Article:
http://www.examiner.com/article/jam...ed-man-blames-theater-doctors-and-warner-bros
Summary:
A patron in the theater who was not injured but whose friend sitting next to him was killed is suing 1) the theater, 2) the shooter's physicians, and 3) Warner Brothers, for emotional distress.
I'll make a few comments about the legalities here. There are many issues and sub-issues raised by this lawsuit.
First of all, the general rule (in most states) is that someone not physically hurt can sue for emotional distress if that person was in the "zone of danger" in which another person was hurt or killed. Had he witnessed the killing of his friend from a safe distance, he wouldn't have a claim. Because he was in the zone of danger himself, he may have a claim. Some states impose liability where the plaintiff witnessed from a safe distance, but only when the person hurt or killed was a member of the plaintiff's immediate family.
This patron was undoubtedly emotionally distressed. However, this lawsuit seems pretty frivolous, particularly as against the physicians and Warner Brothers.
Holmes doctors have no legal duty to protect third parties unless they knew he was going to commit mass murder. That one should be thrown out early.
The accusation against Warner Brothers is that the violence in the movie caused Holmes to do what he did, or in the alternative, that the gunfire in the movie acted as a cover for what he did and caused the patrons to react more slowly than they otherwise would have, causing more deaths. Both theories are absurd. The First Amendment protects the content of the film. Furthermore, any causal relationship between the content of the movie and Holmes' conduct is speculative at best, particularly since Holmes could only have guessed as to its contents (other than having seen bits of it in a trailer.)
The suit against the theater is the most plausible as the theater at least has some duty to protect the safety of its patrons while on their premises. However, I'm not sure what they could have done differently here. If they have to use metal detectors at the door, then so too does every other business. Back in the day, theaters used to employ ushers. Such an employee might have noticed the propped open exit door and closed it before Holmes returned. But theaters don't use ushers any more because it raises the ticket price.
- wolf
http://www.examiner.com/article/jam...ed-man-blames-theater-doctors-and-warner-bros
Summary:
A patron in the theater who was not injured but whose friend sitting next to him was killed is suing 1) the theater, 2) the shooter's physicians, and 3) Warner Brothers, for emotional distress.
I'll make a few comments about the legalities here. There are many issues and sub-issues raised by this lawsuit.
First of all, the general rule (in most states) is that someone not physically hurt can sue for emotional distress if that person was in the "zone of danger" in which another person was hurt or killed. Had he witnessed the killing of his friend from a safe distance, he wouldn't have a claim. Because he was in the zone of danger himself, he may have a claim. Some states impose liability where the plaintiff witnessed from a safe distance, but only when the person hurt or killed was a member of the plaintiff's immediate family.
This patron was undoubtedly emotionally distressed. However, this lawsuit seems pretty frivolous, particularly as against the physicians and Warner Brothers.
Holmes doctors have no legal duty to protect third parties unless they knew he was going to commit mass murder. That one should be thrown out early.
The accusation against Warner Brothers is that the violence in the movie caused Holmes to do what he did, or in the alternative, that the gunfire in the movie acted as a cover for what he did and caused the patrons to react more slowly than they otherwise would have, causing more deaths. Both theories are absurd. The First Amendment protects the content of the film. Furthermore, any causal relationship between the content of the movie and Holmes' conduct is speculative at best, particularly since Holmes could only have guessed as to its contents (other than having seen bits of it in a trailer.)
The suit against the theater is the most plausible as the theater at least has some duty to protect the safety of its patrons while on their premises. However, I'm not sure what they could have done differently here. If they have to use metal detectors at the door, then so too does every other business. Back in the day, theaters used to employ ushers. Such an employee might have noticed the propped open exit door and closed it before Holmes returned. But theaters don't use ushers any more because it raises the ticket price.
- wolf
Facebook
Twitter