• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Koodo

Banned
Suing the cinema just seemed so... off, and deflecting the blame (even if partially) on anyone other than the person who opened fire just seems absurdly problematic.
 
Z

Zero315

Banned
jb1234 said:
Just came across this in the news and didn't see it mentioned here, so: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw
Click to expand...

Cinemark successfully defended against the victims’ arguments, telling the court the theater chain could not have predicted the mass shooting, and it wouldn’t have been able to stop Holmes, who threw gas canisters into the crowd of 400 people, opening fire with an assault rifle, a shotgun and a pistol.

During the trial, the judge had urged the survivors to take a settlement deal, which Marcus Weaver, who was shot in the shoulder, called a “slap in the face.”
But the judge also warned that if they rejected the settlement and lost, they’d be hit with the heavy legal costs.

“Either seek justice and go into debt, or take that pitiful offering of money and the improved public safety,” Weaver told the Times.

While the victims originally agreed to take the $150,000 settlement, a plaintiff who lost her child and was left paralyzed from the theater shooting rejected the deal.
Click to expand...

So they were offered a settlement, warned about what could happen if they rejected the settlement, and still rejected it anyway.

I'm sorry for their losses and what they went through... but they should've taken the settlement. The theater was in no way at fault for what happened.
 
L

Leona Lewis

Banned
While the victims originally agreed to take the $150,000 settlement, a plaintiff who lost her child and was left paralyzed from the theater shooting rejected the deal.
Click to expand...
Ouch. Lost out on that settlement money and now have to share that $700,000 judgment.

Nonetheless, the theater chain (rightfully) wins and looks like a callous asshole. But at least this doesn't set a precedent for individuals to sue businesses for the unpredictable, unpreventable actions of a homicidal psychopath.

There was no negligence here.
 
Y

Yaboosh

Super Sleuth
You think Cinemark actually goes after the money? Or will they settle for nothing just to stop the lawsuits and then look better with or?
 
I

ISOM

Member
Zero315 said:
So they were offered a settlement, warned about what could happen if they rejected the settlement, and still rejected it anyway.

I'm sorry for their losses and what they went through... but they should've taken the settlement. The theater was in no way at fault for what happened.
Click to expand...

It was one woman who rejected io probably being too greedy.
 
H

Hazmat

Member
HowZatOZ said:
Can you d tat in the US system? Just settle for $0 or something?
Click to expand...

If the plaintiffs drop their appeal on losing the first case then Cinemark can opt to not have them pay the $700k. The plaintiffs are not going to win at any level, and they'd be fools not to give up and not potentially financially ruin themselves.
 
Peotical Injection

Peotical Injection

Member
They were all warned that if they lost, which they most likely would, the would have to pay. I'm surprised Cinemark even offered them a settlement of 150k. I don't see how one psychopaths decision to shoot up a theater is Cinemarks fault. That shit could of happened anywhere. Then again it is pretty shitty that they will be going after the money owed to them, but it was also shitty that these people sued them.
 
R

rjinaz

Member
Peotical Injection said:
They were all warned that if they lost, which they most likely would, the would have to pay. I'm surprised Cinemark even offered them a settlement of 150k. I don't see how one psychopaths decision to shoot up a theater is Cinemarks fault. That shit could of happened anywhere. Then again it is pretty shitty that they will be going after the money owed to them, but it was also shitty that these people sued them.
Click to expand...

Better offer $150k than pay 700k in legal fees.

What a horrible situation all around. They were warned this could happen and should settle, but the one that seems to have lost the most refused and so now they all have to face the consequences.

Not sure really what would be the best scenario to play out at this point. Everybody loses.
 
G

golem

Member
rjinaz said:
What a horrible situation all around. They were warned this could happen and should settle, but the one that seems to have lost the most refused and so now they all have to face the consequences.
Click to expand...

The rest of the victims could have taken the settlement and not joined in the lawsuit against Cinemark, but they didnt.
 
R

rpg_fan

Member
Pretty ridiculous to sue the theatre, they had zero fault. But they wanted money and the theatre had some, so go forth and sue!

There can be consequences for frivolous law suits, and paying after a loss is one of them.
 
R

rjinaz

Member
golem said:
The rest of the victims could have taken the settlement and not joined in the lawsuit against Cinemark, but they didnt.
Click to expand...

Oh, it read like it was all or nothing. If that's the case, then I mean yeah, they made their choice, it sucks but they knew the consequences. Maybe Cinemark only asks them to pay 20 percent or something.
 
J

jstevenson

Sailor Stevenson
yeah this is more about Cinemark using leverage to end this and stop the appeal, rather than their real interest in getting 700k back.

The PR hit isn't worth 700k. But getting the appeal killed given how bad the damages be must've been seen as worth taking this PR hit
 
I

iamblades

Member
jstevenson said:
yeah this is more about Cinemark using leverage to end this and stop the appeal, rather than their real interest in getting 700k back.

The PR hit isn't worth 700k. But getting the appeal killed given how bad the damages be must've been seen as worth taking this PR hit
Click to expand...

This is assuming that Cinemark has any real choice though, which is they aren't self insured, is not likely.

And the appeal is not at all a worry in Cinemark's mind. There just is no case here, and there never will be, no matter how many appeals are filed.
 
S

StopMakingSense

Member
reptilescorpio said:
I know mass shootings in the US are prevalent but had no idea insurance companies actually pay out them.
Click to expand...

Most businesses carry a general liability insurance policy that acts as umbrella coverage for... whatever could happen (including liability from a mass shooting).

In this case it's a little different since from what I can gather from a little google-ing is that Cinemark was self-insured for this part of their coverage (they retained their own cash pool for claims), so they defended themselves in this case ( I might have gotten a bit of this wrong, it was a very cursory look ). Otherwise, in most cases, the defense would probably be handled by the insurance company refusing the claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[Wired] AI Is Already Taking Jobs in the Video Game Industry
2 3 4 5
224
12K
kevboard replied
Financial Times: How Brad Smith used Microsoft’s $1bn law and lobbying machine to win Activision battle
News Drama Business 2 3
127
11K
Topher replied
Ridley Scott interview - sharks in the colosseum, Maximus returning from the afterlife to kill Jesus Christ, asleep at the wheel for Prometheus
45
3K
dem replied
Overgrowth developer Wolfire Games files antitrust lawsuit against Valve
News Drama Cringe
4
2K
GHG replied
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is enslaving immigrants in private prisons
20
5K
Brandon F replied
Top Bottom