Support NeoGAF

[Ric Flair]

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.

The hot coffee woman is the most misunderstood court case of all time IMO. She had 3rd degree burns from the coffee, look up pictures . I remember thinking she was after money for the longest time too, she deserved every penny she got. Coffee should have not been nearly as hot as it was

 

[The Adder]

Lots of people keep mentioning a "PR hit", but honestly, you think the corporation didn't do analysis on the impact of negative PR (which a lot of the time has little financial impact) vs. getting their legal fees back?

It's negative PR vs Continuing to accrue legal fees, or even lose the lawsuit, as the families continue rto appeal.

 

[GrantDaNasty]

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.

You can still have a reasonable discussion about responsibility and where blame lies, even if it involves a corporation (an organization comprised of humans that are also worthy of some empathy).

Let's not pretend money comes out of thin air when you're a company all of a sudden. What happened was an absolute tragedy, and I DO feel for all those who suffered, either directly or as friends & relatives of the victims, but why not target the gun manufacturer, or the state, or the police force while they're at it?

 

[.la1n]

I expected to come in here upset at the theater but after reading through it all I don't honestly see an issue with it. They chose to sue someone that obviously had nothing to do with what happened. This is what you get when you get lawsuit happy.

 

[Xe4]

That's bad PR on their part, but they are in their rights to do it. The families shouldn't have sued.

Sue the gun manufacturer or gun store who sold him the weapon, cause although you may not have a case, they're more liable than the damn theater.

 

[QuantumZebra]

Short sighted idiots. The PR alone is going to kill their businesses.

This.

Also amazed at people defending the Cinema.

Security should be tight on movie openings and big events (which this was).

At Cinemas here in Atlanta during a big event there's always multiple cops and security.

 

[Amory]

lol this is going to end up fucking them so bad with negative PR

eat the legal fees

 

[Euphoria14]

lol this is going to end up fucking them so bad with negative PR

eat the legal fees

Families are planning to continue the law suit even if Cinemark eats those costs.

So if they eat the cost now they will continue to get hundreds of thousands more in cost later, all while the families pay nothing.

Rinse and repeat until the families give up or win big $.

 

[HiiiLife]

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.

Because it's cheaper than both?

 

[youbastards]

I get that it is a grey area, and that nobody expects metal detectors at a movie theater, but didn't the shooter come into the theater from one of the emergency exits located near the actual screen? Shouldn't the theater be liable for making sure that the exits were secure and/or working between each viewing? Certainly "emergency" exits should be connected to an alarm, even if silent, to notify management that it has been triggered.

These emergency exits usually only open one way, so the shooter had to prop the door open so he could come back in at a later time without the door locking behind him.

If the emergency exits failed to open or were locked during an emergency, the theater would be liable, right?

 

[pj]

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..

You don't know this. In fact, I guarantee this multi-billion dollar company spent a lot of time doing the math on the potential revenue impact of what they're doing. Since they decided to go forward with it, you can probably guess where the numbers ended up.

 

[commedieu]

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.

You've already made up your mind they are money hungry moochers. And you've responded to me with that asinine prejudice. That's the stop. I didn't suggest anything you said, and explained my perspective.

I said it's not a case of some frivolous bullshit. Which is why quoted the judges decision to allow it while striking down parts of their suit.

 

[DragonSworne]

They should have sued the gun manufacturers.

 

[TS-08]

I really think more people should read through the thread to see the likely reason the theater is seeking these fees. I'm not saying it has to change your mind, but it should at least stop the "They should just eat the fees" or "Why don't they just walk away?" posts.

Edit - I will say, people should stop saying the suit is frivolous. If it got to a jury, it survived any potential legal challenges at the trial level.

 

[Draft]

It's too bad they can't seek fees from the lawyers that rounded up the victims and convinced them that suing Cinemark was the right thing to do.

 

[Xe4]

Families are planning to continue the law suit even if Cinemark eats those costs.

So if they eat the cost now they will continue to get hundreds of thousands more in cost later, all while the families pay nothing.

Rinse and repeat until the families give up or win big $.

Also this. I'm sure this is a barging chip to get the families to drop the suit.

Cinemark is a big company but it's really bad to have to shell out potentially millions of dollars to deal with a case that is so obviously not their fault.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

makes sense, but sounds like a terrible PR move.

 

[Vilam]

Bad look for Cinemark, but why were they going after the theater in the first place? Poor choices all around.

 

[Amory]

Families are planning to continue the law suit even if Cinemark eats those costs.

So if they eat the cost now they will continue to get hundreds of thousands more in cost later, all while the families pay nothing.

Rinse and repeat until the families give up or win big $.

how are the victims going to sue until they win? legally, how can they do that?

and even if that were the case, I'd probably try to settle. whether they're right or wrong to counter sue, they'll get murdered in the media for it and end up losing a ton of business

 

[Breads]

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?

My reaction was for the way Cinemark handled the situation and I stand by the fact that they could have just taken the their win and ran with it without trying to recoup the costs from the victims of a mass shooting. I don't care if this is within their right or if the people who brought the suit on appeals. They could have taken the hit and save themselves from the PR backlash.

Instead they took a risk on the backlash and I am reacting to what they did in kind. As is my right as a consumer. Disagree if you must but don't speak for me or who I chose to give my business to.

 

[Euphoria14]

You've already made up your mind they are money hungry moochers. And you've responded to me with that asinine prejudice. That's the stop. I didn't suggest anything you said, and explained my perspective.

I said it's not a case of some frivolous bullshit. Which is why quoted the judges decision to allow it while striking down parts of their suit.

Yes, that's exactly where my mind is.

If someone doesn't agree with you they or their thoughts on the matter are asanine.


Good day.

 

[Euphoria14]

how are the victims going to sue until they win? legally, how can they do that?

and even if that were the case, I'd probably try to settle. whether they're right or wrong to counter sue, they'll get murdered in the media for it and end up losing a ton of business

They have already stated they are going to appeal.

This move by Cinemark is likely a ploy to get them to drop the suit. If they do so they probably won't go after the legal fees.

 

[pj]

they'll get murdered in the media for it and end up losing a ton of business

People say this like it is a fact. Are there examples of this happening?

Do you think a giant corporation wouldn't consider that before asking for money from the families of murder victims?

People have very short memories, I don't think this will affect them at all in the long run. Except maybe in a 20 mile radius around where the tragedy actually happened.

 

[commedieu]

Yes, that's exactly where my mind is.

If someone doesn't agree with you they or their thoughts on the matter are asanine.


Good day.

It's simple. They want free money.

Cheers.

 

[HeySeuss]

Weird. It's for that very reason that most substantial civil cases get settled out of court. Often times the legal fees are more than what the entire suit is for to begin with.

There must have been some outlandish accusations or the families just would not budge in order to settle for a lower figure. This kind of thing just doesn't normally happen.

Definitely more to this story than just the surface of the cinema being pricks.

 

[PeskyToaster]

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.

The hot coffee woman is the most misunderstood court case of all time IMO. She had 3rd degree burns from the coffee, look up pictures . I remember thinking she was after money for the longest time too, she deserved every penny she got. Coffee should have not been nearly as hot as it was

I just read the Wikipedia and it said the coffee is served at 180 to 190 F a number within the standard serving temperature of coffee and also close to what Starbucks serves coffee at. Maybe on the hot side at 190 but not out of the norm. It really doesn't matter though since it was just an example.

 

[Euphoria14]

Cheers.

Cinemark is found unanimously not guilty and families plan to appeal.

So how should it be viewed as of now?


Also post I responded to had conversation prior. I took his question as to why the family plans to continue to pursue the lawsuit even after losing unanimously.

He seems to have not realized the lawsuit was planned to continue after the lose. He was in the "just pay it" camp before realizing that.

I might be wrong.

 

[elrechazado]

Why is this bad? Cinemark gets sued and a jury finds them unanimously not to be at fault. Now all they seek are attorney's fees for having to defend the suit? Seems reasonable to me.

This

 

[Triz]

People looking for a payday trying to cash in on the death of their loved ones...I don't think Cinemark is in the wrong here.

 

[Strictly]

This.

Also amazed at people defending the Cinema.

Security should be tight on movie openings and big events (which this was).

At Cinemas here in Atlanta during a big event there's always multiple cops and security.

So America has come this far? Wow

 

[Xe4]

Weird. It's for that very reason that most substantial civil cases get settled out of court. Often times the legal fees are more than what the entire suit is for to begin with.

There must have been some outlandish accusations or the families just would not budge in order to settle for a lower figure. This kind of thing just doesn't normally happen.

Definitely more to this story than just the surface of the cinema being pricks.

To be honest I think Cinemark would gladly pay $500,000 (or even $1,000,000) to keep this from going to court. Shit, it would've saved them money by now. They knew this of course, as they have damn good accountants.

On the other hand, it's weird that the families wouldn't settle for a fiure like that, considering it's about $10,000 per family once you take into consideration the legal fees.

It does seem weird that this wasn't settled out of court. Likely some scumbag lawyer saw the $$ and couldn't help himslelf.

 

[Sheriff_Battlesnake]

Lawsuit was a stupid idea, but this is on a completely different level of dumbness.

Didn't they have a legal team on retainer for 4 years?

 

[Tzeentch]

I doubt Cinemark could just write off nearly a million dollars and not suffer serious issues. We're not talking about a giant megacorporation here.

And the PR hit will just be forgotten in a few days or blend in with every other sensationalist headline.

 

[Syriel]

Just because it's legal doesn't make it reasonable.

You could say the ame about the original lawsuit. In the US you can sue anyone for anything. Defending a lawsuit, even one with no basis, costs money. This is why you often see company settlements for small claims. It is usually cheaper to settle than to fight an unfounded claim.

This is like a company CEO having his car scratched by a toddler and then public ally suing the toddler for damages. Whatever is going to be gained in court is going to be lost in public image.

This is more like a toddler scratching the car and then the family suing the CEO for having the card parked in the street. When the family loses, the court tells them to pay the CEO's costs to defend the lawsuit.

But uh, Rah-Rah capitalism and lawsuits.

Isn't that why the original lawsuit was filed?

I would hazard a guess that cinemark is planning to withdraw this request in exchange for the plaintiffs' agreement not to appeal.

This is very likely.

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.

Families sue Cinemark

Families lose lawsuit

Families need to pay legal fees.

That actually seems pretty standard, no? If someone sues me and they lose, why should I incur all those legal fees?

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.

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.

These posts sum it up well. There is no real barrier to filing a lawsuit in the US. And defending a suit can cost a lot of money. Different courts have different rules, but it is not uncommon for a losing side to saddled with legal fees in order to make the defendant whole.

"Time to sue the families of shooting victims!"

Abhorrent. I know I'll never go to a Cinemark theater again.

Please read the OP. Cinemark didn't sue the families of the victims.

Families of the victims sued Cinemark even though Cinemark didn't have liability. Thus the court is telling those who did the suing to reimburse Cinemark for its costs in defending the lawsuit.

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.

It's not reasonable. If there is negligence, sure. But just suing because you're upset is one of the issues with the US legal system. Why should you be able to rack up a massive bill for someone else just because you're upset?

And don't kid yourself. If the families had won the lawsuit and Cinemark had actual liability, the families would have been asking Cinemark to pay for their legal fees as well as any damages from the case.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

I doubt Cinemark could just write off nearly a million dollars and not suffer serious issues. We're not talking about a giant megacorporation here.

And the PR hit will just be forgotten in a few days or blend in with every other sensationalist headline.

they made $218 million last year

 

[PeskyToaster]

What are the incomes of the families?

 

[Aselith]

It's distasteful to go after the families of victims but it was also kind of messed up to go after the theater for incident like it was their fault. At the same time, they're a big theatre chain and it's $700k just write it off, guys.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

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?

Yeah, cause Cinemark is actually trying to take their money. Not what's happening here, bruh.

It's distasteful to go after the families of victims but it was also kind of messed up to go after the theater for incident like it was their fault. At the same time, they're a big theatre chain and it's $700k just write it off, guys.

The families keep trying, this way is to tell them to stop or else pay our lawyers. The families will never win but if people keep saying, "just let it slide" they can keep trying until they finally get money. It's awesome to be empathetic but at a point they're playing a stupid game with the courts.

 

[User 479360]

The PR from this is not going to be pleasant.

If the families went after the theatre, then a bit of the onus is kind of on them. But it's distasteful for the theatre to ask publicly.

All around horrible.

 

[The Adder]

It's distasteful to go after the families of victims but it was also kind of messed up to go after the theater for incident like it was their fault. At the same time, they're a big theatre chain and it's $700k just write it off, guys.

Again, the problem is that it wouldn't just be $700,000. The families are planning to appeal.

 

[rtcn63]

I'm guessing if they let the whole thing slide, it would just open the door to others suing them for frivolous lawsuits.

 

[Pizoxuat]

It is very easy to see how a lawyer could convince grieving families that Cinemark was partially at fault in this case. The theater did have armed guards on certain days, a demonstration that they knew violent crime could (and had in the past) occur there.

Of course, having armed guards that night might not have helped that night. But you can see how lawyers smelling money could pitch their case to the families that they theater knew better and should have protected their loved ones.

It's sad.

 

[Aselith]

Again, the problem is that it wouldn't just be $700,000. The families are planning to appeal.

Oh, I gotcha. Well, then yeah the families just need to stop.

 

[Nephtis]

I'm guessing if they let the whole thing slide, it would just open the door to others suing them for frivolous lawsuits.

Correct. What I hope they'll plan is to have the families release a statement saying how wrong they were to sue Cinemark and apologize, in exchange the theater chain may forgive the attorney fees.

It's the only spin that I can think of where the they send a strong message and still save face.

 

[Ayato Kanzaki]

I think Cinemark was right in this one.
They are in the best position to see if the PR cost really is going to exceed 700k. From the reactions in this thread, a lot think it was a bad decision from a financial POV, but there's very little actual outrage, so there won't be signifiant boycott.

Additionnally, they may be trying to set a precedent to scare off future potential lawsuits, and that is worth a lot of bad PR.

 

[RibMan]

I'm guessing if they let the whole thing slide, it would just open the door to others suing them for frivolous lawsuits.

Yuuuuuup. I think they knew the PR hit they would take from this and said "If we don't utilize fear of retaliation then there will be more".

 

[andythinkpad]

It's too bad they can't seek fees from the lawyers that rounded up the victims and convinced them that suing Cinemark was the right thing to do.

You mean to tell adult humen over age of 18 can not use their brains to decide it was not the cinema's fault?

 

[Aselith]

You mean to tell adult humen over age of 18 can not use their brains to decide it was not the cinema's fault?

People are much more pliable when they are out of their minds with grief over the loss of their child or children. Some scumbags are more than happy to use that as leverage.

 

[Paz]

My reaction was for the way Cinemark handled the situation and I stand by the fact that they could have just taken the their win and ran with it without trying to recoup the costs from the victims of a mass shooting. I don't care if this is within their right or if the people who brought the suit on appeals. They could have taken the hit and save themselves from the PR backlash.

Instead they took a risk on the backlash and I am reacting to what they did in kind. As is my right as a consumer. Disagree if you must but don't speak for me or who I chose to give my business to.

They didn't 'win' because it's not over, they are still being sued by the families who have publicly stated through their lawyers that they intend to appeal. Do you want the cinema to bear the costs of successfully defending itself indefinitely because the people suing them went through a horrendous experience?

The most likely scenario is the cinema would drop their claim if the families dropped theirs, but until the families stop suing them nobody knows. If the families choose to keep suing them it will only increase the eventual lawyers costs they have to pay.

How is this not sinking in? Nobody is speaking for you, but you're clearly making a decision without understanding the situation you're so angry about.

 

[WascallyWabbit]

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.

This has been pointed out a few times in this thread, people should pay more attention to it.