Aurora Shooting Survivors Owe Theater $700K for Litigation Bills

Apparently the laws in Colorado have left 4 of the Aurora shooting victims' on the hook for a $700,000 bill! Basically some of the survivors filed a federal law suit hoping that it would require theaters to increase safety measures to prevent things like this from happening in the future - unfortunately, this completely backfired on them after one of the plaintiffs refused to settle for "Cinemark's" initial offer:

The survivors had filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the theater's security flaws had helped enable the attack that left 12 dead and more than 70 injured in 2012.

The judge first urged the plaintiffs to settle, but ruled after the deal collapsed that Cinemark was not liable for the shooting, according to The Los Angeles Times.

Colorado law allows the winning side of civil cases to seek costs, so plaintiffs were then ordered to pay more than $700,000 to Cinemark to reimburse the theater chain's legal fees.

Justice is served my friends! The little guy gets screwed again


www.businessinsider.com...

a reply to: FamCore

They should have settled. The judge basically begged them to settle. He knew what would happen if they didn't.

Honestly I dont think its the theaters fault some crazy guy decided to go on a shooting spree.

Just call it a wash for everyone. But the right technical call was made. This was not the theaters fault at all. Suing opens up counter suits, thats the game.

a reply to: imsoconfused

I agree, they should have settled. It's a sad situation none the less, but they knew what may have come with the lawsuits, court costs, etc. so they should have seen this coming.

a reply to: imsoconfused

agreed - they must not have had great legal counsel... now what the hell are they going to do? wow, that sucks!

a reply to: slapjacks

they really shot themselves in the foot on this one!

"Whoops! You missed on that one,"

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: slapjacks

they really shot themselves in the foot on this one!

"Whoops! You missed on that one,"

Haha that's wrong LOL

a reply to: FamCore

...and who says capitalism has heart? Nothing like taking advantage of victims. I'm sure the Theater has some type of liability coverage since they deal with the public on a daily basis. I'm sure their insurance would cover the legal fees. The theater should have done the right thing and walked away from it.

a reply to: WeRpeons

The suit has nothing to do with a particular economics system and everything to do with civil litigation.

a reply to: slapjacks

The world can be a depressing place, got to lighten the mood sometimes

The greed was so obvious-did the theatre do anything to cause this or could they have prevented this? Common sense is not so common anymore. The people suing the theatre deserved to lose and I hope this is the beginning of common sense in lawsuits.

Their next step will be wasting court's time in appeals until they just finally run out of steam and attorney's willing to take their cases. Then come filing banckruptcies-and another injustice begins.

Biggest justice in all of this-the attorneys get stiffed. YEA!

a reply to: FamCore

They also tried to sue the online retailers for selling ammunition to the shooter...

The defendants won this case as well.

In this instance, the plaintiffs were liable for about $200,000.

In the future, maybe these groups will think twice before initiating frivolous law suits.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I almost posted that article as well, it was more emotionally charged because the people suing the ammunition companies also lost their daughter in the shooting, and then got left on the hook for $203K. But I didn't really want to go down the gun laws rabbit hole since I knew what that would do to this thread

Don't start frivolous lawsuits in the future. I fail to see how it is the clubs fault when someone starts shooting randomly.

The cynical part of me thinks they were just trying to cash in on the tragedy regardless of what reasons they gave.

Sounds like a perfectly fine outcome to me. This type of lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous and reeks of financial motivation and suspension of logic.

Found this in another story on this.

Quote:
/
Survivor Marcus Weaver, who was among those who settled, said he was concerned Jackson might dismiss the case before trial, potentially leaving the plaintiffs responsible for Cinemark’s legal expenses.

“Personally,” he said, “I just want safety. … I didn’t want the financial burden.”
/

Sure, you didn't want the financial burden of the legal fees. But I'm damn sure you wanted all the money if the case was won.

Quote:
/
Jackson also cited another federal lawsuit related to the theater shooting in his dismissal order. Sandy Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was killed inside the theater, had targeted various gun shops where the shooter had purchased firearms and ammunition. That complaint also was dismissed.
/

Look, it's sad what happened, and I"m sorry your daughter is gone. But randomly suing for personal financial gain, which will do nothing for the situation, just puts a giant sign above your head that you are just a worthless POS.

This is from the judge, in one of the(several) cases. I don't know why people can't grasp this, probably because they are mentally inferior, and their mind is easily molded by outside influence for the purpose of political or financial agendas.

"In those cases, judges also ruled “the shooters’ actions were the predominant, if not sole cause” of the injuries, Jackson’s order said."

Cut and dried, these people deserve to lose these cases. Sad that this one bit back, I'm all for financially compensating those that were illogically targeted in an attempt to extort money from them.

www.denverpost.com...

originally posted by: FamCore
Justice is served my friends! The little guy gets screwed again

I disagree. The "little guy" doesn't get screwed again. I'd say, The greedy jerks who scam the judicial system to get free money finally get screwed.

We live in a world that is full of risk. There is no way to abolish, not even mitigate, every risk. If a movie theater took every step possible to abolish every risk, they'd have to shut down because they could let nobody into the theater.

The lawsuit was just a stupid and greedy money grab. I am glad they lost their shirts.

a reply to: FamCore

The little guy gets screwed?? No, I think the little guy got just desserts. I understand why they're upset, but it's not the theaters fault the shooting happened and I don't believe they should've been sued in the first place.

What are they expecting theaters to do?? Hold security checkpoints for every movie?? So if you want to watch a movie at 7pm, you better arrive by 5:45pm so you can sit in line and wait for a security check, similar to airports?? Is this the type of theater you'd want to go to??

Or would you rather they have metal detectors by every doorway?? Yeah, that'll be fun having every single person beep because of piercings, wallets, keys, or whatever metal they have on their person.

Like Imsoconfused said, the judge basically begged them to settle. I guess one got greedy and screwed the bunch.

***EDIT***

Another thing to keep in mind is that movie theaters are dying. Sure, people still love going out to theaters, but thanks to digital media, bluray, HDTV's, surround sound systems, etc......it's only a matter of time before movie theaters just become websites people can pay to stream new releases rather than go out to theaters. Sure, there are people who will always love going out to movies, but if you speak to anyone who manages these places they'll tell you there's not much profit. Why do you think candy/sodas are so pricey?? It's to help make a profit in a struggling business.

If you add ridiculous security protocols, it's just another nail in the coffin of theaters in general. Also, on that note, this sort of think can happen anywhere. So if it happens at a park, do you sue the city for not having security protocols in place?? If it happens at a grocery store, do you sue them for not having security protocols?? At what point does this madness end??

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Sounds like a perfectly fine outcome to me. This type of lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous and reeks of financial motivation and suspension of logic.
...
/
Survivor Marcus Weaver, who was among those who settled, said he was concerned Jackson might dismiss the case before trial, potentially leaving the plaintiffs responsible for Cinemark’s legal expenses.

“Personally,” he said, “I just want safety. … I didn’t want the financial burden.”
/
]...

Kudos to you, MisterSpock, for having a level head.

And if Weaver wants "safety," let him climb into a box and get buried six feet under the ground. He'll be safe there.

There is no "safe" place. Anywhere.

These people were just trying to cash in on a tragedy. They lost and now get to pay the court costs.

originally posted by: imsoconfused
a reply to: FamCore

They should have settled. The judge basically begged them to settle. He knew what would happen if they didn't.

Honestly I dont think its the theaters fault some crazy guy decided to go on a shooting spree.

Place of business bans customers from carrying guns.
Place of business provides no security measures for people who aren't allowed guns.
Place of business then doesn't stop bad guy from bringing in gun.
Bad guy shoots everyone in place of business.

I'd say the business is at LEAST partially responsible.