jr1 Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 they didn't provide adequate security and are blaming the victims
Alaska Darin Posted July 1, 2016 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.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted July 1, 2016 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."
GG Posted July 1, 2016 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.
BuffaloBud Posted July 1, 2016 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.
BuffaloBill Posted July 1, 2016 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.
Saxum Posted July 1, 2016 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." They should just make patrons with guns shoot themselves first - that solves issue with guns in theater. And yes they did lose lawsuit - should have either laywers guarantee fees as part of taking case.
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2016 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.
Chef Jim Posted July 1, 2016 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. But Tom.........someone needs to be responsible!!!!
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 But Tom.........someone needs to be responsible!!!! Actually, if there's one absolute truth in this country right now, it's that no one's ever responsible for anything.
unbillievable Posted July 1, 2016 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.
Chef Jim Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 Actually, if there's one absolute truth in this country right now, it's that no one's ever responsible for anything. 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. Gun free zone means no guns allowed not we will ensure 100% that there are no guns here.
Saxum Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 Gun free zone means no guns allowed not we will ensure 100% that there are no guns here. 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.
unbillievable Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 Gun free zone means no guns allowed not we will ensure 100% that there are no guns here. 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.
Doc Posted July 1, 2016 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. 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.
Chef Jim Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 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. The question begs to be asked. Who won?
Acantha Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 The question begs to be asked. Who won? The terrorists.
NoSaint Posted July 1, 2016 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.
KD in CA Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 We don't live in a zero-risk world. Well, other than my safe space, right?
Recommended Posts