But their insurance company probably wanted someone less bad.
Posted on 09/02/2016 11:24:46 AM PDT by SMGFan
Four survivors of the 2012 Colorado theater shooting massacre were ordered by a judge Thursday to pay Cinemark nearly $700,000 in legal fees.
The 28 families of those killed and wounded in the July 2012 shooting sued Cinemark, the movie chain that owns the Century 16 where James Holmes opened fire during a showing of “The Dark Knight Rises,” claiming that there wasn’t adequate security to stop Holmes from carrying out the attack.
An Arapahoe County civil jury ruled in May that Cinemark wasn’t liable for the shooting that left 12 people dead and 70 others. Lawyers for Cinemark then filed a “bill of costs” for $699,187.13 in June in the country court. The Denver Post noted that under state law, the winning side in a civil case is entitled to recover all of its legal costs.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
No, they didn't. The shooting incident demonstrated that their "gun-free zone" policy didn't disarm anyone.
Ironically, the theater owner might have been more likely to lose a civil lawsuit if they DID NOT put up a sign telling people not to bring guns into the place and the mutant came in and shot up the theater.
Were it me on a jury, I would absolutely assign liability to any company that purposefully disarmed its customers. Actions have consequences. Once the true risk is reflected appropriately in their insurance rates, you'd find a lot fewer businesses being anti-gun.
If it cost Cinemark 700k to defend then that is legal costs and the aggrieved party should not have to pay those. I don’t subscribe to the theory that everything that happens is the legal responsibility of the property owner.
They rolled the dice and lost. It is not a bet I would have made.
So is the business obligated to defend all citizens or just the ones that were disarmed? What happens in this scenario: I don’t carry and you do and we both go in a store that requires you to disarm. You say they are obligated to protect you since they required you to disarm but since I was not armed are they obligated to protect me ?
They are liable for injuries for everyone on their property. The policy applies to all on the premises.
But their insurance company probably wanted someone less bad.
BAD publicity??? For punishing people who are both hoplophobes and lawsuit abusers? Why?
“This is how you stop them. Make ‘em pay the legal fees. This is awesome!”
Ahh yeah; but these folks were shot.
Ahh yeah; but these folks were shot.
“What is different about allowing an armed madman to shoot up patrons, as far as liability?”
The courts and government (via safety regulations) has long required public places to put a high value on measures to prevent falls. They have never ruled or had safety regulations requiring security from madmen.
I’m very sympathetic to the victims, but their lawsuit was a very long shot and it didn’t pay off - in a state where losing meant paying the legal fees of the other side. I think they had bad legal advice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.