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
Cinemark is asking plaintiffs in Aurora shooting lawsuit for $700k
- Thread starter Malyse
- Start date
- Status
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
It's negative PR vs Continuing to accrue legal fees, or even lose the lawsuit, as the families continue rto appeal.
GrantDaNasty
Member
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?
QuantumZebra
Member
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.
Euphoria14
Member
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 $.
Because it's cheaper than both?
youbastards
Member
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?
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?
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.
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
Banned
They should have sued the gun manufacturers.
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.
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.
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
Banned
makes sense, but sounds like a terrible PR move.
Amory
Member
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
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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
Banned
This
So America has come this far? Wow
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
Banned
Didn't they have a legal team on retainer for 4 years?
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 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.
Isn't that why the original lawsuit was filed?
This is very likely.
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.
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
Member
they made $218 million last year
PeskyToaster
Member
What are the incomes of the families?
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Yeah, cause Cinemark is actually trying to take their money. Not what's happening here, bruh.
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
Banned
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.
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.
Again, the problem is that it wouldn't just be $700,000. The families are planning to appeal.
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.
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.
Oh, I gotcha. Well, then yeah the families just need to stop.
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
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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
Member
This has been pointed out a few times in this thread, people should pay more attention to it.
- Status