Support NeoGAF

[Blader]

A bunch of people fucking died in your place of business, during one of the worst mass shootings in the country's history. Just eat the fucking $700k yourself.

I'll just assume the executives involved here completely ignored their PR team's input on this.

Morally reasonable as well.

They aren't asking an exorbitant amount, they are asking for fair coverage of their legal fees.

There's nothing morally reasonable about asking for tens of thousands of dollars from families whose loved ones were shot to death in your business.

 

[Muffdraul]

I sympathize with the victims' families for their loss of loved ones, but I don't sympathize with them for trying to sue someone who wasn't responsible, losing, and then paying the legal fees which is apparently what usually happens.

If enough people truly understood the situation, it wouldn't be a PR problem.

 

[PeskyToaster]

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?

I don't know the details it is an example. Breathe a little, dog. I'll just read about it on Wikipedia and believe what I did before.

Would you sue the minimum wage employee or find a way that the company could be liable? When things happen at schools people don't usually sue the perpetrator but the school system. It's where the money is at.

 

[Euphoria14]

They already paid the price! Their family members are dead!

Irrelevant. Cinemark wasn't the responsible party and they still decided to sue in hopes of gaining money.

Sounds terrible but it's the truth. They don't get a pass because someone died.

Not to mention how do we even know everyone involved in the suit had lost family members? Could also just be people who were present that night.

 

[Burt]

So I looked up Cinemark to see what kind of company it was

And besides the fact that there's no reason for a company with their kind of revenue to be doing this... I don't think that's their actual slogan.

 

[echoshifting]

There's nothing morally reasonable about asking for tens of thousands of dollars from families whose loved ones were shot to death in your business.

Hundreds of thousands. The title is a typo.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

I do think that there is some grounds on them sueing the theater. It was easy for the gunman to enter through the back exits that are in all theaters.

 

[Stinkles]

A bunch of people fucking died in your place of business, during one of the worst mass shootings in the country's history. Just eat the fucking $700k yourself.

I'll just assume the executives involved here completely ignored their PR team's input on this.



There's nothing morally reasonable about asking for tens of thousands of dollars from families whose loved ones were shot to death in your business.

They're not asking for the money, they're asking that money extracted from them during this process be returned. The law firms the family retained are also welcome to refund the company its costs.

It sucks but it makes sense.

 

[TheGreyHulk]

$700K for bad press... who the hell signed off on this crap? Are they nuts?

I would totally eat the cost if I was Cinemark.. yeah, losing money sucks, but if this goes viral then they'll lose more than $700K.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

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.

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.

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.

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.

thanks

I can summarize it quickly: Look at the damage the coffee did to her body Not remotely safe for work cause body mutilation.

didn't look

 

[Grisby]

Don't think I would take that P.R hit.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

Hundreds of thousands. The title is a typo.

Divide by 30

 

[LostMyNarbles]

Are their cinema's all owned and operated by corporate or is it like a franchise kind of deal? I think they are definitely in their rights here given the fact that they had to pay for legal coverage for the lengthy trial, but if the cinema's are all owned by corporate I feel like from a morale point of view a company with a market cap of over 4 billion could probably just eat the 70k legal fees and move on.

Although on the other hand maybe they need to do this otherwise it would set a principle for other people to sue them and expect them to eat the costs if the lawsuit goes under.

 

[sirap]

Irrelevant. Cinemark wasn't the responsible party and they still decided to sue in hopes of gaining money.

Sounds terrible but it's the truth. They don't get a pass because someone died.

This. Seems like a shitty situation all around. They could've chosen to eat the fees, but at the risk of future lawsuits. I still don't agree with the original lawsuit, but that's just how your legal system operates I guess.

 

[commedieu]

Don't think I would take that P.R hit.

Not when I'm a billion dollar company, no.

I'd cover my fees with the lack of taxes I pay as a huge corporation, and donate money to the victims families. Call it a day.

 

[RickAstley]

There's nothing morally reasonable about asking for tens of thousands of dollars from families whose loved ones were shot to death in your business.

The thing is the plaitiff's attorney has already said he plans to appeal even thoug they just lost unanimously. So now Cinemark can possibly incur more costs from defending the appeal.

The point of the statute allowing for these damages is for this type of sitaution. Stop cases from proceeding where 1 party has no chance of winning. If they want to keep trying then they must bear the risk

 

[Hippo_PRIME]

They already paid the price! Their family members are dead!

This right here. Cinemark CAN do this thing, but that doesn't mean they SHOULD. The victims' families probably should not have sued in the first place, but I would think good corporate citizenship might have influenced to Cinemark to take the high road. Instead of getting some good PR for displaying empathy to distraught families, the company is instead getting raked over coals.

Maybe they shouldn't be given the nature of "loser pays legal fees," but they sure can be.

 

[QuantumBro]

All the people saying they're going to boycott Cinemark are going to have second thoughts once the next Star Wars/Marvel/Disney films rolls around. Especially if the choice is either go to Cinemark or don't see the movie.

 

[Biske]

Yeeeeeeeeeeees, regardless of the legality or the rightness of a side, this is the kind of thing you'd think a company would see is best to just let slide. Always going to look terrible with something like this.

 

[Kinyou]

Not like they're in the wrong, but it's also obviously something that looks bad. How big is Cinemark? Would those legal fees be a big hit to them?
Edit: Just saw the image above. A billion dollar company would probably better off taking the hit.

 

[jett]

That's certainly a PR disaster waiting to happen, but the families shouldn't have sued the movie theater in the first place.

 

[Two Words]

You are a multi-millionaire and were wrongfully sued for the deaths of family members. It honestly was not your fault even though the people died on your property. You win your case. The court fees accumulate to $700,000. Do you demand these people to reimburse you or do you just let things be and let them go on and try to mend their lives?

 

[Aurean_Mentat]

Honestly, that lawyering comment earlier (about it being a potential tactic to file this, and then allow it to drop in exchange for the other side agreeing to not appeal) makes total sense to me. Cinemark has to pay the first 2.7 million themselves, and suing the theater for the shooting just didn't make any sense. It wasn't Cinemark's fault.

I will offer cautious support for Cinemark if this is their idea (to agree to drop the costs in exchange for the families agreeing not to appeal and go away). Otherwise, I can see Cinemark's point of view, but nobody really comes out of this looking good.

The families for suing Cinemark (when it wasn't remotely Cinemark's fault), and Cinemark for counter-filing (because sure, the families shouldn't have sued, but they not being in the best state of mind to make good decisions is entirely understandable).

 

[commedieu]

Not like they're in the wrong, but it's also obviously something that looks bad. How big is Cinemark? Would those legal fees be a big hit to them?

So I looked up Cinemark to see what kind of company it was

And besides the fact that there's no reason for a company with their kind of revenue to be doing this... I don't think that's their actual slogan.

wont somebody think of the Gigantic Corporation...

 

[Krauser Kat]

i am super empathetic towards the families. This is a damned if you do, Damned if you dont situation for Cinemark.

Lose 700k, still have people hate you becaue your theater just happened to be the one a mass murderer picked.

Get reoup 700k because some ass hole lawyer got a bunch of bereaved people to unjustly sue a business, thinking it was a good idea.

As ugly as it sounds asking them to roll over sets a terrible precedent for people to try to take advantage of mass shooting surviving victims by filing un just suits in the hopes of cashing in.

 

[Horns]

I don't necessarily agree with suing Cinemark, but I am 100% for suing the place that sold the weapons and ammo. Especially in the case of James Holmes who went online to buy bullet proof armor, 2 canisters of tear gas, 100-round magazine and 5,000 rounds of ammo. A local gun club would not admit Holmes because of his odd behavior. He went online and ordered the stuff to avoid any screening.

 

[demon]

Normally I wouldn't have a problem with this as the original suit seemed pretty ridiculous and a defendant who wins a case should be able to sue for legal fees they were forced to incur. But this is just horrible PR and not reasonable to expect families, victims of a tragedy like this no less, to pay them 20 grand each.

Ultimately what this makes me think is how screwed up the legal system is. Being forced to eat thousands of dollars in legal fees because someone sues you, even if you win, is fucked up.

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!

Whatever you say. Pointing out that we're on the internet, and that most people here play videogames- as if either of those things are at all out of the ordinary for 20-30-somethings these days- as some sort of counterargument is intellectually lazy, condescending, and becoming really obnoxious to see on here.

 

[Toxi]

All the people saying they're going to boycott Cinemark are going to have second thoughts once the next Star Wars/Marvel/Disney films rolls around. Especially if the choice is either go to Cinemark or don't see the movie.

You do realize Cinemark isn't the only theater owner in Colorado, right?

I don't know the details it is an example. Breathe a little, dog. I'll just read about it on Wikipedia and believe what I did before.

Would you sue the minimum wage employee or find a way that the company could be liable? When things happen at schools people don't usually sue the perpetrator but the school system. It's where the money is at.

When it's official company policy, the employee shouldn't be held accountable, the company should. Especially when said company refuses to pay for your damn medical fees.

 

[Darryl M R]

I don't see the issue.

A tragedy happened and you shifted blame elsewhere despite the ethical question of "What more could the theater do?" and throughout your legal battle I am to believe that multiple lawyers, within the privacy of council for you and in court, did not explain that the theater should not be at fault for the event.

It's a PR hit but why not. No need to eat extra costs, and do you think most people won't side with the theater thinking "Yea, I don't know what else they could have done. Have armed guards checking everyone?"

 

[RickAstley]

Not like they're in the wrong, but it's also obviously something that looks bad. How big is Cinemark? Would those legal fees be a big hit to them?

I can say with a high degree of certainty that this is not just about the money. Cinemark wants this case to be done with. The plaintiff's attorney has already said he will appeal the decision.

I can almost guarantee that if the plaintiffs agreed not to appeal that Cinemark would drop the attorneys fees request.

 

[Euphoria14]

wont somebody think of the Gigantic Corporation...

I know right!

Hey they have a lot of money, they should just pay up!


How about don't sue if you can't handle the cost of losing?

I like that better.

 

[Biltmore]

People are so caught up in "bad PR" that they are completely missing why this is being done. Cinemark isn't going to make these people pay, they are doing this so that these people go away with their frivolous lawsuits. This isn't stupid or a bad move, it's highly intelligent and they most likely have a team of lawyers telling them as much. They are basically telling these people that if they continue with their actions, after having already lost once, that the repercussions can and will be severe. As soon as it's clear that people are done trying to hold them accountable for something that wasn't their fault this counter suit will go away as well.

 

[dbztrk]

Disgusting...

 

[low-G]

If enough people truly understood the situation, it wouldn't be a PR problem.

If enough people really understood the situation, we wouldn't see posts like this.

Jeez GAF, looking a little wrathful & stupid out here.

 

[PeskyToaster]

You do realize Cinemark isn't the only theater owner in Colorado, right?


When it's official company policy, the employee shouldn't be held accountable, the company should. Especially when said company refuses to pay for your damn medical fees.

Official policy to what?

 

[Jonm1010]

All the people saying they're going to boycott Cinemark are going to have second thoughts once the next Star Wars/Marvel/Disney films rolls around. Especially if the choice is either go to Cinemark or don't see the movie.

Most places have multiple theaters in relatively close distance.

I would imagine that if nothing else, they probably just tanked their Colorado market.

 

[Toxi]

How about don't sue if you can't handle the cost of losing?

I like that better.

So only rich people and companies can sue. Great system.

Official policy to what?

To have their coffee at absurd temperatures that could cause third degree burns in a few seconds.

 

[Darryl M R]

People are so caught up in "bad PR" that they are completely missing why this is being done. Cinemark isn't going to make these people pay, they are doing this so that these people go away with their frivolous lawsuits. This isn't stupid or a bad move, it's highly intelligent and they most likely have a team of lawyers telling them as much. They are basically telling these people that if they continue with their actions, after having already lost once, that the repercussions can and will be severe. As soon as it's clear that people are done trying to hold them accountable for something that wasn't their fault this counter suit will go away as well.

I agree with you on this. It sounds like a warning. But even if they go through. I don't think the PR will be that bad.

 

[many places]

Heartless. Especially sense a lot of Cinemarks claim to be "Christian" or at least their advertisements before movies make it appear so. (Churches, Christian businesses)

I understand they shouldn't have been sued but they should let this go, not only because it's the right thing to do but because it is horrible PR for them.

 

[diablos991]

So only rich people and companies can sue. Great system.

Anybody can sue. Just don't sue with a bullshit case like this one.

 

[El Topo]

So only rich people and companies can sue. Great system.

Except this is not how it plays out in many countries in the world.

 

[neverknowsbest]

People are so caught up in "bad PR" that they are completely missing why this is being done. Cinemark isn't going to make these people pay, they are doing this so that these people go away with their frivolous lawsuits. This isn't stupid or a bad move, it's highly intelligent and they most likely have a team of lawyers telling them as much. They are basically telling these people that if they continue with their actions, after having already lost once, that the repercussions can and will be severe. As soon as it's clear that people are done trying to hold them accountable for something that wasn't their fault this counter suit will go away as well.

Finally, someone who gets it. Yeah, this sucks for their PR, but if they DON'T ask for fees, expect them to get hit by a ton of lawsuits for frivolous things, with the expectation that they won't make the plaintiffs pay their legal costs. Even if they do win those lawsuits and get legal fees from the plaintiffs, that's a lot of time and distraction that they want to avoid by sending the message that they will ask for legal fees if they win.

 

[Karsticles]

Boycott enabled.

Why? People tried to cheat money out of the cinema.

 

[Kinyou]

I can say with a high degree of certainty that this is not just about the money. Cinemark wants this case to be done with. The plaintiff's attorney has already said he will appeal the decision.

I can almost guarantee that if the plaintiffs agreed not to appeal that Cinemark would drop the attorneys fees request.

Ah that makes sense. Not very nice to pressure them like that, but the lawsuit itself doesn't seem all that reasonable to me in the first place.

 

[TalonJH]

They really should just cut their loses. I would be okay with this without context but these people have suffered enough. Sure, they sued you for something you had no control over but let it go. I don't think $700,000 is a big deal for Cinemark.

 

[Jonm1010]

I don't see the issue.

A tragedy happened and you shifted blame elsewhere despite the ethical question of "What more could the theater do?" and throughout your legal battle I am to believe that multiple lawyers, within the privacy of council for you and in court, did not explain that the theater should not be at fault for the event.

It's a PR hit but why not. No need to eat extra costs, and do you think most people won't side with the theater thinking "Yea, I don't know what else they could have done. Have armed guards checking everyone?"

Keeping the exit doors secured and monitored so people can't sneak in really isnt asking all that much.

 

[Toxi]

People are so caught up in "bad PR" that they are completely missing why this is being done. Cinemark isn't going to make these people pay, they are doing this so that these people go away with their frivolous lawsuits. This isn't stupid or a bad move, it's highly intelligent and they most likely have a team of lawyers telling them as much. They are basically telling these people that if they continue with their actions, after having already lost once, that the repercussions can and will be severe. As soon as it's clear that people are done trying to hold them accountable for something that wasn't their fault this counter suit will go away as well.

Yep. Unfortunately, it will still be a massive PR hit here in Colorado. Damned if you do, damned if you don't indeed.

 

[Euphoria14]

So only rich people and companies can sue. Great system.

To have their coffee at absurd temperatures that could cause third degree burns in a few seconds.

Not sure where I said that, but go put words in my mouth. No biggie.

My point is that people shouldn't be able to sue big companies and be absolved of any repurcussions if the verdict is not in their favor.

Just like how if I sued you and you won I would be liable to pay yours.

It's the rules of game and everyone needs to follow them if they wish to play.

 

[Toxi]

Not sure where I said that, but go put words in my mouth. No biggie.

I mean, that's what it sounds like when you say "you should only sue if you can afford losing".

 

[RickAstley]

Except this is not how it plays out in many countries in the world.

Actually the US follows the "American Rule" by default which does not allow the winning party to get attorneys fees from the losing party. Some states, such as Colorado here, have exceptions to the default rule.

In fact, other countries actually are the exact opposite. The majority of European countries, for example, have the general rule that the winning party can recover some if not all attorneys fees and costs from the losing party.