-
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
RPGCrazied
Member
How about no, if anyone should pay up its the shooter's family. Leave the victims alone, they already paid to see the movie before some of them got murdered.
Edit: I read it wrong, my bad.
Edit: I read it wrong, my bad.
Did you even bother to read all the details of the case?
But no, not everybody can sue if this is the chilling effect. Meanwhile the rich CAN sue over far more frivolous things.
Fox Mulder
Member
That's the sad thing, defending getting sued only to look like assholes.
RickAstley
Neo Member
Kind of hard to just "let it go" when the other party is appealing the decision and continuing to force you to spend money to defend yourself.
Euphoria14
Member
Then you read it completely wrong. I was saying that suing comes with a cost if you lose. Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor.
However I do see many who believe if someone is rich they should just pay up or eat cost since they can.
This would lead to people sueing and not worrying about repurcussions, which it seems many already do.
Valkyr1983
Banned
So you let them go mend their lives and then basically tell any and all future lawsuits to go ahead, because you'll just absorb legal fees, yes?
Snkfanatic
Banned
I take it you don't see many Marrec posts?
Valkyr1983
Banned
What's the chilling effect?
That defenders of frivolous lawsuits are allowed to recoup money essentially forced from them?
Ziltoidia 9
Member
I wouldn't mind them paying the legal costs if it didn't mean 2.3k a family. Its more of a testament of how crappy and price inflated the legal system is.
Edit: It appears my eyes have failed me.
You can let them walk and still require other suers to pay up.
HoodWinked
Member
make the lawfirms pay i bet solicited to bring on a frivolous lawsuit like this.
At first I thought why doesn't Cinemark just eat the (insignificant to them) cost and move on? It can't be good PR. But then I thought, no they're right to do this because they have to send a message that if you're going to frivolously sue them, it'll bite you in the ass.
And yes it was a tragedy and they've already paid with their lives/injuries, but that was that and this is this. They got their day in court and lost. They should pay for it.
If Cinemark doesn't do this, it opens the door to tons of lawsuits where the "victim" has no fear. They either win the case and collect or lose and nothing is lost. Cinemark would be in court 365 days a year.
And yes it was a tragedy and they've already paid with their lives/injuries, but that was that and this is this. They got their day in court and lost. They should pay for it.
If Cinemark doesn't do this, it opens the door to tons of lawsuits where the "victim" has no fear. They either win the case and collect or lose and nothing is lost. Cinemark would be in court 365 days a year.
They aren't walking, though, they're preparing to sue again.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Yeah..this seems like a smart idea. 😐
Euphoria14
Member
I'm understanding it as "if your not rich you shouldn't sue since you can't afford if you lose"
Meanwhile it should always be "Don't sue unless you have a strong case to win"
Duane Cunningham
Member
They paid a price.
The problem is that tips the balance for the civil law system massively towards those who can easily eat the costs for losing a lawsuit.
Luckily, it doesn't seem like Cinemark is actually going to pursue as long as the families don't appeal.
GrantDaNasty
Member
While I don't think this is a good look for Cinemark, what they fuck were they supposed to do about a guy who brought a fucking gun to a Cinema and started gunning people down?
Are we supposed to install metal-detectors in Movie Theatres now?
It's easy to say "oh just eat the cost", but let's be real - $700k is nothing to whisk away, and I can't imagine the company has enough reserves to just waiver that fee.
Are we supposed to install metal-detectors in Movie Theatres now?
It's easy to say "oh just eat the cost", but let's be real - $700k is nothing to whisk away, and I can't imagine the company has enough reserves to just waiver that fee.
M0nochromatic
Member
Why sue the cinema in the first place? What did they do wrong, not have armed guards at a movie theater?
Euphoria14
Member
Exactly. To make it worse not only did they lose, but they plan to sue again.
So anyone saying Cinemark should eat the cost is basically saying that after the families lose a second time Cinemark should once again just eat the cost.
Rinse and repeat until the he families decide to give up.
Stop.
The reason I wouldn't pay them, is because bad PR is going to be worse than the 700k threat to not have them continue any more legal action. This was a national tragedy, not a roach in a mug. Its going to cause more damage to my business, than taking the hit.
This wasn't some frivolous attempt that just wound up in court, it was approved to go forward by a Judge. So, we can stop the corporate cheer-leading and victim blaming. All it does is widen the wealth gap.
perfectchaos007
Member
Just $70,000? They should have just eaten that cost. PR backlash will cost way more
GoldenEye 007
Member
Yes, this is one of their complaints.
Ok, I didn't know this bit of information.
I don't really understand why the families are doing this.
echoshifting
Banned
$700,000. It's a typo.
They probably will eat the cost. The point of this is most likely to deter the families from appealing, and after that happens they drop it.
Cinemark probably has no control over whether or not this goes through, this is more than likely 100% their insurance company doing this.
Insurance companies don't give a fuck about PR.
Euphoria14
Member
That is likely the exact purpose of what Cinemark is doing.
If they eat the cost then the families will only continue to cost them more and more while they pay nothing until they maybe strike it rich.
Except the people who brought the frivolous suit in the first place have already said they intend to appeal and keep it going, maybe try and comprehend the situation before going full righteous indignation?
Euphoria14
Member
It's simple. They want free money.
So when they lose again, do you eat those costs too? Or worse yet, what if they get a particularly sympathetic jury and win the appeal.
"Stop suing us or pay us the legal fees you owe us" seems a perfectly reasonable move to me. As long as they don't go after the money if the families don't sue again.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
They sued the movie theater when the movie theater wasn't even vaguely responsible. That's kind of what happens.
Even in a consolidated 30 person action I'd be surprised if costs were really $700,000. The 70K mark sounded a lot more reasonable.
Even in a consolidated 30 person action I'd be surprised if costs were really $700,000. The 70K mark sounded a lot more reasonable.
Euphoria14
Member
Why would I stop? I'm not wrong.
So when you eat the cost and they appeal as they currently are, you're just going to continue eating more and more cost?
Good luck keeping that business going.
GAF has always had an outsized level of empathy for corporations. It's a consequence of being a forum centered around high cost consumer electronics where people cheer and jeer corporations as if they were close friends.
M0nochromatic
Member
Is that reasonable?
The real question is... how do you disincentivize scumbag lawyers from using tragedies as an excuse to seek money just because of mere coincedental association?
Victims families are kinda caught in the crossfire between lawyers here - forced to experience more hardship and suffering because of a rightful loss - a loss that they shouldn't have experienced but did, due to been misled by those lawyers as to the validity of their case.
... On the other hand, I guess it really depends on who initiated action. Maybe the families approached the lawyers and those same lawyers advised them against moving forwards - but they persisted anyway? In which case, it is still necessary to disincentivize frivolous lawsuits regardless of where it originated from.
Victims families are kinda caught in the crossfire between lawyers here - forced to experience more hardship and suffering because of a rightful loss - a loss that they shouldn't have experienced but did, due to been misled by those lawyers as to the validity of their case.
... On the other hand, I guess it really depends on who initiated action. Maybe the families approached the lawyers and those same lawyers advised them against moving forwards - but they persisted anyway? In which case, it is still necessary to disincentivize frivolous lawsuits regardless of where it originated from.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Why on Earth would you go there? There are so many great theaters 10-20 minutes away. The Southlands AMC theater, and the Harkins theater to name two.
Neuromancer
Member
I agree with the court's ruling that a theater should not be liable because a crazed gunman came in and shot people. The people's lawyers should have let them know in advance this was a possible outcome.
It's a shame the victims couldn't sue the parties that were actually at fault here: the gunman, the NRA, the legislators that refuse to pass any kind of common sense gun control, or the gun manufacturers.
It's a shame the victims couldn't sue the parties that were actually at fault here: the gunman, the NRA, the legislators that refuse to pass any kind of common sense gun control, or the gun manufacturers.
andythinkpad
Member
Because AMERICA that's why.
Nobody is empathizing with a corporation, they're just trying to understand their perspective in this and why this is happening.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
There's no way they're going to lose more than 700K in business because of this. Even the average slack-jaw can figure out the theater wasn't responsible for the shooting.
- Status