Beerball Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Whatcha think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr1 Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 they didn't provide adequate security and are blaming the victims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 bull ****. No person can expect a private entity will provide security beyond what is reasonable. The only reason those people filed those lawsuits is because a buncha shyster lawyers promised them an easy payday. It's a good example of everthing that's wrong and why Colorado enhanced their law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Did the theater have a "no guns" policy? If so, I can see how they should be responsible for the safety of those in the theater. If you choose to take away someone's ability to defend themselves against a criminal with a gun, you should have some sort of plan to actually keep guns out (other than a sign). Although patrons are also free to refuse to go places that "enforce" an asinine "gun free zone." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 they didn't provide adequate security and are blaming the victims  The victims filed the lawsuit and lost. They should be suing the lawyers for convincing them to sue without telling them that they'd be liable for the fees if they lost the suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBud Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 When it comes to personal injury, always look for the deepest biggest pocket. But, pretty ballsy by Cinemark. Multi-million dollar company suing for $70K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Really stupid move on their part - they would have served themselves better by graciously accepting the verdict, offering condolences to the families and letting this lawsuit fade into obscurity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxum Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Did the theater have a "no guns" policy? If so, I can see how they should be responsible for the safety of those in the theater. If you choose to take away someone's ability to defend themselves against a criminal with a gun, you should have some sort of plan to actually keep guns out (other than a sign). Although patrons are also free to refuse to go places that "enforce" an asinine "gun free zone." Â They should just make patrons with guns shoot themselves first - that solves issue with guns in theater. Â And yes they did lose lawsuit - should have either laywers guarantee fees as part of taking case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 I'm actually with the theater on this one. They were sued for failing to prevent an event that was basically random and unforeseeable? We don't live in a zero-risk world, and a reasonable person can't expect any and all third-parties to protect them from every possible risk no matter how minute or trivial. And that includes the risk of being counter-sued for damages resulting from a suit filed based on completely unrealistic and immature expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Tort reform would be a wonderful thing in this country. I'm actually with the theater on this one. They were sued for failing to prevent an event that was basically random and unforeseeable? We don't live in a zero-risk world, and a reasonable person can't expect any and all third-parties to protect them from every possible risk no matter how minute or trivial. And that includes the risk of being counter-sued for damages resulting from a suit filed based on completely unrealistic and immature expectations. Â But Tom.........someone needs to be responsible!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 But Tom.........someone needs to be responsible!!!! Â Actually, if there's one absolute truth in this country right now, it's that no one's ever responsible for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 While I side with the theater on the frivolity of the lawsuit, I do think the they should hold some responsibility for putting "gun-free zone" signs up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Â Actually, if there's one absolute truth in this country right now, it's that no one's ever responsible for anything. Â Oh no there is always someone responsible. It's just never the person that you're talking with. And yes I know that was your point. While I side with the theater on the frivolity of the lawsuit, I do think the they should hold some responsibility for putting "gun-free zone" signs up. Â Gun free zone means no guns allowed not we will ensure 100% that there are no guns here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxum Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Gun free zone means no guns allowed not we will ensure 100% that there are no guns here. Â A local school was sued because they said no peanuts in meals but a kid brought them to school and school did nothing about it prior to child getting one from classmate and eating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Gun free zone means no guns allowed not we will ensure 100% that there are no guns here. Â It's also an advertisement to criminals that there are defenseless people inside. Like that restaurant that put the same signs up, then was robbed at gunpoint the same week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 When it comes to personal injury, always look for the deepest biggest pocket. But, pretty ballsy by Cinemark. Multi-million dollar company suing for $70K. Â It's $700K. And I also side with the theater. Sometimes bad **** happens to people through the fault of no one but the person/people who commits/commit the evil deed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Â A local school was sued because they said no peanuts in meals but a kid brought them to school and school did nothing about it prior to child getting one from classmate and eating it. Â The question begs to be asked. Who won? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Â The question begs to be asked. Who won? The terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 I'm actually with the theater on this one. They were sued for failing to prevent an event that was basically random and unforeseeable? We don't live in a zero-risk world, and a reasonable person can't expect any and all third-parties to protect them from every possible risk no matter how minute or trivial. And that includes the risk of being counter-sued for damages resulting from a suit filed based on completely unrealistic and immature expectations. really, its one of the best ways to prevent crazy lawsuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 We don't live in a zero-risk world. Well, other than my safe space, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts