Colorado movie theater shooting survivors ordered to pay $700,000

[ABX]

Yes, you read that correctly. No, this isn't The Onion.

Four survivors of the 2012 Colorado movie theater massacre have been ordered to pay the theater chain $700,000.

On July 20, 2012, James Holmes opened fire inside the Century Aurora Multiplex during the premiere of Dark Knight Rises. He killed 12 people and wounded 70....

http://www.ksla.com/story/32951247/colorado-movie-theater-survivors-ordered-to-pay-700000?sf34897956=1

[dfwgator]

 :wtf!:

[unknown]

Read the complete article:

More than 24 survivors sued the theater's owner, Cinemark, claiming the theater did not have enough security measures in place to prevent the shooting.

In May, the jury ruled that Cinemark was not liable for the shooting, and most of the survivors took a small settlement. Four of them refused.

A judge ordered those four to pay $700,000 to theater chain for legal bills.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Read the complete article:

Play stupid games... win stupid prizes...

[mountaineer]

Seems legit to me. If you don't have a valid claim and you've put an innocent party through the time and expense of legal proceedings,  there should be some consequences.

[goatprairie]

If a theater chain can be sued for failing to protect its customers from violence, then any public venue can be sued if there is no armed protection. I don't what Colorado has as far as gun rights i.e. concealed or open carry.   But they don't allow citizens to arm themselves, they  might need to rethink their position if more shootings like that one occur.

[Smokin Joe]

If a theater chain can be sued for failing to protect its customers from violence, then any public venue can be sued if there is no armed protection. I don't what Colorado has as far as gun rights i.e. concealed or open carry.   But they don't allow citizens to arm themselves, they  might need to rethink their position if more shootings like that one occur.

The theater chain has the 'no guns allowed' policy.

If they are going to maintain that as a 'gun-free zone', the legal question is one of whether they assume responsibility for the defense of the patrons in case of just such an incident if the condition of being on the premises is that those who would otherwise carry their own weapon and defend themselves (if need be) are proscribed from doing so by the policy of the establishment, but not Colorado Law.

Apparently, the judge or jury decided that preventing you from defending yourself in a 'gun free zone' does not place the responsibility for defending you on the proprietor or franchise that established the 'gun-free' policy.

IMHO, that does not make the suit flippant, because legal precedent has been established, (as well as a reason to either defy the policy of the establishment or to simply not patronize such locations).

'Gun free zones' have been judicially established as 'enter at your own risk' proprietorships.

[Taxcontrol]

The theater chain has the 'no guns allowed' policy.

If they are going to maintain that as a 'gun-free zone', the legal question is one of whether they assume responsibility for the defense of the patrons in case of just such an incident if the condition of being on the premises is that those who would otherwise carry their own weapon and defend themselves (if need be) are proscribed from doing so by the policy of the establishment, but not Colorado Law.

Apparently, the judge or jury decided that preventing you from defending yourself in a 'gun free zone' does not place the responsibility for defending you on the proprietor or franchise that established the 'gun-free' policy.

IMHO, that does not make the suit flippant, because legal precedent has been established, (as well as a reason to either defy the policy of the establishment or to simply not patronize such locations).

'Gun free zones' have been judicially established as 'enter at your own risk' proprietorships.

You are correct in your assessment of the current situation.  I however, believe that the laws need to change to shift the burden of safety to those that deny CCW permit holders.  With the current make up of the Legislature here in Colorado, that will never happen.

[Crazieman]

If a valid CCW holder was killed or injured in a gun-free zone, they or their estate should be entitled to damages from the hosting entity.

[Smokin Joe]

If a valid CCW holder was killed or injured in a gun-free zone, they or their estate should be entitled to damages from the hosting entity.

That is my take on this, too, and a good reason for seeking adjudication.

I do not see this as a frivolous lawsuit.

If those plaintiffs were denied ( or the deceased relatives were denied) being able to defend themselves by policy of the establishment (as opposed to State, local, or Federal law), I, too, would think that by denying that right (to carry concealed, as permitted within the State) as a condition of admission, the responsibility for the protection of the patrons therein should lie with the establishment or the franchise, whichever established the policy above and beyond the law.

I don't see where being adjudicated against nor not signing away rights to appeal should bring the expense of legal fees against those plaintiffs, but then that would be cause for seeking an appeal.

[Smokin Joe]

You are correct in your assessment of the current situation.  I however, believe that the laws need to change to shift the burden of safety to those that deny CCW permit holders.  With the current make up of the Legislature here in Colorado, that will never happen.

I agree fully, that the law should shift to place that burden on those who establish 'gun free zones' above and beyond the law.

Most states have some restrictions on where a citizen may carry concealed (usually the sorts of crowded venues like sporting events (non-shooting sports) or political rallies and establishments serving alcohol. In Colorado that might include weed by now, I don't know.) Proscriptions on carrying under the influence are also common. It pays to know the law of the jurisdiction where you are, when you are there.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The easy take is to never go to a Cinemark again, and to loudly let the other theater chains know that you will not frequent them either unless the policy is changed.

The unwarranted judgement here portends that, if a licensed CC was actually present and in violation of the theater policy chose to carry, he would have been sued by the theater if he had stopped the murders.

We are living in a perverted world in which Goetz's are targeted, not the criminal.

Same goes for the new CA law which protects PP from being recorded for criminal behavior.

[geronl]

They were warned. They sued the theater (not the perp) and Colorado has a loser's pay system.

[mountaineer]

I've carried in more than a few places that posted a "no weapons" sign. Unless I have to go through a metal detector to enter, I very likely will carry. That includes movie theatres (assuming I ever go to the movies).

[Wingnut]

They were warned. They sued the theater (not the perp) and Colorado has a loser's pay system.

They chose poorly.

[unknown]

I've carried in more than a few places that posted a "no weapons" sign. Unless I have to go through a metal detector to enter, I very likely will carry. That includes movie theatres (assuming I ever go to the movies).

Screw the signs.

The responsibility for taking physical care of my family is mine! Not the police, not the state, not the Feds, not the movie theater. I don't want or need the state/police/Feds/whatever to even to attempt to usurp my authority. Where appropriate, they can provide help if I call on them; but I certainly don't want them to force their help on me ("we are from the government and we are here to help.")

People killing people is what they do. It is sin. We cant legislate it away. Every MAN has to own up to his responsibility to provide and protect for his family - in all spheres of authority; protection, spiritual, education, whatever. The current mindset is to have the government perform all roles for us. And to do this, the government has to take authority from us to assume the responsibility.

[unknown]

   



 

Notice the Gun Free signs in the window!!!