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 ...
Are you objecting to the defendant’s cost bill, or to the lawsuit that was filed against the theater?
President Trump has his head screwed on some squared away shoulders .. right.
This is how you stop them. Make ‘em pay the legal fees. This is awesome!
I’m all for reforming the legal system to prevent frivolous torts but this seems extreme and punitive. I’m sure they’ll settle out of court for a reduced sum.
Agree.
“Loser pays” would put a stop to this nonsense.
.
I feel badly for the families of the victims, but this looks like an attempt to cash in on a tragedy. The original suit sounds frivolous to me and in those cases the plaintiff’s should be made to pay the legal costs of the defendants. The abuse of the courts needs to be discouraged.
Good.
No, as I understand they were already offered a settlement, which their attorney advised them to take, and they refused.
If a person files a lawsuit that is frivolous and loses, then should he pay for the legal expenses he imposed upon the party who had to defend themselves?
In this case I think the blame must be laid at the feet of the legislature who allowed businesses to prohibit people from carrying concealed weapons, yet did not require those same businesses to have sufficient security. So, the movie goer is on his own and forbidden by law from being able to protect himself. Thanks to other features of other laws, the theater does not want the liability and does not have to assume it. So, of course the people who were shot have no grounds to file suit and ergo the they must pay.
Government takes away our unalienable rights to self defense and then makes it impossible for us to enjoy peace and safety from evil people. And then government gives itself a pass because the police (the only people who are allowed to armed in this case) cannot be in every theater at every moment. (nor would we)
We can also blame hand-wringing liberals who refuse to listen to logic and reason.
The short answer is to never live in a state where you cannot fully exercise your rights.
I totally agree. Too much of this crap law suits should get the ax. Looks like the golden goose laid a dud.
That's that.
The theater that requires people that go there be disarmed cannot plausibly be accountable for providing security?
Garbage like what?
A group of people launched a civil suit against someone, that someone then had to hire lawyers to defend itself from their claims... they winded up winning so they then filed a claim that the persons who filed the original suit should pay their attorney bills... I don’t see a problem with this.
No one would be complaining had they succeeded and Cinemark had to pay them the millions they wanted.
Without the ability to go after someone who accuses you of wrong doing in civil court and loses, you have a system where anyone can just bleed you dry without consequence by filing frivolous suit after frivolous suit.
I know it sucks for the families, but they are the ones who decided to sue because they felt a public business should have adequately known some psychopath was likely to come in guns a blazing?
The only reasonable argument that I can think of for suing a theater for inadequate protection after some psycho shot up the place is... if the management forbade people from carrying guns to protect themselves. But my guess is... that was not one of the arguments that the victims attorneys were using.
” if the management forbade people from carrying guns to protect themselves”
Cinemark did. See my meme I posted. That “Firearms prohibited” is the sign on the door to that theater.
“should have adequately known some psychopath was likely to come in guns a blazing?”
In this case, yes, because Cinemark had a no forearms sign which means they knew there are people with guns out there that they were afraid of and demanded they do not bring their guns into the theater.
I have the sinking feeling that I would have nowhere to live.
These families lawyers coaxed them into going after the money instead of the perpetrator now they’re stuck with the bill. Those lawyers are the ones who should be paying this along with loss of license for malpractice.
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.