Cinemark wins theater shooting liability case

[Slobray]

All of the law suits against Cinemark Theater for the the maniac shooting up the place have been thrown out by a federal judge.

Federal judge: Cinemark not liable for movie theater shooting (http://www.9news.com/news/federal-judge-cinemark-not-liable-for-movie-theater-shooting/255531519)

<broken link removed>

The "Court finds that Holmes' premeditated and intentional actions were the predominant cause of plaintiffs' losses." (Sighting previous lawsuits for Columbine) Which is totally understandable, but how do you think it would have played out if there was a person with a concealed carry permit that was disarmed by the theaters no gun policy?


Ray

PS. Cinemark is asking for court costs Colorado theater wants shooting victims to pay $700K in legal fees (http://www.wxyz.com/news/national/colorado-theater-wants-shooting-victims-to-pay-700k-in-legal-fees-1)

Read More

 

[Ralgha]

Did they actually bring up the argument about the no gun policy? Those articles don't mention it.

 

[Slobray]

Did they actually bring up the argument about the no gun policy? Those articles don't mention it.

Not that I've heard, actually I don't think I've ever heard of someone being disarmed suing for damages after a violent attack.

My question was more of a hypothetical question to see if people thought the case would have merit if there had been a disarmed person in the theater that night.


Ray

 

[Ralgha]

Honestly, I think that's the only thing that might have merit. Just as you shouldn't be able to sue San Francisco when Asiana drives an airplane into their seawall, you shouldn't be able to sue Cinemark when some lunatic shoots people in one.

However, when Cinemark says, "you can't have a gun," they should be open to suits because they deprived you of the ability to protect yourself. If San Francisco said, "you can't have EGPWS here," they'd have gotten the bubblegum sued out of them with that Asiana crash (let's ignore the fact that EGPWS is federally mandated and didn't help in that case anyway).

 

[Sgt Nambu]

An interesting question, but I would never be able to participate.

 

[Slobray]

An interesting question, but I would never be able to participate.

In the lawsuit or conversation? Why?


Ray

 

[Osarion]

Boy talk about ballsy, suing the victims lol. Not gonna win them any brownie points on that part, even though it's a legitimate complaint.

 

[U8395279]

Boy talk about ballsy, suing the victims lol. Not gonna win them any brownie points on that part, even though it's a legitimate complaint.

Well, the victims can then turn around and sue their own attorneys for legal malpractice, for talking them into filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Sometimes the best legal advice is to tell your client that they don't have a case.

.

 

[PaulB47]

However, when Cinemark says, "you can't have a gun," they should be open to suits because they deprived you of the ability to protect yourself.

No they haven't. You simply go elsewhere.

If you don't, you've implicitly agreed to their conditions. How can you sue for something you agreed to?

Beware of trampling property rights, even for a good cause. That way lies disaster.