitting in a theatre enjoying a film and have some nutcase, for no reason, other than he had failing grades and wanted to make a name for himself is an outrage.
The theatre should have been torn down but no, they re-modeled the nightmare. A botanic garden or park, something, should have replaced the ugly theatre, to honor the slain and gravely injured people.
A six person jury refused to find them even partially responsible.
They had zero case to begin with per us law yet they still went after them.
As such their lawyer should have informed them of this legal possibility and if they didn't they could now sue their lawyer.
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.
Based on this one case? Do you have any other information that they do this to legitimate cases of negligence like you say?
Of course, I feel very sorry for the victims and their families, but I support the theater in this. How many theaters are there in the U.S. and how many shooting have them been in them? The chances of this happening based on prior history were very slight.
And there is also the fact is that could have occurred anywhere in any place of business -- grocery store, restaurant, any place that does not have massive security in place. And if security was put into place, what would that do to the price of groceries, movie tickets, or whatever? Also, what would happen if the families had won? If they won and another murder happened again at another business, that business would be almost guaranteed to be sued and lose, too.
The murders were tragic, but the movie theater and chain were NOT to blame, and they should not have been sued, so imo, they had every right to recover their legal expenses.
The managers/owners of Cinemark, could and should have taken higher security measures for a midnight showing of the "Dark Knight." The nerve of the theatre chain, to be suing the people hurt and families killed in this violent rampage.
To be sitting in a theatre enjoying a film and have some nutcase, for no reason, other than he had failing grades and wanted to make a name for himself is an outrage.
The theatre should have been torn down but no, they re-modeled the nightmare. A botanic garden or park, something, should have replaced the ugly theatre, to honor the slain and gravely injured people.
I cannot tell if you are serious or not, so if you are...
I have been to many midnight showings over the years. Never once did anything happen to warrant higher security measures. The theater had no reason to believe that such an attack would happen, and it was not their fault. I'm sure they have already lost, and continue to lose, a lot of revenue over what happened. Why should they be out another 700 thousand? Why should they have to tear down their place of business over the actions of someone else?
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.
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.
