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.
(Century Aurora 16 movie theater in Colorado, where the mass shooting that killed 12 people occurred in 2012.Reuters/Evan Semon)
After a state jury declared that Cinemark, the nation's third-largest theater chain, was not responsible for the Colorado theater shooting in which 12 people were killed during a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" in 2012, the chain now wants the victims who brought the lawsuit to pay its legal fees from the case.
According to Deadline, paperwork was filed last week in which Cinemark is seeking $699,187.13 in legal fees and other costs from the case.
The lawsuit was filed by more than two dozen surviving victims of the shooting and relatives of the dead.
After years of litigation, Cinemark won the case on May 19, when a six-person jury unanimously came to the verdict that the theater chain was not partially liable for the shooting.
Colorado allows the winning side in a civil case to seek costs.
According to Deadline, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Marc Bern, said there would most likely be an appeal of the verdict.
Cinemark did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment.
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 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.
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.
While it was a terrible and sad thing that happened , the fault lies with the crazy with the gun. People were looking for someone to blame for that terrible unfortunate incident. They went to court and lost. The defendant has the right to recoup costs. I'm sure if the roles were reversed they would try and recoup costs too. While I don't agree with the theater chain being taken to court, that's a chance you take when you sue. They can sue back. Why should the theater eat those costs?
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.
It's kind of a dick move but I also see the theaters point of view, people file these dumbass lawsuits after every tragedy, looking to get money for something, anything. The theater certainly couldn't have reasonably foreseen some psycho shooting up the place.
What people seem to have trouble accepting in the U.S. is that terrible stuff sometimes happens and it isn't the fault of the closest immediate entity with the deepest pockets. As a society we've become absurdly sue-happy.
People are acting like Paulie in Goodfellas.
"You owe me money, something terrible happened and in my view you were indirectly responsible."
"Well, we're just a movie theater, we had nothing to do with this tragedy."
It's kind of a dick move but I also see the theaters point of view, people file these dumbass lawsuits after every tragedy, looking to get money for something, anything. The theater certainly couldn't have reasonably foreseen some psycho shooting up the place.
What people seem to have trouble accepting in the U.S. is that terrible stuff sometimes happens and it isn't the fault of the closest immediate entity with the deepest pockets. As a society we've become absurdly sue-happy.
Pretty much. This country is now a bunch of sue-happy, offended people.
While it was a terrible and sad thing that happened , the fault lies with the crazy with the gun. People were looking for someone to blame for that terrible unfortunate incident. They went to court and lost. The defendant has the right to recoup costs. I'm sure if the roles were reversed they would try and recoup costs too. While I don't agree with the theater chain being taken to court, that's a chance you take when you sue. They can sue back. Why should the theater eat those costs?
It would just make ticket prices higher for you and me.
What people seem to have trouble accepting in the U.S. is that terrible stuff sometimes happens and it isn't the fault of the closest immediate entity with the deepest pockets. As a society we've become absurdly sue-happy.
Agreed. It is a bitter pill to swallow when the person who wronged you has nothing left to give, in this case, James Holmes.
There is a line of thought from anti-gun-free-zone folks who believe that places disbarring good people with guns (you know, the ones who would obey that instruction) should then be 100% responsible for the safety of its' patrons, and I can't get behind that either.
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.
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.
