Movie theater patron files lawsuit over Colorado shooting

[thraashman]

Pretty sure you could figure out I was talking about the aforementioned gun manufacturers.

Most conservatives couldn't figure out Obama was talking about infrastructure, this is on par with that.

 

[Jaskalas]

You are both idiots. Nothing was wrong with the doors. The theater did nothing wrong. Hurray for both of you for perpetuating a culture of paranoia.

I'm simply making an argument. One can reasonably expect security to ensure the exit doors are not left open for the purpose of bringing a weapons arsenal in.

 

[Triumph]

I'm simply making an argument. One can reasonably expect security to ensure the exit doors are not left open for the purpose of bringing a weapons arsenal in.

No, that is not reasonable at all. Doors are everywhere in every business, home, shed, RV, trailer, bunker, garage, and outhouse. So you are advocating that all doors everywhere be protected in some fashion so that a deranged gunman cannot enter and start shooting up the place? What does it matter if it was an exit door? There's nothing special about movie theater exit doors. Not all doors everywhere need to be watched and protected at all times. What kind of a world do you want to live in, anyway, where we are protected from any harm, no matter how remote the possibility? Forget that this just happened - the possibility of it happening at all is basically unmeasurable it is so low. Shit happens, there are nutjobs out there, stop trying to protect everyone and everything from every circumstance imaginable, and stop trying to blame anyone and everyone when something completely unexpected happens.

 

[Jaskalas]

No, that is not reasonable at all. Doors are everywhere...

Ah, but these exit doors are locked from the outside. Do you not find that reasonable? After all - doors are everywhere and the front doors are not locked. So why bother with locks at all?

There's nothing unreasonable with a basic level of security in a place where people have gathered. If the locks on the doors are reasonable, then why not a simple means of checking the locks?

I find you're arguing against something that, to me, sounds like it should be standard.

 

[corwin]

Ah, but these exit doors are locked from the outside. Do you not find that reasonable? After all - doors are everywhere and the front doors are not locked. So why bother with locks at all?

There's nothing unreasonable with a basic level of security in a place where people have gathered. If the locks on the doors are reasonable, then why not a simple means of checking the locks?

I find you're arguing against something that, to me, sounds like it should be standard.

Your argument is the one that is lacking, the doors are locked from the outside to prevent people from entering to watch the movies without buying a ticket, not for any sort of protection of the other patrons...it's an EXIT door locked to protect their business interests alone

 

[Triumph]

Ah, but these exit doors are locked from the outside. Do you not find that reasonable? After all - doors are everywhere and the front doors are not locked. So why bother with locks at all?

There's nothing unreasonable with a basic level of security in a place where people have gathered. If the locks on the doors are reasonable, then why not a simple means of checking the locks?

I find you're arguing against something that, to me, sounds like it should be standard.

You are advocating that all one way exit doors everywhere should be monitored at all times to prevent heavily armed gunman from entering. Does that sound reasonable? Do we live in America or Kosovo circa 1994?

 

[Matt1970]

I don't see the big deal with suing the theater company. It's no different than if you got hurt tripping over a carpet or falling down some stairs. They have insurance for exactly the purpose of covering people getting hurt on the property.

Only through negligence. And a successful personal injury or compensation claim against a business is pretty much a death blow unless they are a large corporation.

 

[ALIVE]

You are advocating that all one way exit doors everywhere should be monitored at all times to prevent heavily armed gunman from entering. Does that sound reasonable? Do we live in America or Kosovo circa 1994?

Kosovo was safer

 

[Jmman]

Looks like the pundits think that these lawsuits don't have any chance at succeeding.......

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21150830/legal-experts-say-liability-lawsuits-stand-little-chance

 

[micrometers]

Why the fuck isn't he shooting the store that sold James Holmes the gun, or the manufacturer of the gun?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

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

I think maybe his lawysers might be able to make a case that if the theater made it a "Gun Free Zone" then it was up to them to provide armed security. Especially in a case where someone with a gun made it onto the premises and police were not around to deal with the issue. And since the theater hosts many large gatherings of people it would of been their responsibility to provide the armed security in a place they declared to be "Gun Free" or have police on standby/in attendence or at least notify individuals that they were potentially at risk of bodily harm and they would have their right to self-defense limited via their policy. However this is all conjecture on my part. No doubt his case would be thrown out for other reasons but if I were going to sue then I'd at least include the above mentioned argument among the list of other reasons to sue and then see what sticks.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Looks like the pundits think that these lawsuits don't have any chance at succeeding.......

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21150830/legal-experts-say-liability-lawsuits-stand-little-chance

Except the lawsuits against the theaters could stick according to the pundits in your article. It just a matter of how the lawyers involved in these lawsuits word their complaints. Remember this isn't a criminal lawsuit but a civil one so the burden of proof does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt. However this does not mean that a judge could also not throw these lawsuits out the window if the theater defense team presents and shows that they were in compliance with all laws and provided reasonable security measures, etc.

Whether the theater gets sued centers on the details that emerge, Schuetze said.

"The potential liability could exist with respect to the theater for lack of security or if there was negligent conduct on the part of theater personnel," Schuetze said. "In my mind, I have a question about how someone can leave the movie theater for (minutes) and re-enter the theater without some kind of alarm going off or raising the attention of theater employees."

Cinemark Holdings officials declined comment on the case Tuesday and referred a reporter to a prior statement in which the company said it was "deeply saddened about this tragic incident."

 

[micrometers]

I think maybe his lawysers might be able to make a case that if the theater made it a "Gun Free Zone" then it was up to them to provide armed security. Especially in a case where someone with a gun made it onto the premises and police were not around to deal with the issue. And since the theater hosts many large gatherings of people it would of been their responsibility to provide the armed security in a place they declared to be "Gun Free" or have police on standby/in attendence or at least notify individuals that they were potentially at risk of bodily harm and they would have their right to self-defense limited via their policy. However this is all conjecture on my part. No doubt his case would be thrown out for other reasons but if I were going to sue then I'd at least include the above mentioned argument among the list of other reasons to sue and then see what sticks.

Ehhhh...no. "gun-free" is for many reasons. How would you feel if rival gang members brought their guns and had a shootout in a theatre?

The theatre didn't check the emergency exit because people don't sneak into movie theatres anymore. Instead, they pirate off the internet.

 

[corwin]

Ehhhh...no. "gun-free" is for many reasons. How would you feel if rival gang members brought their guns and had a shootout in a theatre?

The theatre didn't check the emergency exit because people don't sneak into movie theatres anymore. Instead, they pirate off the internet.

HAHAHAHAHA...like a little fucking sign is what's stopping a gang from having a shootout at the theater

Damn...we need to put these signs up all over the place, what were we thinking, we could prevent every shooting everywhere with a simple little sign saying no guns allowed and the criminals will just say "Damn, guess I have to go somewhere else and break the law.":\

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Is this really news? Some idiot sued McDonald's when she spilled her own coffee on her own lap. Of course someone is going to try this.

 

[Kadarin]

A lot of good people died or were injured, and this fucking worthless asshole has to sue for "emotional distress"?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Ehhhh...no. "gun-free" is for many reasons. How would you feel if rival gang members brought their guns and had a shootout in a theatre?

The theatre didn't check the emergency exit because people don't sneak into movie theatres anymore. Instead, they pirate off the internet.

Even if those guns were legally registered and owned by those gang-bangers, a shoot out in the theater with those placards alone could allow an argument that these written "Gun Free Zone" company policy placards were insufficient at keeping their customers safe.

However the probability of gang-bangers walking into a theater with guns being illegally owned and used is a more plausible scenario and signs alone would not stop them if they were intent on shooting each other thus again leaving an argument to be made that the theater did not provide sufficient security in the form of armed security guards, or requesting a increased police presence, etc.

Again this is all conjecture on my part but I'm pretty sure a lawyer could do a better job of wording this argument into a form of legalese that a court/judge would find more palatable and help to lead to a civil trial.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

A lot of good people died or were injured, and this fucking worthless asshole has to sue for "emotional distress"?

But this guy was in the theater at the time of the shooting and so his lawyer could argue that he is indeed suffering from "emotional distress".

 

[momeNt]

I feel about this the same way about rape and death jokes, it's never too soon. So kudos to this guy for trying to get his. If something good for him can come out of this situation, who are we to judge?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think this person going to get paid out of court by 2 of the 3. The docs will be the one to give a finger.

 

[K1052]

Ah, but these exit doors are locked from the outside. Do you not find that reasonable? After all - doors are everywhere and the front doors are not locked. So why bother with locks at all?

There's nothing unreasonable with a basic level of security in a place where people have gathered. If the locks on the doors are reasonable, then why not a simple means of checking the locks?

I find you're arguing against something that, to me, sounds like it should be standard.

Even if the door is closed there is no way to know it's latched without physically checking it. All you have to do is stuff something in the strike plate and the door would show as closed on any security system yet still be able to open externally.

Generally businesses will only physically check at close to make sure all exit doors are closed and latched.

 

[woolfe9999]

I think this person going to get paid out of court by 2 of the 3. The docs will be the one to give a finger.

I don't see Warner Bros. paying a dime here in settlement. They'd rather donate 10x as much to some charity to help the victims. It sets a terrible precedent if people are seen to collect from movie production companies every time a murder might have been influenced by the content of some movie. They're far more likely to dispose of the case in pre-trial motions.

The theater might well settle, however.

 

[Jmman]

I don't see Warner Bros. paying a dime here in settlement. They'd rather donate 10x as much to some charity to help the victims. It sets a terrible precedent if people are seen to collect from movie production companies every time a murder might have been influenced by the content of some movie. They're far more likely to dispose of the case in pre-trial motions.

The theater might well settle, however.

Yep, my thoughts as well. I will bet that the theater will settle just to keep the bad PR to a minimum, even though they would probably prevail at trial.....
The others will be dismissed.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Litigation needs to stop being a source of income in America.

 

[Bateluer]

My 2 cents. This lawsuit has no merit. The theater shouldn't need to place security or employees by exit doors in the screen room. Setting any kind of audible alarm on them would be retarded, as people use them to exit often during the movie sometimes. And probably half the room uses them to leave when the movie is over. Its like asking Starbucks place a security guard in the bathroom to ensure you don't slip.

No sane person would want security personnel monitoring them at all times either.

This guy's just looking for a payout, trying to make a quick buck off the death of his friend.

The Aurora shooting were a tragedy, but it was done by a single person. It wasn't the gun manufactures who made him shoot up the theater. It wasn't the movie theater that made him shoot up the theater. Filing suit against Ford for making the car he drove there or Nike for making his shoes are on the same level of suit.