If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   The first sleazy lawyers crawl out from under a rock and file lawsuits against Cinemark in the Aurora theatre shoots   (latimes.com) divider line 180
    More: Asinine, Cinemark, morning, Colorado, theaters, lawsuits, attorney-in-fact  
•       •       •

5539 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Sep 2012 at 9:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-23 03:58:54 AM
Poor little subby so envious of the lawyers I see!
 
2012-09-23 08:10:12 AM
Yeah, it's the lawyer's fault. That makes sense.
 
2012-09-23 08:28:37 AM
If the back door wasn't alarmed, then yeah, the theater farked up.
 
2012-09-23 09:29:14 AM
There's two ways this could be proceeding, depending on who is doing to suing.

1) If the suing parties are injured, but still living, victims, this could be an attempt to get Cinemark's insurance company to cover medical costs. The victims may be uninsured or under-insured, or their insurance companies feel like being total dicks about it. You see similar things happen when a child sues their parents for something so that their homeowners insurance will cover medical costs due to an accident -- it's not that the victims are seeking to blame Cinemark and maybe Cinemark agrees that their insurance should pay out, but it would require a lawsuit to get the insurance company to actually pay damages.

2) If the plaintiffs are the families of the deceased or if the lawsuits are asking for large sums of money in compensatory damages above and beyond what is medically necessary or for lost wages, then they can go fark themselves. That's just a cash grab where the victims (or their families) are seeking a financial gain due to the tragedy.

My money is on scenario 1.
 
2012-09-23 09:56:53 AM
Damn! And the murder of 12 people almost went by without the legal system even noticing!
 
2012-09-23 10:00:46 AM
Um... not sure why this is "asinine". Of course they are going to be sued. Not saying they are totally responsible for this, but they share some role in this.
"Asinine"? Is this some weak attempt to troll?
 
2012-09-23 10:01:45 AM

Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: Damn! And the murder of 12 people almost went by without the legal system even noticing!


Except for the criminal trial thing that's already being worked out.
This ones not about justice, this is about the cash payout.
 
2012-09-23 10:01:51 AM

Donnchadha: My money is on scenario 1.


TFA:The action was filed by two victims of the shooting, Denise Traynom and Brandon Axelrod, who suffered non-critical gunshot wounds to the buttocks and right knee and ankle, respectively. They are seeking unspecified damages for their injuries.

A second lawsuit containing similar allegations was filed Friday by another victim, Joshua Nowlan, who was shot in his right arm and left leg.


And you'd be right! At least based on the fact that all three plaintiffs were injured.
 
2012-09-23 10:02:02 AM

SnarfVader: If the back door wasn't alarmed, then yeah, the theater farked up.


This. The lawsuit is fine and well deserved.
 
2012-09-23 10:03:13 AM
There is another angle to this.

By prohibiting the lawful carry of firearms in the theater, the theater assumed responsibility for the safety of the patrons. That they had no security, no alarms on the doors, no cameras in the parking area and no means of actually providing said safety for those who were disarmed seems pretty negligent to me.

Holmes had the option of various theaters which were closer to his residence, none of which prohibited firearms as Cinemark does by corporate policy. A case could be made that he actively selected for a place where the theater's own policies would guarantee that he would not meet resistance.
 
2012-09-23 10:03:37 AM
The suit also states that there was no system in place for the theater staff to monitor parking areas and external doors behind the theater.

Now we know why so many businesses are moving to China, not so damn many Lawyers.
 
2012-09-23 10:04:18 AM
Coming Soon to a Theater Near YouTM....

Security to rival a maximum security prison!
Armed guards at ever door!
Free cavity searches for all "guests"!


/as if going to a movie could get any less appealing...
 
2012-09-23 10:06:09 AM

Bullseyed: SnarfVader: If the back door wasn't alarmed, then yeah, the theater farked up.

This. The lawsuit is fine and well deserved.


These doors are EXITs and not emergency fire exits. Why put an emergency alarm on an exit?
 
2012-09-23 10:07:36 AM

juddcc: Um... not sure why this is "asinine". Of course they are going to be sued. Not saying they are totally responsible for this, but they share some role in this.
"Asinine"? Is this some weak attempt to troll?


The community also probably shares some responsibility as well by making businesses think that the environment was a safe one at the time of construction of their buildings that they wouldn't need bars on the doors and bars on the windows. That is pretty shiaty by them and they need to be shamed for not advertising that the area is a horrible place to live.
 
2012-09-23 10:08:49 AM
Shocked it took this long, typically these are filed before the last casing stops spinning on the floor
 
2012-09-23 10:09:08 AM

juddcc: Um... not sure why this is "asinine". Of course they are going to be sued. Not saying they are totally responsible for this, but they share some role in this.
"Asinine"? Is this some weak attempt to troll?


What role did the theater, management, or the company who owns the place play in the insane rampage of the shooter?

/Your though process is pretty farked up
 
2012-09-23 10:09:20 AM
Why so litigious?
 
2012-09-23 10:11:12 AM

Donnchadha: There's two ways this could be proceeding, depending on who is doing to suing.

1) If the suing parties are injured, but still living, victims, this could be an attempt to get Cinemark's insurance company to cover medical costs. The victims may be uninsured or under-insured, or their insurance companies feel like being total dicks about it. You see similar things happen when a child sues their parents for something so that their homeowners insurance will cover medical costs due to an accident -- it's not that the victims are seeking to blame Cinemark and maybe Cinemark agrees that their insurance should pay out, but it would require a lawsuit to get the insurance company to actually pay damages.

2) If the plaintiffs are the families of the deceased or if the lawsuits are asking for large sums of money in compensatory damages above and beyond what is medically necessary or for lost wages, then they can go fark themselves. That's just a cash grab where the victims (or their families) are seeking a financial gain due to the tragedy.

My money is on scenario 1.


This was very helpful and informative. I was going to come to ask about the basis behind a lawsuit because I never really understand how these things work, and you've answered it pretty well. Thanks!
 
2012-09-23 10:13:38 AM

Benjimin_Dover: juddcc: Um... not sure why this is "asinine". Of course they are going to be sued. Not saying they are totally responsible for this, but they share some role in this.
"Asinine"? Is this some weak attempt to troll?

The community also probably shares some responsibility as well by making businesses think that the environment was a safe one at the time of construction of their buildings that they wouldn't need bars on the doors and bars on the windows. That is pretty shiaty by them and they need to be shamed for not advertising that the area is a horrible place to live.


Actually why don't you RTFA and see how this particular theater has had similar incidences in the past with gang relating shootings and people getting in and out of the building undetected. Given the past incidences of violence the management did have a duty to do some increased security and put little things like locks on the doors.
 
2012-09-23 10:16:14 AM
Lawyers: they are the bastards of freedom and liberty.
 
2012-09-23 10:16:57 AM

Fizpez: Coming Soon to a Theater Near YouTM....

Security to rival a maximum security prison!
Armed guards at ever door!
Free cavity searches for all "guests"!


This. At every level from top to bottom, from here on out.

CASH NOW!!!
 
2012-09-23 10:17:59 AM
They deserved to be sued for negligence. They voluntarily banned weapons from the building and by doing so assumed responsibility for everyone's safety. Then they didn't provide security for the people they disarmed.

If I ran an apartment complex that banned fire extinguishers and then it burned down from a kitchen fire that wasn't detected because I turned off/ never installed the smoke alarms you can sure bet I deserve to be sued.
 
2012-09-23 10:17:59 AM

Fizpez: Coming Soon to a Theater Near YouTM....

Security to rival a maximum security prison!
Armed guards at ever door!
Free cavity searches for all "guests"!


/as if going to a movie could get any less appealing...


Future lawsuits will be because all the security cameras are causing a privacy issue.
 
2012-09-23 10:18:49 AM

Donnchadha:

2) If the plaintiffs are the families of the deceased or if the lawsuits are asking for large sums of money in compensatory damages above and beyond what is medically necessary or for lost wages, then they can go fark themselves. That's just a cash grab where the victims (or their families) are seeking a financial gain due to the tragedy.


When people sue, they ask for an unreasonable amount because the judge and jury aren't going to give them all they want.
They ask for eleventy billion, the theaters offer 10 cents, and the judge splits the difference and gives them a few hundred thousand.
 
2012-09-23 10:19:26 AM
The action was filed by two victims of the shooting, Denise Traynom and Brandon Axelrod, who suffered non-critical gunshot wounds to the buttocks and right knee and ankle, respectively. They are seeking unspecified damages for their injuries.

List two people
List three injuries
Say 'respectively'
 
2012-09-23 10:20:30 AM

Carousel Beast: juddcc: Um... not sure why this is "asinine". Of course they are going to be sued. Not saying they are totally responsible for this, but they share some role in this.
"Asinine"? Is this some weak attempt to troll?

What role did the theater, management, or the company who owns the place play in the insane rampage of the shooter?

/Your though process is pretty farked up


Very farked up. And subby, redundant much? SLEAZY / LAWYER?

And a "blow me" to the jackasses who think it's OK to sue someone who did nothing wrong and in no way participated or contributed to this heinous act of a nut case, because "you can".
 
2012-09-23 10:21:25 AM

smitty04: Fizpez: Coming Soon to a Theater Near YouTM....

Security to rival a maximum security prison!
Armed guards at ever door!
Free cavity searches for all "guests"!


/as if going to a movie could get any less appealing...

Future lawsuits will be because all the security cameras are causing a privacy issue.


Can you imagine getting the job to monitor all the "eye in the sky" IR/nightvision cameras in a movie theater complex? I would be like having 12 screens of porn going all at the same time.... not that I ever fooled around in a movie theater when I was a teenager.... *embarrasedcough*
 
2012-09-23 10:23:24 AM

Krieghund: Donnchadha:

2) If the plaintiffs are the families of the deceased or if the lawsuits are asking for large sums of money in compensatory damages above and beyond what is medically necessary or for lost wages, then they can go fark themselves. That's just a cash grab where the victims (or their families) are seeking a financial gain due to the tragedy.

When people sue, they ask for an unreasonable amount because the judge and jury aren't going to give them all they want.
They ask for eleventy billion, the theaters offer 10 cents, and the judge splits the difference and gives them a few hundred thousand.


Just file a class action law suit in New Orleans, those people love sticking it to "The Man".
 
2012-09-23 10:24:16 AM

SnarfVader: If the back door wasn't alarmed, then yeah, the theater farked up.


Few theaters have alarms and cameras. And why single out a theater? If Cinemark is liable, then every business in the country has to hire security guards every minute they are open. Should theaters realistically be expected to anticipate this kind of violence? A bar is one thing, but if theaters, then every Sal's Meat Market in the country apparently has to have alarms, cameras, and a security staff. Screw that. These people want to get paid, I understand, and so they're going after the corporation with the deep pockets instead of the shooter who probably has $2300 in his bank account. But this would be a really horrible civil precedent.
 
2012-09-23 10:24:36 AM

BrynnMacFlynn: Donnchadha: My money is on scenario 1.

TFA:The action was filed by two victims of the shooting, Denise Traynom and Brandon Axelrod, who suffered non-critical gunshot wounds to the buttocks and right knee and ankle, respectively. They are seeking unspecified damages for their injuries.

A second lawsuit containing similar allegations was filed Friday by another victim, Joshua Nowlan, who was shot in his right arm and left leg.

And you'd be right! At least based on the fact that all three plaintiffs were injured.


Exactly!

Betting they either don't have insurance, insurance doesn't want to pay, or the theater's insurance is refusing to pay (and, if it's anything like what happened to me in a car accident when I was nearly killed, telling them it would be better if they'd been killed in the shootings). Since all three are injured, my guess is they have no choice but to sue to get their medical bills paid. Will they get damages? Most likely. But it won't be some crazy million dollar windfall. More like enough to cover medical, lawyer's fees, and some small amount to cover lost wages or something - in the neighborhood of $10-25k.
 
2012-09-23 10:27:25 AM

SnarfVader: If the back door wasn't alarmed, then yeah, the theater farked up.


Back door, alarmed or not, how did he get in the theatre? You can't open those doors from the outside.
 
2012-09-23 10:27:28 AM

TeDDD: The action was filed by two victims of the shooting, Denise Traynom and Brandon Axelrod, who suffered non-critical gunshot wounds to the buttocks and right knee and ankle, respectively. They are seeking unspecified damages for their injuries.

List two people
List three injuries
Say 'respectively'


While somewhat confusing, that's actually correct. Look at their usage of 'and'. It's (buttocks and right knee) and (ankle).
 
2012-09-23 10:29:03 AM

Krieghund: Donnchadha:

2) If the plaintiffs are the families of the deceased or if the lawsuits are asking for large sums of money in compensatory damages above and beyond what is medically necessary or for lost wages, then they can go fark themselves. That's just a cash grab where the victims (or their families) are seeking a financial gain due to the tragedy.

When people sue, they ask for an unreasonable amount because the judge and jury aren't going to give them all they want.
They ask for eleventy billion, the theaters offer 10 cents, and the judge splits the difference and gives them a few hundred thousand.


Or they can ask for the amount that they can show they spent with these things called "receipts" and/or "billing statements." Then they would be awarded that amount as it is what represents something called "damages" which is what a lawsuit is specifically designed to recover. The suing party is to be returned to the position they would have been in had the activity of the sued party not happen and made "whole" again.
 
2012-09-23 10:31:32 AM
Crays is gonna go cray. Sometimes you can't do shiats bout it.
 
2012-09-23 10:33:03 AM

Donnchadha: There's two ways this could be proceeding, depending on who is doing to suing.

1) If the suing parties are injured, but still living, victims, this could be an attempt to get Cinemark's insurance company to cover medical costs. The victims may be uninsured or under-insured, or their insurance companies feel like being total dicks about it. You see similar things happen when a child sues their parents for something so that their homeowners insurance will cover medical costs due to an accident -- it's not that the victims are seeking to blame Cinemark and maybe Cinemark agrees that their insurance should pay out, but it would require a lawsuit to get the insurance company to actually pay damages.

2) If the plaintiffs are the families of the deceased or if the lawsuits are asking for large sums of money in compensatory damages above and beyond what is medically necessary or for lost wages, then they can go fark themselves. That's just a cash grab where the victims (or their families) are seeking a financial gain due to the tragedy.

My money is on scenario 1.


A kid can't sue the parents homeowners. A resident relative is an insured and insured vs insurd is excluded
 
2012-09-23 10:34:10 AM

DamnYankees: Yeah, it's the lawyer's fault. That makes sense.


Actually, in many cases like this, it is the lawyers fault. Lawyers from all over the country will swoop in to areas like this and non stop plead with the "victims" to sue someone, that they are "due" a big payout. Many times people would have never gone forward with a lawsuit on their own, it took lawyers convincing them to do so.
 
2012-09-23 10:34:54 AM

EnviroDude: Bullseyed: SnarfVader: If the back door wasn't alarmed, then yeah, the theater farked up.

This. The lawsuit is fine and well deserved.

These doors are EXITs and not emergency fire exits. Why put an emergency alarm on an exit?


To keep kids from opening the "exit" and letting friends in for free. For that reason alone, the theater was stupid not to have an alarm on the back door.

And yes, they are emergency fire exits, required by code. If a fire breaks out at the normally used doors you want a second way to get out.
 
2012-09-23 10:37:59 AM
LOL, think of it this way.

You illegally download the movie to watch it in the safety of your home, you get sued for $250,000.

You pay $10 to go see the movie then get gunned down, you get zip.

It is almost ironic.

Maybe the MPAA owes each victim $250,000??? After all, isn't a life worth as much as one illegal copy of a movie?
 
2012-09-23 10:38:10 AM
The vast majority of these chain multiplex theaters are run with minimal staff. One or two people selling tickets, a ticket taker, a couple of kids selling popcorn and that's about it. They don't even need a projectionist, everything is so automated. This is especially true at, say, a midnight showing.

So, assuming that you don't want an audible alarm going off every time someone uses a theater entrance in the middle of a film, you'll need to add a couple of people to monitor the silent alarms on all of the doors and investigate every triggering event that happens. 50% of the time they won't find anything because it was somebody letting their friends in for a free movie. 49.9999% of the time it'll be someone who left the theater because the Adam Sandler movie sucked.

And 0.0000001% of the time they'll confront a crazed killer with a 100 round magazine on his semi-automatic rifle and become the first victims. Problem solved!
 
2012-09-23 10:38:15 AM

Benjimin_Dover: Or they can ask for the amount that they can show they spent with these things called "receipts" and/or "billing statements." Then they would be awarded that amount as it is what represents something called "damages" which is what a lawsuit is specifically designed to recover. The suing party is to be returned to the position they would have been in had the activity of the sued party not happen and made "whole" again.


The Lawyer must get his 40% off the top and all his friends that serve as experts then get paid next then the suing party gets paid last, provided there is no appeal.
 
2012-09-23 10:45:29 AM
Got no problem with the lawyers drumming up business but only if they don't get any more then 5% of the award for their payment.
 
2012-09-23 10:46:11 AM

Tommy Moo: SnarfVader: If the back door wasn't alarmed, then yeah, the theater farked up.

Few theaters have alarms and cameras. And why single out a theater? If Cinemark is liable, then every business in the country has to hire security guards every minute they are open. Should theaters realistically be expected to anticipate this kind of violence? A bar is one thing, but if theaters, then every Sal's Meat Market in the country apparently has to have alarms, cameras, and a security staff. Screw that. These people want to get paid, I understand, and so they're going after the corporation with the deep pockets instead of the shooter who probably has $2300 in his bank account. But this would be a really horrible civil precedent.


I never said anything about guards, but I still stand by my assertion that those doors are also fire exits and should be alarmed. I've never left a theater by any means other than the way I came in.
 
2012-09-23 10:50:47 AM

smitty04: The suit also states that there was no system in place for the theater staff to monitor parking areas and external doors behind the theater.

Now we know why so many businesses are moving to China, not so damn many Lawyers.


One of the largest theater chains in the US is owned by a Chinese company.
 
2012-09-23 10:52:12 AM

Bullseyed: SnarfVader: If the back door wasn't alarmed, then yeah, the theater farked up.

This. The lawsuit is fine and well deserved.


I've never seen any theater whose exit doors are alarmed. They are meant to be exits to be used.
 
2012-09-23 10:52:13 AM
Isn't the theater also a victim of the shooter?
 
2012-09-23 10:55:48 AM

juddcc: Of course they are going to be sued.


And that's why America's legal system needs a good flushing out.

A lunatic with a drum magazine, gas grenades, and body armor isn't something a movie theater should even have to consider making provisions for.
 
2012-09-23 10:59:46 AM

SnarfVader: I never said anything about guards, but I still stand by my assertion that those doors are also fire exits and should be alarmed. I've never left a theater by any means other than the way I came in.


Then you're special. While they most certainly are fire exits because you need to have emergency exits when you've got so many people in a small area like that. They are also just exits. I've been going to movies for a long time and only been in one theater where the exit was alarmed. And in that one, right as the movie started, some dumbshiat went and hit the door handle, and set off the alarm. So we're treated to the scream of the alarm until someone came in and shut it off. The rest of the time, after the movie lets out, everybody is heading for any available exit.

I'll take my chances with it not being alarmed. I'm willing to bet on someone not coming in the door and shooting the place up. I don't want to be strip searched as I walk into a stadium, theater, or the mall. I refuse to live in fear that someone is going to kill me.

Any loss of life is terrible, but compare the statistics of how many people use those facilities on a daily basis vs people being shot in them and the number is insignificantly low.
 
2012-09-23 11:03:47 AM
Next year, all fire doors in theaters will be bolted shut in response to shooters.

The year after that, 150 people will die in a theater fire.

repeat ad-nausium.

/If you don't want to get violated, don't go to the movies.
//You could own the DVD for the price of a single ticket and not put up with talking people, screaming children, and rampaging gunmen.
 
2012-09-23 11:04:13 AM

doglover: A lunatic with a drum magazine, gas grenades, and body armor isn't something a movie theater should even have to consider making provisions for.


But neither is it something a patron should have to make provisions for. So when a medical bill comes due, the question is simply who bears responsibility to pay for it? Why should it be 100% for the patron and 0% for the venue? We all agree the patron bears absolutely no responsibility for what happened, right? So why are they responsible for the bill?
 
2012-09-23 11:05:45 AM

DamnYankees: But neither is it something a patron should have to make provisions for. So when a medical bill comes due, the question is simply who bears responsibility to pay for it? Why should it be 100% for the patron and 0% for the venue? We all agree the patron bears absolutely no responsibility for what happened, right? So why are they responsible for the bill?


Oh, so the gunman shouldn't pay?
 
Displayed 50 of 180 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report