Aurora massacre survivors will have to pay $700,000 in legal fees to theater after lo

[Sunseeker]

That is true. But businesses will routinely work out something with disgruntled customers to stop it becoming a bigger issue and generating bad press for the company. They also routinely offer settlements out of court to just move on and not damage the brand.

Sure, and the theater did that already, these people wanted more.

[Dendrek]

I hope the lawyers who pushed the case to trial are also partially liable. I'm sure they advised their clients poorly in this matter. They should not come out ahead for it.

[Reeve]

I'm pretty OK with the ruling.

[Very Tired]

Making the loser pay for legal expenses is a pretty common practice. Me thinks the lawyers were just running something of a scam.

[Deleted]

Hold on... so these guys decided to sue the movie theatre.... and lost?
Whose advice were they following?
- - - Updated - - -

I hope the lawyers who pushed the case to trial are also partially liable. I'm sure they advised their clients poorly in this matter. They should not come out ahead for it.

Yes absolutely I was thinking the very same.

[SirreASDF]

Oh wow, am I getting this right..

Every plaintiff but ONE wanted to take the settlement of $150000, the one who didn't lost her child and was paralyzed (ie, had nothing to lose really). Which then screwed over all of them?

Also: I love how the sentence for the gunman was life + THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED years..

[Rudkobing]

That's kind of lame of Cinemark.

[Deleted]

I hope the lawyers who pushed the case to trial are also partially liable. I'm sure they advised their clients poorly in this matter. They should not come out ahead for it.

"I don't think we have chances, and the settlement offered looks good, do you still want to go ahead?"
"I'll never settle, I want JUSTICE"
"Ooook..."

[Deleted]

"I don't think we have chances, and the settlement offered looks good, do you still want to go ahead?"
"I'll never settle, I want JUSTICE"
"Ooook..."

How do you know that is what happened?

[Mayhem]

But the fact is that when you step into a "gun free zone" you need to understand that whatever chance you originally had at being shot has now increased and there is a reasonable limit to what any venue has to do to protect you.

fact ... please read up on the meaning of that word.

[INVASMANIXOXOXO]

Obviously theater didn't really do anything wrong. What is irritating is that these places sometimes want to see what is in your girl's purse under the guise of security, when all they really care about is protecting their revenue by ensuring they can sell you a 12 oz water battle for 4 dollars.

[SirBeef]

In America, individuals are never responsible for their actions only private corporations are.

...and even then only when they're big enough to sue.

...oh and only when the court of public opinion agrees with the reason for suing.

These guys sued because they thought that the cinema should have had security cameras, and security guards, and so on.

But the fact is that when you step into a "gun free zone" you need to understand that whatever chance you originally had at being shot has now increased and there is a reasonable limit to what any venue has to do to protect you.

Your safety is your responsibility, not everybody elses.

Corporations are people my friend.

[Azadina]

Oh wow, am I getting this right..

Every plaintiff but ONE wanted to take the settlement of $150000, the one who didn't lost her child and was paralyzed (ie, had nothing to lose really). Which then screwed over all of them?

Also: I love how the sentence for the gunman was life + THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED years..

Yup. She should be the only person to pay up. And pay the settlement for the others which was lost too.

[zenkai]

I can't imagine the theater is going to come out ahead on this. The bad press alone will damage the brand. Most people reading the headline will be emotional and feel bad for the survivors and feel hatred for a "corporation". Rational people will understand it's the cost of a failed lawsuit, but how many won't.

Bad press? Hell I think it's great, you don't realize how much our cost go up because of stupid lawsuits like this. I worked for a company that build a certain product and a worker who used it fell out 10ft above ground hit his head on the concrete and died. Despite him not having the door closed or had his safety harness on the family sued his company and our company. The jurors said pretty much "well we know it's not your fault but we feel sorry for the family so give them 10 million dollars"

That shit destroys companies. I am all for companies paying when they are in the wrong but people these frivolous law suits need to stop. I think the lawyers should have to pay too when they take on clients like this, fuck crooked lawyers.

[Independent voter]

There might've been a fund set up to where people can donate to help out the victims, this is pretty popular in the US for famous tragedies like this. So it might not be as bad as it seems.

A theater shouldn't have to have check points at the door with metal detectors and armed security guards.

[Octa]

That's kind of lame of Cinemark.

Do you mind explaining why?

[dextersmith]

That is true. But businesses will routinely work out something with disgruntled customers to stop it becoming a bigger issue and generating bad press for the company. They also routinely offer settlements out of court to just move on and not damage the brand.

This set a good precedent. People may sympathize with the theatre in this case, they were victims too. Nobody there would like every theatre raising prices to cover the cost of security. Bet those victims didn't think about that. They would start demanding every McDonald's and public place get armed guards too because they are agoraphobic. They forget that every place can get attacked, armed banks, marathons, malls, fast food, twin towers, airports, and private homes too.

I hope the lawyers who pushed the case to trial are also partially liable. I'm sure they advised their clients poorly in this matter. They should not come out ahead for it.

All but one accepted the settlement.

Also: I love how the sentence for the gunman was life + THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED years..

It was 5200 years.

[Thelin]

I can't imagine the theater is going to come out ahead on this. The bad press alone will damage the brand. Most people reading the headline will be emotional and feel bad for the survivors and feel hatred for a "corporation". Rational people will understand it's the cost of a failed lawsuit, but how many won't.

I wouldn't be surprised if the theater just dropped it and ate the cost to stave off the publicity but the lawsuit was frivolous at best in terms of trying to hold them accountable for a gunman coming in and shooting people. Yes it was a tragic event but its not something a movie theater could have known would happen. Yes they could take measures I guess having metal detectors and security guards but does it really need to come to that?

[Adam Jensen]

Maybe neither group should have sued the other to begin with?

[dextersmith]

Maybe neither group should have sued the other to begin with?

The theatre didn't sue them, the $700k was the consequence of them pressing forward and losing.