Cinemark files counter suit against victims and their families to the tune of 700k
- Thread starter airportis
- Start date
Disgusting is suing the theater in the first place. "No armed guards". What a bunch of whack jobs!
Are you telling me, if you go watch a movie tonight, and some asshole shoots the place up, you are going to sue the theater? If so, I have no time for you.
From the article:
"The victims ? more than two dozen survivors of the shooting and parents of those killed in it ? sued Cinemark in state court beginning in 2012. They alleged that security lapses ? such as a lack of armed guards on duty or gaps in security camera coverage ? helped enable the attack, which also wounded 70 people. A jury last month sided with Cinemark and found that the company was not liable for the shooting."
Doesn't sound like a frivolous suit exactly, but not a slam dunk either. I don't see how a movie theater should be held responsible for not being prepared for a armed shooter. And the courts agreed.
So people went after the movie theaters deep pockets, for kinda "meh" reasons, and lost. The law states the losing side in this type of lawsuit can be held liable for lawyer fees.
Hopefully their lawyers warned them of this possibility. $700,000 in fees split among "more than 2 dozen" plaintiffs will amount to less than $30k per person. Those people probably were willing to risk a little cash for a big payout. Again, they lost. I'm sure a settlement will be reached. This shit happens.
"The victims ? more than two dozen survivors of the shooting and parents of those killed in it ? sued Cinemark in state court beginning in 2012. They alleged that security lapses ? such as a lack of armed guards on duty or gaps in security camera coverage ? helped enable the attack, which also wounded 70 people. A jury last month sided with Cinemark and found that the company was not liable for the shooting."
Doesn't sound like a frivolous suit exactly, but not a slam dunk either. I don't see how a movie theater should be held responsible for not being prepared for a armed shooter. And the courts agreed.
So people went after the movie theaters deep pockets, for kinda "meh" reasons, and lost. The law states the losing side in this type of lawsuit can be held liable for lawyer fees.
Hopefully their lawyers warned them of this possibility. $700,000 in fees split among "more than 2 dozen" plaintiffs will amount to less than $30k per person. Those people probably were willing to risk a little cash for a big payout. Again, they lost. I'm sure a settlement will be reached. This shit happens.
Seems like a case of stupid and stupider to me.
There was one and only one person responsible - feel free to sue the ever-living hell out of that guy (for all the good it will do you - he has no money and will never see daylight).
But also incredibly stupid for the theatre to counter-sue. All it does is put your company back in the news and remind everyone about this and where it happened. Big companies have a full-time legal team for this exact reason. If they actually need this $700k to stay afloat, well then they're screwed anyway.
Both individuals and corporations need to learn the difference between something you have the right to do and something you SHOULD do.
Don't get me wrong - I hate frivolous lawsuits and, in theory, I am in favor of the wronged parties being able to recover the costs and (hopefully) deter others from filing them. My suggestion would be to make the lawyers pay - think you'd definitely see a lot less frivolous suits if the ambulance chasers were on the hook.
There was one and only one person responsible - feel free to sue the ever-living hell out of that guy (for all the good it will do you - he has no money and will never see daylight).
But also incredibly stupid for the theatre to counter-sue. All it does is put your company back in the news and remind everyone about this and where it happened. Big companies have a full-time legal team for this exact reason. If they actually need this $700k to stay afloat, well then they're screwed anyway.
Both individuals and corporations need to learn the difference between something you have the right to do and something you SHOULD do.
Don't get me wrong - I hate frivolous lawsuits and, in theory, I am in favor of the wronged parties being able to recover the costs and (hopefully) deter others from filing them. My suggestion would be to make the lawyers pay - think you'd definitely see a lot less frivolous suits if the ambulance chasers were on the hook.
Hedgehog said Obama orchestrated the entire shooting, so no worries everyone can sue Obama.
UPDATED: Want a Gun-Free Zone? Tennessee Says That?s on You: LITERALLY
Posted at 11:23 pm on June 28, 2016 by Jenn Jacques
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
imrs
Heading into law this Friday is Tennessee?s Senate Bill 1736, which will put into action something gun owners have been encouraging for years.
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
SWEET!
The law will enact a ?duty of care? on any person who posts their property as a gun-free zone, making them responsible for the safety of any handgun carry permit holder while the permit holder is on the posted premises as well as while during their travel to and from the premises and the location where the permit holder?s firearm is stored.
Can you imagine? Holding gun-free zone property accountable for injuries people sustained by being disarmed and left defenseless? Groundbreaking.
Think this legislation belongs in your state? Call your representative today, then get your friends and community involved as well. If it has to start with one person, why shouldn?t it be you?
?and this is why we need lobbyists:
UPDATE: In the course of researching the Wisconsin legislation one of our readers wrote in the comments, I had a discussion with a friend of mine at the NRA where he opened up the TN bill and into the fray we went.
The bill, SB 1736 was passed, but politicians added a single amendment which, interestingly enough, scrubbed the entire bill by ?deleting all language after the enacting clause and substituting instead the following?.
Why pass a bill with an amendment that changes the entire bill? Well, government pretty much ruins everything, don?t they?
But, dear patriots, the amended legislation still goes into law today and instead of doing what the original bill intended (because that would just be way too frappin easy), they flipped it on it?s head by encouraging businesses to welcome concealed carriers by shielding them from liability.
(a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting, pursuant to ? 39- 17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person?s, business?s, or other entity?s failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to ? 39-17-1359.
(b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
So instead of defending everyone?s right to carry as originally proposed, the new law protects businesses who have the option to post gun-free signs but choose not by making them immune from civil liability.
But guess what? As my original article states, businesses who are not required to post as a gun-free zone but choose to do so can still be sued by concealed carry permit holders for stripping them of their right to carry.
Yeah, that happened?
So much ado about nothing except that once again, we got a front row seat to yet another example of how our government is a hot mess? and a reminder on just how much we need the NRA to stand up for our gun rights.
Posted at 11:23 pm on June 28, 2016 by Jenn Jacques
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
imrs
Heading into law this Friday is Tennessee?s Senate Bill 1736, which will put into action something gun owners have been encouraging for years.
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
SWEET!
The law will enact a ?duty of care? on any person who posts their property as a gun-free zone, making them responsible for the safety of any handgun carry permit holder while the permit holder is on the posted premises as well as while during their travel to and from the premises and the location where the permit holder?s firearm is stored.
Can you imagine? Holding gun-free zone property accountable for injuries people sustained by being disarmed and left defenseless? Groundbreaking.
Think this legislation belongs in your state? Call your representative today, then get your friends and community involved as well. If it has to start with one person, why shouldn?t it be you?
?and this is why we need lobbyists:
UPDATE: In the course of researching the Wisconsin legislation one of our readers wrote in the comments, I had a discussion with a friend of mine at the NRA where he opened up the TN bill and into the fray we went.
The bill, SB 1736 was passed, but politicians added a single amendment which, interestingly enough, scrubbed the entire bill by ?deleting all language after the enacting clause and substituting instead the following?.
Why pass a bill with an amendment that changes the entire bill? Well, government pretty much ruins everything, don?t they?
But, dear patriots, the amended legislation still goes into law today and instead of doing what the original bill intended (because that would just be way too frappin easy), they flipped it on it?s head by encouraging businesses to welcome concealed carriers by shielding them from liability.
(a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting, pursuant to ? 39- 17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person?s, business?s, or other entity?s failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to ? 39-17-1359.
(b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
So instead of defending everyone?s right to carry as originally proposed, the new law protects businesses who have the option to post gun-free signs but choose not by making them immune from civil liability.
But guess what? As my original article states, businesses who are not required to post as a gun-free zone but choose to do so can still be sued by concealed carry permit holders for stripping them of their right to carry.
Yeah, that happened?
So much ado about nothing except that once again, we got a front row seat to yet another example of how our government is a hot mess? and a reminder on just how much we need the NRA to stand up for our gun rights.
Sure did, he wants guns eradicated, notice how many mass shootings there are these days? Sure makes me wonder why? Can you explain to me? All on that pos watch
Many years have past since Hedgehog let us all know that Obama orchestrated the entire shooting. I mean we all know Obama did it, he loves to kill people, this is common knowledge.
But now it is 2024 and Hedgehog now supplies us with evidence to back up his posts. So just for fun (I mean we all know the truth), I'd like to see the evidence that shows Obama killed all those people.
Thanks in advance
well, hedgy was exactly right. obama wanted to eradicate guns (i mean, probably, deep down), the republicans, led by the NRA, blocked him, and we get more and more mass shootings.
thank you, republicans!! we used to ask "how many dead kids is too many?" but we've learned there is no limit. the right to have an assault weapon outweighs kids' right to breathe. BUT PROTECT THE KIDS FROM DRAG QUEENS!!!
When Hedgehog supplies the evidence proving Obama killed all those people, I am sure he'll also include evidence showing us just how dangerous those Drag Queens are, so stay tuned.
- Jul 3, 2022
- 395
- 78
- 28
