-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Cinemark is asking plaintiffs in Aurora shooting lawsuit for $700k
- Thread starter Malyse
- Start date
- Status
spiderman123
Member
Popcor........Dammit cinemark
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
In the moment? They didn't decide to sue the next day.
Pretty much. Its not worth it. Them being found innocent was more than enough, and I'd even donate to the families as the Theater to win good will.
So many ways this could have been handled.
But uh, Rah-Rah capitalism and lawsuits.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Hm, so the theater usually had guards on the weekends, but didn't have any for the premier that night. A curious decision, but theaters generally aren't expected or required to provide any security.
I see they're also using the University of Colorado and another mental health professional for their handling of the shooter prior to the murders. There also seems to be a federal case pending still and the plantiff's lawyers say they will appeal this ruling.
Going to be ugly.
teruterubozu
Member
So it's a legal maneuver to try to prevent an appeal. Still kinda cold, but I guess that's the world of courts.
I still say there should be a two-tiered system for this sort of thing. Beyond the fact that cases can already get thrown out for lack of merit, any case that goes through trial should come to an extra decision, where they jury decides whether the plaintiff had merit and shouldn't have to pay legal fees, or did not have merit and should have to do so. There's daylight between "this person got screwed" and "this person is owed recompense by law," and people who we all agree were in a bad situation shouldn't have to pay legal fees for trying to assert themselves.
ZackieChan
Member
So distraught that they filed a lawsuit? Give me a break.
That is a weak as hell argument. The theater increased their security as needed in response to incidents happening.
Sir Abacus
Member
Ding ding ding we have a winner, folks!
Aruarian Reflection
Chauffeur de la gdlk
Anything to discourage frivolous lawsuits is okay in my book.
wouldnt be more like the kid walks into car so fam sues CEO, fam loses CEO asks for the legal fees to be paid
Man Called Aerodynamics
Member
Yeah... Technically they're in the right to do it... but you'd think they'd just eat the $700k rather than take the PR hit that they're sure to take over this. It can't be worth it.
Also, these litigations have been going on for a long time. If it was a spur of the moment thing it was entirely possible to stop pursuing instead of wasting money on it for years.
PeskyToaster
Member
When you do civil cases like this people often sue tangentially related parties that have money. Like if you were pushed down the stairs at the mall you sue the mall owners because they have much more money and are more likely to just take the hit while you won't get any it f the individual. Like you don't sue the worker who have you the hot coffee that burned you, you sue McDonald's. It's kind of scummy in this case because it means it's about money and not any sort of injury. The families lost and they should have to pay up since they tried to shake up the wrong tree.
Yea makes sense, still pretty harsh PR wise.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Sounds like Cinemark wanting to create precedent so that they are never sued over something like this again, because they fully expect that there will be more shootings in their theaters in the future 
Khalifa Jayy
Banned
You missed a zero in the title, OP. I was thinking 70k was already bad, but 700k is simply outrageous.
Because you're a billion dollar corporation and the PR hit isn't worth 700k.
Don't get me wrong, it was completely stupid for the families to go after the theater. They were just looking for a quick closure and someone to blame. From a business standpoint, I don't think they should go after the families. They should just take the burn and move on. Its a bad PR that's probably going to backfire. If this actually goes through and they win, they are going to just add to the grief that the families already have.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Well 700k was the cost of the legal fees. And they're still getting sued at the federal level, so it doesn't even count that.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
thanks, so their whole argument is that the cinema didn't provide a completely unmandated service in security personel?
Violence Jack
Member
I think they'll just write this off. But I had no idea why they would sue the theater in this instance.
Actually, in most US states, you would not be entitled to recover your fees in this instance. Colorado is an outlier (apparently).
Totally standard.
Except that these were victims of a high-profile tragedy who, regardless of their original legal standing for sueing, will get 99% of the public sympathy.
Yes, us fucking weirdos on GAF realize that legally and technically Cinemark is acting perfectly reasonably, but real people don't give a shit about that.
Sir Abacus
Member
Because general liability is typically a massive cash cow. The insurance company will settle unless the attorney is unreasonable, the liability rates go up slightly and life goes on.
Cinemark on the other hand is self insured the first $2.7 million sooooooo, they're more likely to fight a liability suit because it's coming out of their own pocket.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
Hopefully this will backfire and cost them a lot of business.
torre_avenue
Banned
You really must not have a heart then. Imagine you lose your son, daughter, father, friend, whomever in a senseless act of violence. You try and justify it by any means and blame the theater in a misguided attempt to find some reason in the violence. You lose that and the theater then demands money out of you even though you lost someone whose life can't be quantified.
Tell me, is it still reasonable then. They are well within their legal rights to do so and it'll stop any attempt at appeals, but look how bad the PR spin looks. In fact, the ball is in the victims' families' court. All they need to do is go on a couple talk shows, play up how emotionally devastating this move is, and Cinemark gets blown out.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
eh good on them, people tried to profit from their families deaths with bullshit legal action. Get your money back cinema
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
This is just nonsense. You don't sue a large corporation for quick closure.
The families that sued did this to themselves. They should have thought about this when they brought the horrible lawsuit.
Maybe Cinemark pres gets to come out publically and throw a few lawyers under a bus.
No one cares about lawyers.
My thoughts exactly
So it looks like EmpathyGAF is on summer vacation.
It's absolutely gross that most people still don't understand why the lawsuit on McDonalds was completely justified. The smear campaign against Stella Liebeck has been sadly effective.
Also, why the fuck would you sue an employee for simply acting under company policy?
Vicetrailia
Banned
This will definitely damage their reputation.
I'm torn. Cinemark should probably just eat the legal fees because this looks shitty (helped along by the very slanted thread title here), but they're entitled to the money under the law. The plaintiffs really had no case. Grief is an explanation for why people do irrational things, but it's not a valid excuse when it causes harm.
Not everybody processes grief in the same way. Some become vindictive about it, it's not an unusual response.
Kinda. But also the movie theater was also innocent. You could add your post to the original lawsuit.
Still, it's a bad look.
NRA should pay it.
- Status