Everyone needs to donate!
September is almost here.
Please Contribute Today!
Posted on 08/23/2014 12:59:09 PM PDT by chessplayer
"The owner of the Aurora movie theater that was the site of a deadly 2012 attack could have reasonably enough foreseen the danger of such an attack to be held liable for it, a federal judge ruled Friday."
"Noting “the grim history of mass shootings and mass killings that have occurred in more recent times,” U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled that Cinemark — owner of the Century Aurora 16 theater — could have predicted that movie patrons might be targeted for an attack. Jackson’s ruling allows 20 lawsuits filed by survivors of the attack or relatives of those killed to proceed toward trial."
While I would think that such a lawsuit is simply absurd, even in our overly litigious society, it’s worth noting that the judge has not ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but simply allowed the case to be heard. Still, the idea that simply because the theater owner should be aware that mass shootings had taken place in other (non-theater) crowded buildings they should be liable for the actions of madmen boggles the mind.
When you go to see a movie at the theater, you – as a patron – have a few reasonable expectations. You should be able to expect that the movie will be shown with clear video and audio. The snacks should not prove to be toxic. The building – under normal weather conditions – should not fall down on your head. If any of those conditions fall though, you’d probably have a right to demand compensation from the owners. But if your loss comes from the actions of a madman (”Perhaps the defining feature of crazy people is that they’re unpredictable”) then you are placing the blame on the owners for something as far out of their control as if a tornado hit the theater out of a clear sky.
This ruling could easily cause extreme disruption in our society by making any business owner potentially liable for not providing absolute security in any public place where a large number of people (targets) are gathered together.
Who is more mentally deranged, the shooter or Judge Jackson?
“Gun Free Zones” might become such a legal/insurance liability that they disappear.
Hallelujah!
Furthermore, there is an element of inviting attack. In the past 40+ years every single mass shooting (with only one exception) has occurred in an area where private citizens are prevented from carrying firearms. That's a pretty convincing track record that disarming your patrons invites attack.
Hopefully a few big settlements (and thus a boost in liability insurance rates) will help convince business owners to take down these idiotic signs and reduce their liability.
Someone with concealed carry permit can do it anyway. D@#%( the punishment.
Perhaps ... the shooter went out of his way to go to that specific theater (over closer theaters) because it prohibited firearms on the premises, both serving as enticement to the madman and depriving patrons of a defense.
If the judge says it could have been predicted, he should have predicted it. Sue him.
Will the judge also consider that Colorado law allows building owners to force patrons to waive their unalienable right of self defense by prohibiting them from possession of their otherwise-legal firearms?
Works for me.
They put their customers at risk, and deserve to be ruined.
The pateons obeyed the law.
The theater owner disarmed them. The theater owner, and other negligent establishments who disarm their patrons, should be sued out of business.
The theater created an unreasonably dangerous condition by disarming its patrons by denying them the right to carry legal weapons.
The theater owners who created sitting ducks.
If they disarm the patrons, they needed armed guards on the premises.
“If business owners are going to take away my ability to defend myself and my family with their stupid “no firearms” signs then they take on the responsibility for reasonably assuring their customer’s safety to a similar degree. eg. post armed undercover security in every theater.
Furthermore, there is an element of inviting attack. In the past 40+ years every single mass shooting (with only one exception) has occurred in an area where private citizens are prevented from carrying firearms. That’s a pretty convincing track record that disarming your patrons invites attack.
Hopefully a few big settlements (and thus a boost in liability insurance rates) will help convince business owners to take down these idiotic signs and reduce their liability.”
WELL SAID!
Yes and they should prepare for asteroid strikes as well...
One would expect mass shootings to have lawsuits...against any and everybody..
Funny, sandy hook has none...
“... of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers ...” - isn’t that what Lincoln said?
in some states the no gun sign has the weight of law behind it (LA is one such state i believe). HERE IN COMMIERADO IT DOES NOT. the sign is a request and not legally binding. OTOH if the store discovers you are armed and asks you to leave AND YOU DON'T than you can be charged with trespassing. there is no requirement for size or placement of kill zone here signs. i usually don't go into places that have them because i don't want to support them but, if necessary, i will ignore the sign.
i do not think the theater is responsible legally for having the sign and thus preventing folks from defending themselves anymore than they are guilty of not providing security.
“The theater refused to allow its patrons to defend themselves by putting up signs that made it illegal for CHL holders to be armed. They need to be punished financially for such a stupid decision.”
Agreed! Their stance invites problems.
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.