Families sued Cinemark over July 2012 Batman shooting--and lost, now they pay

[johndoe3]

http://www.guns.com/2016/07/07/cinemark ... ting-suit/

Background: On July 20, 2012 James Holmes shot and killed 12 and wounded 70 at the midnight showing of the new Batman movie at the Cinemark 16 theater in Aurora, Colorado.

One family, who lost a daughter, sued Lucky Gunner for selling ammo to James Holmes. They lost in court in 2015, and since Colorado is a "loser pays" state, the family had to pay Lucky Gunner $203,000 for legal fees.

Another ~24 victims and families of victims of the above mass shooting, banded together and sued Cinemark in civil court over not having armed security guards and other security precautions in place. They lost in May, 2016 with the jury in the Arapahoe District Court finding Cinemark "not liable"--oops for them, loser pays.

Cinemark has submitted their legal fees to the court for restitution in the amount of ~$700,000, although the court is likely to reduce that amount somewhat.

Your opinion? Are the victims and families being traumatized all over again by losing in court and having to pay Cinemark for legal fees?

[bakerjw]

Tennessee SB 1736

usiness owners who demand law-abiding citizens disarm themselves will assume liability for injuries they incur while on the “posted premises.” Moreover, the business owners will be liable for injuries a concealed permit holder incurs while retreating from the business to a vehicle–during an emergency–to retrieve the gun the business owner barred.

Great law.

[TROOPER]

The families aren't being 'traumatized' all-over again, they're gnashing their teeth at the perceived monetary loss. The stages of grief do make for irrational feelings as people inevitably blame... but not this far along. At this point, lawsuits are either about self-enrichment or about specifically harming another entity for ideological purposes.

I'm glad they lost. I'm not sure I'm happy they have to pay. Perhaps the real problem was that the tort lawyers involved led the plaintiffs to believe that this was a likely winner. If they had been on a contingent-fee arrangement, I wonder if any lawyers would've taken the time to pursue this, because to me, it looked like a loser unless the jury was full of antis who toss aside ethics and morals in pursuit of the anti agenda.

[Mongo]

I'm sure the lawyers took the case pro bono with the full knowledge that if it was a win they would have made their 40% of a multi million dollar settlement/judgement. They also knew that if they lost they would only be out their own legal expenses and the clients would be on the hook for a large amount of money. So the question is, did the clients get a clear understanding about what would happen if they lost? Perhaps Colorado needs to make it part of the "loser pays law" that attorneys that take pro bono cases are also on the hook for the legal fees. The reason for loser pay law was to stop stupid punitive lawsuits. Why would anyone expect the theater to have to supply armed security guards?

[whiterussian1974]

Perhaps Colorado needs to make it part of the "loser pays law" that attorneys that take pro bono cases are also on the hook for the legal fees. The reason for loser pay law was to stop stupid punitive lawsuits.

Losing a Suit still requires Attachment of Assets. I'm sure that the Lawyer had them sign a form that they would be responsible for the Costs of the Aggrieved Party if they lost. The Lawyers probably demanded a $10k Retainer for "Costs" incurred in addition to the 40% Windfall Settlement, or 66% if won at Trial. Plus they get their 66% before the Families get the Final Payment. This can also take several yrs. Say, a 10yr Payout. Maybe the Families get $1k/month during the 1st 8yrs, then the Final 2yrs minus the Monthly Service Fees and Costs.

They Lawyer could even assign his Partner as Custodian of the Trustee Fund. Then he could also charge huge Administrative Fees just for processing the Monthly Per Diem Checks.
---
I think that Plaintiffs should be required to pay a 10% of Sought Relief Surety Bond. So if they sue for 20million, they must pay 2million to a Trustee before the Case proceeds. This would DRASTICALLY reduce Nuisance Torts.
---
If they wanted Armed Guards, they should have Petitioned the Theaters for them (with the Attendant rise in Ticket Cost.) They CHOSE a no carry theater from the many in the surrounding area. They could easily have gone to another Theater.

They were in no way compelled to attend that Showing. Or to obey the "disarm" signage. It's a Commercial Policy, not a Law like TX 30.06.

I really like the Tennessee Law. I'm ambivalent. Private Property should have Rights of Guest Conduct, but the Equal Access laws against Service Discrimination means that there are Restrictions of these Rights once a Firm is "Open to the Public."

If it was a Private Club with Admission Standards, then a Disarm Policy would be valid. IF a person Open Carried, that also could be a no-no. And the Customer asked to leave.

But ordering a Person to abandon their Rights in order to do business w a Firm is also wrong. Do we Waive our 1st, 4th, 5th Amend Rights by doing business w a Firm? Of course not. Restricted on Private Property. But not Waived.

We can't shout Fire, or Assault someone. But if I'm at McD's and a clerk strip searches me...we've got a problem.

[johndoe3]

Tennessee SB 1736

usiness owners who demand law-abiding citizens disarm themselves will assume liability for injuries they incur while on the “posted premises.” Moreover, the business owners will be liable for injuries a concealed permit holder incurs while retreating from the business to a vehicle–during an emergency–to retrieve the gun the business owner barred.

Great law.

Baker, I like Tennessee's law for its leverage in helping businesses decide not to create gun free zones.

However, like all laws, how well it works out depends on how well it is written and whether it becomes a trial lawyers "full-employment act."

For instance, will courts have to decide total liability for all claims? Then will the courts have to parse percentages of liability to the business, to the perpetrator, and to the state? To say the business has liability doesn't necessarily mean 100% liability.

So...the new TN law is an experiment and we'll just have to watch how it plays out in the courts. It's just like Colorado legalizing marijuana as a state experiment in greater freedom and better justice while stopping the war on drugs in regards to MJ. No one knew for sure how CO's experiment would play out on the ground, although in that case the results are even far better than anyone expected.

Hopefully TN's new law works out well by decreasing the number of businesses creating gun free zones, and there isn't blowback as measured by markedly increased number of court cases.