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.
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.
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.
That's that.
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?
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.
If a moviegoer slipped, fell and broke a hip I suspect they’d be paying out. What is different about allowing an armed madman to shoot up patrons, as far as liability? I don’t think the lawsuit was frivolous.
Under a 1984 Colorado statute the attorney for a losing party may also be held responsible for the other party’s legal fees if the attorney knowingly asserted a phony claim or defense or otherwise acted inappropriately. Section 13-17-101, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes (1987 Repl. Vol. 6A).
If one side makes an offer of judgment in time and the other side rejects (ordinarily the plaintiff, as here) then if the plaintiff after trial fails to recover more than the amount offered in judgment, the court can order plaintiff to pay costs but not necessarily attorney fees.
The statute above shows that the court must have determined that the claim lacked merit.
If everyone there was carrying that night, he still would have killed people but probably would have been eventually taken out. From what I remember reading it was dark and there was a lot of confusion inside.
A jury decided the case and decided in Cinemark’s favor. It does not look like crap. the plaintiffs sued and lost via a jury’s verdict.
Despite winning Cinemark still offered to pay the plaintiffs and warned that they would seek to recoup their legal fees if the defendants didn’t settle. So some decided not to settle anyway and they are now reaping the results of that decision.
All around this was a rare but excellent example of how things should work.
Kudos to Cinemark, the jury, and the judge.
I have to agree that I can’t see where Cinemark should be held liable, at least morally. How are you supposed to stop a nut from suddenly appearing and doing that? It is not a reasonably foreseeable event.
The plaintiff’s lawyers should pay the costs.
The theater disarmed its patrons, they should be liable for ensuring their security. This should be true for every gun-free zone.
If a business says you cannot come in armed, disarming you, and provides no security for you from harm, they have taken away your ability to defend yourself with equal,force. And are not protdcting you from attackers with greater force.
They ought to be liable. In Wisconsin, they are. And in Wisconsin, if they do not have adequate security, such as not inspecting people for weapons on entry, and no armed securty people, you can ignore their signs to disarm.
I don't know about that. I figure posting a "no guns allowed sign" makes them quite 'liable', as they'd removed the patron's ability to protect themselves, and implicitly accepted liability for their security.