-
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
Nah, message board attracts a bunch of socially awkward nerds of course some people are going to be like "but why are people upset about this it makes perfect sense technically"
OK SHELDON
Euphoria14
Member
"Time to sue the families of shooting victims!"
Abhorrent. I know I'll never go to a Cinemark theater again.
Yeah. People should just be able to sue big companies all day and all night and then just walk it off unscathed if they lose, but gain big dollars when they win.
Families sued and lost and now pay the price.
If people want to live in the current sue culture than they need to live by the rules. That means they are liable to pay the legal fees.
If someone sued you and they lost, would you just eat the cost of your fees?
If anyone is short sighted it's people who think a chain with 500 locations (under various names) is going to suffer because of a news article that will be forgotten by Monday.
How many people are HONESTLY going to want to see a movie, pick a time and place, then realize "wait, isn't that the place that sought damages from the families of the aurora victims after the lawsuit was dismissed? I refuse to go!"
I'd bet a fairly significant amount of the population would have to think for a few seconds before they even remembered what the aurora shooting was.
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
I guess I see both sides on this one.
Cinemark wasn't at fault and shouldn't lose out on 700k. The families should not have sued Cinemark.
But boy is it poor form to go after the grieving families.
Cinemark wasn't at fault and shouldn't lose out on 700k. The families should not have sued Cinemark.
But boy is it poor form to go after the grieving families.
GoldenEye 007
Member
As I think about it more, it is really a tough decision I'm sure for the chain. Like, if they don't defend it, they open themselves up to other people suing for various things thinking they won't go after them for fees if they lose.
In this situation, obviously the PR is an issue. It would make sense, as some others have speculated, that this is a ploy to get the plaintiffs to not appeal. But it seems like they will appeal anyway?
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
now I want to hear this story.
nor does it mean that it's wrong of them to do so. The state won't cover the cost and the company shouldn't have to either.
I can't tell if you guys are serious. That's like 20k per family.
RickAstley
Neo Member
It has nothing to do with empathy. Sure I feel bad for the victims but that does not mean that they can file frivolous lawsuits and keep them going for 4+years with plans to appeal and then say that Cinemark shouldn't be a little upset they had to spend almost a million dollars to defend the suit.
It is a horrible legal argument to try to blame a movie theater for the intentional criminal acts of a random 3rd party. This is evidenced by the jury's decision.
Yup.
I'm with Cinemark on this. Families sued and lost. Now they should pay the legal costs. It was clearly not the theater's fault.
GoldenEye 007
Member
HUELEN's a joke character but the rest are probably serious.
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
Maybe they shouldn't have filed a ridiculous claim against the business who was not responsible for what happened?
I only hope these families were aware ahead of time what they were getting into when they filed the case.
You should check out a documentary called "Hot Coffee." It goes in-depth on that case as well as a few others. Very interesting stuff.
I also scoffed at the hot coffee lawsuit when I heard about it years ago but after getting actual details, I totally support the victim.
Same on both counts. They really should just eat the legal fees. This is a PR nightmare.
As true as that might be, Cinemark shouldn't be pursuing this just out of the huge PR disaster it will be.
Being the business which wants victims of a tragedy to pay them money is hardly an image anybody would want.
Euphoria14
Member
Should have thought about the consequences if they lost the case.
CitizenCope
Member
Horrible PR but they have the right. Don't blame them but at the same time take the hit.
Message boards also attract a bunch of arrogant people who just love to insult other people to make themselves feel better instead of trying to actually understand another person's opinion.
Apparently, you are among these people. Congrats.
Nothing wrong with this, welcome to the world of loser pays. This is the type of thing that prevents reactionary lawsuits like this one, the plaintiffs gambled and lost. Shouldn't have played the game if they weren't prepared to deal with the consequences of losing, same as any other lawsuit
Euphoria14
Member
Cinemark eats the cost, now what stops people from sueing in the future since they now believe a bogus case resulting in a loss holds zero consequence?
GoldenEye 007
Member
No theater has any sort of expectation for security nor could anticipate a mass murderer coming through the doors. They should have won, which they did.
They did what any theatre would do in terms of security. They took reasonable measures and can't be held accountable for a very tragic anomaly. It's not like any other cinema has metal detectors, police dogs, and armed officers at the door. What did you expect their security level to be? I mean if the gunmen had contacted the theatre and told them what he was going to do and they didn't take any precautions, that's one thing, but that's not what happened.
Smokey_Run
Member
It's July 4th weekend in the states and the news is breaking late on a Friday afternoon. Something will happen before now and Tuesday and this will become a distant memory. Actually, it might be a master stroke in PR due to when the news got dropped.
I don't understand why you're upset, I am technically correct that this message board will tend to attract people who are more socially awkward than normal message boards.
I mean, technically I'm being perfectly reasonable!
This is why I like you so much.
I can summarize it quickly: Look at the damage the coffee did to her body Not remotely safe for work cause body mutilation.
Uh huh. And that doesn't remotely mean that Cinemark should try to get money out of the victims of a tragedy and their families. It has literally everything to do with empathy.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
It was a joke that they were ever sued by the families, and they have every right to try and recoup the costs, but I can't imagine any lawsuit will be worth the negative PR of this.
Go do some research. Stella Liebeck received third degree burns from coffee given to her. It was enforced company policy to have the coffee at such absurdly high temperatures, despite many complaints to McDonalds about people being horribly burned before.
It's horrifying how the media has turned such a case into a symbol of frivolous lawsuits, and it's horrifying most people have accepted the idiotic narrative.
Lys Skygge
Member
On one hand, it's pretty fucking ridiculous that Cinemark would do this. Not only is it disrespectful to the victims, but it makes them look like the bad guy. PR is going to be a nightmare, and I don't know why they think it's a good idea to risk looking like pieces of shit (even though, they technically aren't)
On the other hand, it was a little ridiculous that the lawsuit happened in the first place. It wasn't Cinemarks fault that some asshole decided to shoot the place up. It could have happened anywhere.
Overall, while it was kinda crappy to sue Cinemark for something that they couldn't have anticipated, Cinemark should just drop it.
On the other hand, it was a little ridiculous that the lawsuit happened in the first place. It wasn't Cinemarks fault that some asshole decided to shoot the place up. It could have happened anywhere.
Overall, while it was kinda crappy to sue Cinemark for something that they couldn't have anticipated, Cinemark should just drop it.
Valkyr1983
Banned
At a movie theater? How many movie theater shootings had occurred before this?
The risk of any legal action weighs with having to pay back lawyer fees and what not
I know you all hate corporations and all so you can stick it to the man, but I'll side with them on this
If you think people have the right to sue for damages, that works both ways. Otherwise companies will never be protected from useless lawsuits
GoldenEye 007
Member
It's irrelevant and you have no actual proof of this anyway. And if anything, most people are saying yeah the chain is in the right and the victims should not have sued, but it won't be good for PR.
They already paid the price! Their family members are dead!
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
What kind of establishment doesn't have alarms on emergency exits? When Holmes went out through that emergency exit it should have set off alarms.
Wafflecakes
Member
Its a theater.... do you expect them to have machine guns on the roof?
echoshifting
Banned
These wounds are still deeply felt in Colorado, though. Every time you go to the movies at most chains in the state, you sit through a security procedures message which serves as a cold reminder of Aurora. I haven't seen warnings like that at theaters in Oregon or Washington since it happened, but they still play in CO.
This may not hurt them nationwide but it's going to kill them in Colorado.
Except a jury unanimously decided that wasn't the case after being presented with all the facts, you really want pat downs and metal detectors at the damn cinema? How about every other place that houses moderately large amounts of people like a restaurant?
Also some of the responses in this thread make me sad, yes it's bad the families are being hit with these costs but they sued the cinema knowing full well it was nonsense and could be extremely costly, you wanna set the precedent that it's OK to be part of frivolous lawsuits with zero possibility for repercussions because your family was the victim of a mass shooting?
Basically, the elderly woman who was burned by the McDonald's coffee got third degree burns in her lap which, among other specific injuries, caused her vagina to fuse closed. She had multiple surgeries, skin grafts, and could have died. McDonald's knowingly was serving their coffee hotter than was allowed by the FDA, and had paid out money to people burned by their nearly-boiling coffee before.
The family asked for McD's to cover the medical bills (which were significant), and they were offered a couple grand and a hearty "go fuck yourself" so they sued.
We'll see what happens. I don't see a multi-billion dollar company countersuing victims of a horrible atrocity going over so well.
Hey man, I don't disagree, I don't think the victims should have sued but collecting the legal fees is a PR nightmare.
That's the reasonable position.
Saying that Cinemark are within a technical reasonability while ignoring the normalized position of "but it's icky" is not going to be the normal person's reaction to this.
Sir Abacus
Member
McDonalds required that coffee was served at between 180-190 degrees. This causes third degree burns in three or four seconds on exposed skin. A more sensible temperature would have been 160F which would have been 20 seconds before causing burns.
McDonalds had repeated complaints from its patron regarding the heat of the coffee.
The plantiff had tried to sue for the paltry sum of $20,000 for medical expenses, $10,500 which had already incurred. McDonalds countered with $800. She retained a lawyer who went for $90,000. McDonalds refused, they upped to $300,000, a mediator said $225K, McDonalds still refused and took it to trial.
The jury slapped them with $200,000 compensatory and $2 million punitive.
So McDonalds took what should have been a quick $20,000 settlement and turned it into a final figure of about $600,000 after all was said and done.And people complain that we sue over hot coffee unironically.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Should have just left it alone. The amount of money they'll lose from the inevitable PR fallout will probably exceed any money they could make back from this.
- Status