Uninjured man first in line for Batman shooting lawsuit

[Vinyl Turnip]

Torrence Brown, Jr., who was in the theater during the shooting but escaped uninjured (while his friend was shot and killed), is suing Holmes' doctor, the theater, and Warner Brothers because he was emotionally traumatized and they're all apparently at fault somehow.

Assuming this article (http://www.christianpost.com/news/james-holmes-lawsuit-man-blames-theater-doctors-and-warner-bros-for-shootings-78760/) is correct, Jesus Christ, what a fucking tool. Please tell me there's no chance this douchebag sees a dime from this.

[Maastricht]

Did anyone sue the school after the Columbine shootings?

[Typo Negative]

"Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today," Karpel said according to TMZ.
Yes. The one responsible is the public that eats it up with a spoon. He should sue, as a representative of said people, one Torrence Brown, Jr.

If people like him didn't keep plunking the money down, WB would do someone else.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

What a tool. Talk about being insensitive to the victims and their families!

I do agree with one thing though: the emergency exit door should be equipped with a loud alarm. According to the article, they are claiming it wasn't.

IIRC Holmes propped open the emergency exit door from the inside after buying a ticket in order to let himself back in later is that correct? I'm pretty sure those kinds of doors are always locked from the outside. Had the door had an alarm, somebody would have shut that door after noticing it was propped open before Holmes could re-enter. Unless the alarm was disabled by the shooter.

[BubbaDog]

I can't hate this guy.

If somebody came into a theater and shot up the place and I watched my best friend take one in the chest and die I might also be inclined to be pissed off at a number of people or institutions for what I believe was their failures.

From his point of view -
He went to enjoy toy time.
He had some reasonable expectation of security.
The theater's security features were easily bypassed.
The program itself had elements of surprise and violence in it so witnesses were first somewhat confused as to exactly what they were seeing.
His best buddy was brutally murdered and he witnessed it.

I don't think that the guy is a scumbag opportunist. I just think his rage may be unfocused and a little out of control.

[BubbaDog]

What a tool. Talk about being insensitive to the victims and their families! [snip]



How do you not include this guy as a victim?

[Miller]

I do agree with one thing though: the emergency exit door should be equipped with a loud alarm. According to the article, they are claiming it wasn't.

IIRC Holmes propped open the emergency exit door from the inside after buying a ticket in order to let himself back in later is that correct? I'm pretty sure those kinds of doors are always locked from the outside. Had the door had an alarm, somebody would have shut that door after noticing it was propped open before Holmes could re-enter. Unless the alarm was disabled by the shooter.

I don't know that I've ever been in a movie theater where the exits were alarmed. In most of them, the "emergency" exits are propped open by the theater staff when the credits start rolling, to encourage patrons to exit directly to the parking lot, instead of crowding up the lobby while other people are buying tickets for the next show. In other words, they're not emergency exits at all. They're just exits.

[Vinyl Turnip]

I can't hate this guy.


It's okay. You know all those times when you look back and only see one set of footprints? That's when I was hating for you.

I'm sure it was traumatic for everyone there. If you honestly don't see this as a cash-grab, though, you have a much more gentle perspective on human nature than I ever will.

[Ethilrist]

I'm trying to figure out why the lawyer isn't going for a class action suit...

[Chimera]

He had some reasonable expectation of security.
The theater's security features were easily bypassed.

Oh fuck this entire line of reasoning with a nail studded 2x4.

We as a society are not going to pay to post guards at every motherfucking door on the planet, nor would that necessarily have stopped him. He'd have just shot the guard.

And seriously, WTF? Who believes that back exits of theaters actually need guards or that the theater bears any responsibility because there wasn't one?

Morons, that's who.

[Alice The Goon]

I have all the sympathy and empathy in the world for every single person in that theater and their families, friends, neighbors, employers, ex-girlfriends' nephews' wives, etc. But to me, this looks like a case of "Wah! My mother told me I was special, and I should never feel any pain or suffer at all! Somebody pay me!" Tragedies happen. You shouldn't get rich just because you were present.

[mhendo]

He had some reasonable expectation of security.
The theater's security features were easily bypassed.
To be honest, i don't expect that the vast majority of places that i visit in the course of a typical week will be secure against a maniac toting smoke bombs and multiple weapons.

If someone wanted to storm my YMCA and shoot people up, he could do it very easily. The local Whole Foods and Vons would be very easy targets for a gun-wielding maniac. The university where i work is easy to access, and anyone can drive onto the campus and walk around without any problem.

The fact is, we just have to hope that incidents like this remain rare, and hope also that it doesn't happen to us. There is no way to be 100% secure all the time, and if there were it would probably make life miserable anyway.

Do you really want to live in a society where you have to go through metal detectors to watch a movie?

[HansGrosse]

As someone who has gone through the grieving process multiple times and understands that everyone reacts differently to death...

I see this as a really disrespectful, selfish money-grab. Jesus fucking christ. Way to try to profit from your friend's death.

[Inner Stickler]

At this point, I'd be satisfied with a society that doesn't spell reminiscent remnant.

[billfish678]

But his friend was one Dewey Cheatem Howe.

He would have wanted it this way.

[suranyi]

What a tool. Talk about being insensitive to the victims and their families!

I do agree with one thing though: the emergency exit door should be equipped with a loud alarm. According to the article, they are claiming it wasn't.

IIRC Holmes propped open the emergency exit door from the inside after buying a ticket in order to let himself back in later is that correct? I'm pretty sure those kinds of doors are always locked from the outside. Had the door had an alarm, somebody would have shut that door after noticing it was propped open before Holmes could re-enter. Unless the alarm was disabled by the shooter.

I disagree: There's no reason for this emergency door to be alarmed, and indeed emergency doors at theaters are rarely alarmed.

There are two reasons why emergency doors are sometimes alarmed: First, if the door would allow a shoplifter to bypass the normal exit. Second if the exit route takes the escapee through an area normally off limits to him, for example a secured area of an airport. Neither apply in this case.

The plaintiff seems to think that there's a general need to know whenever an emergency door is opened. That's not true.

[Buck Godot]

I probably hate his lawyer more than I hate him. I am imagining that the guy is actually suffering real life trauma, (as are the vast majority of the patrons that night) sought out legal representation to see if he was due any compensation. He ended up with a lawyer with dollar signs for eyes who decided to fling law suits at anyone and everyone just to see what would stick.

[Omar Little]

I would pit the opportunist attorney that likely latched onto him and saw a big settlement fee.

[olivesmarch4th]

Yeah, I think this guy is a douchenozzle. There is no way that a movie theater or Warner Bros. could reasonably anticipate an attack like that. I'm sorry if he is grieving and maybe - just maybe - this is his way of trying to control the event. But horrible shit just happens, for no reason at all, or for many reasons, and the blame really lies on no-one but the shooter.

[Carmady]

I do agree with one thing though: the emergency exit door should be equipped with a loud alarm.


If the door said "Emergency Exit Only, Alarm Will Sound" and there was no alarm then I would agree with you.

If, on the other hand, it was simply used as another exit from the theater and there was no requirement for a dedicated "Emergency Exit Only" at all (as I believe to be the case), then I strongly disagree with you.

[Typo Negative]

I wonder what the theater's duty was from a legal standpoint. What did they have a duty to do?

I mean, since this thing has never happened in a theater before, how were they negligent in preventing it from happening the 1st time?

Surely it would be possible to have alarmed exit doors, but those may be pricey. Also, they may generate a lot of complaints from irritated moviegoers every time some moron goes through them who doesn't know or doesn't care that an alarm will sound loud enough for all to hear.

[PunditLisa]

A friend of mine lost her son and 2 of his friends when the car one of them was driving* ran a stop sign and into the path of a semi. The only surviver later sued the other 3 families for payment of his medical bills and emotional trauma.

*Two witnesses at the last bar they were at claimed it was the kid who survived who got behind the wheel. He denied being the driver despite claiming to have no memory of the accident at all. The interior of the car was so contaminated with all of their bodily fluids that forensic testing could not pinpoint who was driving. As a result, the surviver sued everyone.

Her insurance agent explained to her that he'd have done the same thing had her son surivived, and it was SOP, but it didn't make it any easier on her when she got the papers in the mail.

[Typo Negative]

A friend of mine lost her son and 2 of his friends when the car one of them was driving* ran a stop sign and into the path of a semi. The only surviver later sued the other 3 families for payment of his medical bills and emotional trauma.

*Two witnesses at the last bar they were at claimed it was the kid who survived who got behind the wheel. He denied being the driver despite claiming to have no memory of the accident at all. The interior of the car was so contaminated with all of their bodily fluids that forensic testing could not pinpoint who was driving. As a result, the surviver sued everyone.

Her insurance agent explained to her that he'd have done the same thing had her son surivived, and it was SOP, but it didn't make it any easier on her when she got the papers in the mail.Does that mean if they collect an award, your friend could then sue them for it since there is evidence (2 eyewitnesses) that HE was one driving?

[Blaster Master]

That this guy wasn't injured doesn't mean he's not a victim; everyone in that theater is a victim. Hell, you even say his friend was shot and killed. His suing here is definitely overboard.

I don't know see how anyone could think that Warner Bros. could have done anything to prevent the shooting, the guy probably picked DKR simply because he knew the theater would be full and just would have picked another movie if DKR never existed.

Similarly, sure, the theater doesn't have the doors alarmed, but I've never seen alarmed doors at a theater. In the overwhelming majority of cases, as in every case except for this one, the doors are openned because people are leaving, someone is sneaking in, or there's some other reason to evacuate which would be compelling on it's own, like a fire. The last thing we need is security at a movie theater. Let's drive up ticket and concession prices even more because of one nutjob who probably would have shot up any guards anyway.

Holmes' doctor may or may not have some liability if he had reason to suspect he was unbalanced enough to do something like that and didn't do something about it, but that's extremely difficult to prove.

Either way, it's hard to be upset at him for suing people. Sure, he might be taking advantage of the situation to make a quick buck, but I can also understand him being traumatized and wanting to blame people, not really thinking it through, and his lawyer just encouraging him to file suits against everyone he could tenuously connect to it. Hell, his lawyer probably figures WB will settle anyway, as most companies of that size usually do since it's generally cheaper to just through some money at the complaint than to go to court to prove their innocence. So if you're going to be upset at anyone, pit the lawyer who is more interested in the money and either encouraged him or at least didn't do enough to discourage him from filing ridiculous suits.

[Loach]

I can't hate this guy.

I can.

I can see he would be traumatized. I can even see him filing a lawsuit although I don't really see the theater having any responsibility. But there is no legal reason why it had to be filed before all the bodies were buried.

[Chimera]

I hereby claim that I am traumatized by his filing suit. Any lawyers on the board want to take that case?

[BubbaDog]

Oh fuck this entire line of reasoning with a nail studded 2x4.

I like the way you trimmed my quote and tried to make it look like it was MY line of reasoning instead of my guess as to the plaintiff's state of mine.

We as a society are not going to pay to post guards at every motherfucking door on the planet, nor would that necessarily have stopped him. He'd have just shot the guard.
Congratulations. You've somehow managed to grasp the obvious.


And seriously, WTF? Who believes that back exits of theaters actually need guards or that the theater bears any responsibility because there wasn't one?

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the guy traumatized after seeing his buddies chest explode next to him right after some gun firing shithead came through said doors.

Morons, that's who. Congrat's again! You just called one of the Denver victims a moron. It must be so wonderful to have your enormous head and be capable of being so superior to a traumatized victim.

I don't think I disagree with many others in this thread (although I feel pretty bad about any sort of alignment with a shithead such as you). I think the plaintiff is acting way too soon. So soon that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as to whether he's acting out of rage and anger instead of greed.

If you guys want to truss up his lawyer over pile of lumber though, I'll bring the marshmallows

[Chimera]

Congrat's again! You just called one of the Denver victims a moron. It must be so wonderful to have your enormous head and be capable of being so superior to a traumatized victim.

No shit? I called the guy a moron and disagreed with his (as narrated by YOU) logic? And for this you call ME a shithead and a bad guy for insulting him?

Are you really that terminally stupid? Wait, don't answer. I think I can figure that one out based on your post.

[BubbaDog]

No shit? I called the guy a moron and disagreed with his (as narrated by YOU) logic? And for this you call ME a shithead and a bad guy for insulting him?

Are you really that terminally stupid? Wait, don't answer. I think I can figure that one out based on your post.

Actually I was going by the size of your enormous forehead. Just a guess that it was full of shit.

And sorry about my stupidity. I made an assumption that the guy thought the theater bore some responsibility because, well, the guy has filed a lawsuit against the theater. I know. It's my day to use crazy logic.

[cmosdes]

I do agree with one thing though: the emergency exit door should be equipped with a loud alarm.If the door said "Emergency Exit Only, Alarm Will Sound" and there was no alarm then I would agree with you.Why? As was said earlier, doors are alarmed for either security or the benefit of the proprietor. The proprietor is under no obligation to actually alarm the door if all they want to do is keep people from using it. An emergency exit exists at the requirement of the fire department. If a proprietor wants to keep people from using it as a normal exit and doesn't want to monitor it, there are ways to accomplish that. One way is to actually alarm it. Another is to warn people there is an alarm and hopefully that will keep them from misusing it. It might not be worth the time and hassle to respond to an alarm, not to mention the annoyance it might cause other customers.

If a store hangs a sign that says they will prosecute shoplifters to the full extent of the law, do you think that requires them, legally, to do so?

[Carmady]

If a store hangs a sign that says they will prosecute shoplifters to the full extent of the law, do you think that requires them, legally, to do so?


What I said was that an exit door labeled "Emergency Exit Only, Alarm Will Sound" should, in fact, have an alarm.

For example, suppose parents lose a child in the theater. One of them goes to the interior exit to make sure the child doesn't leave, and the other starts looking around the theater itself. Since the exterior exit says it has an alarm, they don't believe the child could have left there.

So my opinion is that the "Alarm Will Sound" sign should not be used just to scare people. I make no claim about the legal requirement.

[urban1a]

What a tool. Talk about being insensitive to the victims and their families!

I do agree with one thing though: the emergency exit door should be equipped with a loud alarm. According to the article, they are claiming it wasn't.

IIRC Holmes propped open the emergency exit door from the inside after buying a ticket in order to let himself back in later is that correct? I'm pretty sure those kinds of doors are always locked from the outside. Had the door had an alarm, somebody would have shut that door after noticing it was propped open before Holmes could re-enter. Unless the alarm was disabled by the shooter.

I've been to that theater and the exits are marked as that; 'Exit'. Going out of those doors leads to the parking lots and you avoid the crowd shoving through the lobby (although you miss the bathrooms that way).

Bob

[PlainJain]

I love this quote from the linked article:

"A.J. Boik, Brown's alleged best friend..."

[Enkel]

I'm with the folks who say this sounds like an attorney trying to cash in. I believe the attorney filed the suit because the attorney wanted to get himself into a position of representing the victim before WB reached out to them with an offer. Now, the attorney will get a cut of what ever goes down, be it an offer from WB or a class action suit.

[IntelliQ]

I hope the judge who gets this case rips the lawyer a new bunghole.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I've been to that theater and the exits are marked as that; 'Exit'. Going out of those doors leads to the parking lots and you avoid the crowd shoving through the lobby (although you miss the bathrooms that way).

Bob

Ah. I guess I've been going to the same theater for so long that I assumed most were like mine. Nobody exits the theater from the emergency exit doors, which is how ours are labelled. Everyone goes down the side staircases and out the main entrance doors to the theater and out into the parking lot through the lobby.

So...I retract what I said about the exit doors, which are, in fact, just regular exit doors.

[ralph124c]

I'm thinking of filing a lawsuit..I'm so traumatized, I can't bring myself to open my BATMAN comic book!
Are there any class action lawsuits underway?

[Cicero]

I hope he is sentenced to watching Bambi and the Sound of Music for the rest of his life.

[BigT]

The plaintiff seems to think that there's a general need to know whenever an emergency door is opened. That's not true.

When it's directly in the theater, there is. All it takes is for you to prop the door open, and then you can let in several friends. It's the same shoplifting idea.

Also, I can't remember ever seeing an emergency exit without an alarm. You've just left because of an emergency. You need to warn everyone. These things exist to get out of the building during a fire or similar, not because you need get out to the parking lot a little quicker.

You guys are making me feel dirty for having to side with the guy. But, if this is the way people think, then, yes, someone needs to sue. Even if he doesn't win, maybe they'll rethink the stupidity of having easy direct access into a freaking theater.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

When it's directly in the theater, there is. All it takes is for you to prop the door open, and then you can let in several friends. It's the same shoplifting idea.

Also, I can't remember ever seeing an emergency exit without an alarm. You've just left because of an emergency. You need to warn everyone. These things exist to get out of the building during a fire or similar, not because you need get out to the parking lot a little quicker.

You guys are making me feel dirty for having to side with the guy. But, if this is the way people think, then, yes, someone needs to sue. Even if he doesn't win, maybe they'll rethink the stupidity of having easy direct access into a freaking theater.

Except its been pointed out a few times now that those weren't emergency doors...they were normal exit doors that people would regularly use to exit the movie theater.

[Loach]

Except its been pointed out a few times now that those weren't emergency doors...they were normal exit doors that people would regularly use to exit the movie theater.

Even if they were, movie theaters don't have gunman proof doors.

[billfish678]

I think the lawyer should be going after Clairol because it is obvious to me that dyeing his hair orange is what finally sent him over the edge.

[Morgenstern]

Did the theater have an obligation to provide a safe environment for the viewing audience?
Did the theater breach that obligation?
Was the plaintiff damaged by the defendants breach of that obligation?


There's grounds for the Lawsuit.


During the course of the lawsuit you can examine whether the events of that early morning were reasonably foreseeable, and the extent and costs of providing those preventive measures would have been likely to prevent the harm the plaintiff suffered.

Will this defendant recover? Was the theater obligated to provide a safe environment? Damn right on both accounts. He might well recover, the amount will depending on how well his attorney proves damages, and the degree to which the theater is found negligent.

Same applies to his doctor, and Warner Brothers. This assumes Colorado law doesn't prohibit suing any of these entities.

[olivesmarch4th]

Will this defendant recover? Was the theater obligated to provide a safe environment? Damn right on both accounts.
Really? The theater was obligated to provide protection from gun-wielding maniacs? What part of, ''we live in a random, fucked up, arbitrarily horrible world'' do people not understand? There is no guarantee of safety anywhere, ever.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Did the theater have an obligation to provide a safe environment for the viewing audience?

Safe from what? If a meteor hits and kills my friend, can I sue them for not having a strong enough roof? Who determines what level of safety is needed for each particular kind of establishment or structure we might enter?

Personally, I would put movie theaters into the class of "soft targets"... easily penetrated by terrorists, gang members and other evil-doers. No one should expect a movie theater to have facilities that can offer protection from somebody with murderous intent.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Same applies to his doctor, and Warner Brothers. This assumes Colorado law doesn't prohibit suing any of these entities.

Including Warner Brothers in the suit strikes me as the least defensible aspect of the lawsuit, so I'd be interested to hear you defend it.

According to the linked article, Brown states that some of Holmes actions are "remnant[sic] of some of the film's more graphic and violent scenes." First of all, nobody including Holmes had ever seen the movie before, and he certainly hadn't seen it yet when he was stockpiling weapons and armor and penning a note to his shrink detailing what he planned to do. Second, why should the producers of any movie be held liable for someone imitating what they saw (or in this case, expected to see)? Should Steven Spielberg be held responsible if someone decides to mow down a bunch of Germans on a beach with a machine gun?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Even if they were, movie theaters don't have gunman proof doors.

Yeah. But the point I was trying to make in all of this is that even though they weren't emergency doors, I bet they were the type that are locked from the outside. Crazy SOB had to buy a ticket so he could prop the door open from the inside in order to be able to get back in from the outside later. Had that been an alarmed emergency door, someone presumably would have been like "WTF?" and shut the door due to the blaring alarm. Of course, crazy SOB could have just stormed in through the main entrance at that point, but at least his spree wouldn't have been conducted from within the confines of a crowded theater.

And its all speculation at this point anyway.

[Cicero]

Including Warner Brothers in the suit strikes me as the least defensible aspect of the lawsuit, so I'd be interested to hear you defend it.

According to the linked article, Brown states that some of Holmes actions are "remnant[sic] of some of the film's more graphic and violent scenes." First of all, nobody including Holmes had ever seen the movie before, and he certainly hadn't seen it yet when he was stockpiling weapons and armor and penning a note to his shrink detailing what he planned to do. Second, why should the producers of any movie be held liable for someone imitating what they saw (or in this case, expected to see)? Should Steven Spielberg be held responsible if someone decides to mow down a bunch of Germans on a beach with a machine gun?

I'd have to agree. I have seen Garbo star as Mata Hari and I have no desire to run out and become a spy. I have seen Cabaret and I have no desire to become a stage performer....yadda yadda.

I've been thinking of the legal action and it strikes me that either this guy has the cash cow mentality or he is really ill- in which case this ambulance chaser of an attorney should just fuck off.

[Morgenstern]

Really? The theater was obligated to provide protection from gun-wielding maniacs? What part of, ''we live in a random, fucked up, arbitrarily horrible world'' do people not understand? There is no guarantee of safety anywhere, ever.

You're confusing "guaranty" of safety with an obligation to provide a safe viewing environment. Society doesn't expect a guaranty, but they do expect safety. Why do they put fire sprinklers in schools? Why do you have an airbag in your car? None of those are a guaranty, but a reasonable effort to provide a safe environment.

That's a question that the jury will have to decide after the attorney presents his theory of why they breached their obligation to provide a safe environment.

None of that diminishes the ability of the plaintiff to file his suit, it only reflects on the outcome and potential damages he might be awarded.

[Morgenstern]

Including Warner Brothers in the suit strikes me as the least defensible aspect of the lawsuit, so I'd be interested to hear you defend it.

According to the linked article, Brown states that some of Holmes actions are "remnant[sic] of some of the film's more graphic and violent scenes." First of all, nobody including Holmes had ever seen the movie before, and he certainly hadn't seen it yet when he was stockpiling weapons and armor and penning a note to his shrink detailing what he planned to do. Second, why should the producers of any movie be held liable for someone imitating what they saw (or in this case, expected to see)? Should Steven Spielberg be held responsible if someone decides to mow down a bunch of Germans on a beach with a machine gun?

The lawyer uses a shotgun approach in naming defendants. Then he adds a dozen or so "John Does" just in case. The reason is that during the course of the trial, something may develop that has demonstrated negligence on the part of that defendant. For instance, suppose the doctor knew that Mr Nutcase had plans of shooting up a public event and did nothing? Or suppose a reasonably prudent doctor would have diagnosed the Nutcase as being a danger to himself or society and did nothing?

These are things that come out over the course of pre-trial discovery or possibly during the trial. If these potential defendants weren't served, the ability to serve them may be lost by the time all the facts filter down to the Plaintiff's attorney.

Suing someone does not mean a recovery. That's where a good attorney comes in and connects the dots between the event and the defendant.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Morgenstern, I can understand the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach from the lawyer's POV— if it turns out that WB's only connection is that they produced a Batman film with bad guys and violence instead of people opening doors and arranging matches, does that strike you as grounds for liability on their part, for what Holmes did or others might do?

[coolbyrne]

You're confusing "guaranty" of safety with an obligation to provide a safe viewing environment. Society doesn't expect a guaranty, but they do expect safety. Why do they put fire sprinklers in schools? Why do you have an airbag in your car? None of those are a guaranty, but a reasonable effort to provide a safe environment.

That's a question that the jury will have to decide after the attorney presents his theory of why they breached their obligation to provide a safe environment.

None of that diminishes the ability of the plaintiff to file his suit, it only reflects on the outcome and potential damages he might be awarded.

They put fire sprinklers in buildings because the odds of a fire occurring has been determined to be high enough to warrant such a safety feature. They put airbags in cars because the odds of a car accident occurring has been determined to be high enough to warrant such a safety feature. So what would you suggest the "reasonable effort" the theatre should/could have done"to provide a safe environment" from a gunman?

[Morgenstern]

Morgenstern, I can understand the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach from the lawyer's POV— if it turns out that WB's only connection is that they produced a Batman film with bad guys and violence instead of people opening doors and arranging matches, does that strike you as grounds for liability on their part, for what Holmes did or others might do?

As it stands now, I agree there seems to be little on the part of WB that was negligent or otherwise contributed to the tragedy. But IF the lawyer can convince 12 people that the WB in someway motivated the nutcase to do what he did, then the plaintiff has a defendant with deep pockets. If I had to bet, I'd say slim chance to a recovery from WB. But time will tell.

[Morgenstern]

They put fire sprinklers in buildings because the odds of a fire occurring has been determined to be high enough to warrant such a safety feature. They put airbags in cars because the odds of a car accident occurring has been determined to be high enough to warrant such a safety feature. So what would you suggest the "reasonable effort" the theatre should/could have done"to provide a safe environment" from a gunman?


It's not my place to come up with all the ways the theater might have made the audience safer. A security guard in the parking lot? One way exits on the exit only doors? No parking at the rear of the theater except for employees? This will all have to come out in trial and the jury will weigh it.

[Chimera]

It's not my place to come up with all the ways the theater might have made the audience safer. A security guard in the parking lot? One way exits on the exit only doors? No parking at the rear of the theater except for employees? This will all have to come out in trial and the jury will weigh it.

And we wonder why our society is so fucked up.

[Cicero]

They could have had the Arch Angel Gabriel there as well.



Sounds like you are copping out of an indefensible position.

[Morgenstern]

And we wonder why our society is so fucked up.

Well, in all seriousness, one half-assed lawyer made 12 people believe Casey Anthony deserved to be acquitted. Jury trials seem to be crap shoots at best.

[Chimera]

The idea that this person (and potentially other people) could be able to sue half the planet, forcing each and every one of the defendants to cough up time, money and energy hoping to defend themselves against the idea that they are somehow responsible for damages to this individual is nothing short of Societal Blackmail.

The idea that this is 'of course' the right plan to pursue to allow the courts to hash out blame to persons beyond the shooter is likewise non-rational.

[Pork Rind]

I don't know that I've ever been in a movie theater where the exits were alarmed. In most of them, the "emergency" exits are propped open by the theater staff when the credits start rolling, to encourage patrons to exit directly to the parking lot, instead of crowding up the lobby while other people are buying tickets for the next show. In other words, they're not emergency exits at all. They're just exits.

Exactly this. Those exits aren't a security feature, it's not the friggin' airport. They're just more exits.

[Pork Rind]

Exactly this. Those exits aren't a security feature, it's not the friggin' airport. They're just more exits.

Oops. I'll take "Late to the Party" for $500.:smack:

[Morgenstern]

The idea that this person (and potentially other people) could be able to sue half the planet, forcing each and every one of the defendants to cough up time, money and energy hoping to defend themselves against the idea that they are somehow responsible for damages to this individual is nothing short of Societal Blackmail.

The idea that this is 'of course' the right plan to pursue to allow the courts to hash out blame to persons beyond the shooter is likewise non-rational.

Consider the attorney's failure to do so and the possibility that he may face a lawsuit claiming he was negligent in the handling of plaintiff's case by not pursuing all possible defendants, it's really reasonable. Yeah, it's a litigious society and tort reform doesn't seem to be coming.

[coolbyrne]

It's not my place to come up with all the ways the theater might have made the audience safer. A security guard in the parking lot? One way exits on the exit only doors? No parking at the rear of the theater except for employees? This will all have to come out in trial and the jury will weigh it.

-How many security guards is a "reasonable effort"? One may not have been enough.

-The doors (IIRC) were one way exits. It was the fact he propped the door open to come back in that created the opportunity.

-What if the gunman ends up being the employee? (Which would actually give the claimant a better leg to stand on, but then completely negates the theatre's effort to offer safety by having the parking be "Employees Only".)

How would you weigh these things if you were on the jury?

[Morgenstern]

-How many security guards is a "reasonable effort"? One may not have been enough.

-The doors (IIRC) were one way exits. It was the fact he propped the door open to come back in that created the opportunity.

-What if the gunman ends up being the employee? (Which would actually give the claimant a better leg to stand on, but then completely negates the theatre's effort to offer safety by having the parking be "Employees Only".)

How would you weigh these things if you were on the jury?

The OP's question isn't what would have worked. The question is whether it was fair and reasonable for this plaintiff to sue the theater, doctor and WB.

Otherwise, your question is really beyond my ability to answer. The lawyer who advances such a claim (by filing the suit) would need to produce experts to testify as to whether the expense of such "defenses" outweighed the risk of such damage, as well as other experts testifying about possible options and measures that could (should) have been employed.

If the jury found, for instance, that there was an inexpensive option that could have made a difference, then there is the likelihood that the theater would be found negligent in this matter. If, on the other hand, the jury decides that nothing short of the USMC pistol team sitting in the front row would have made a difference, then the jury could probably find the theater was not negligent in their duty to providing a safe environment. They will weigh the options, the cost to the theater of those options, the foreseeability of the necessity of those option as well as the probably benefit from having them in place.



It ultimately comes down to that jury sitting in a room deliberating the facts and voting according to their individual findings. A scary thought to add to this..., in many jurisdictions civil juries need not return unanimous verdicts nor must they be composed of 12 people.

[gamerunknown]

Bambi has a disturbing scene and the Sound of Music is set during Nazism. Far too traumatic for this guy.

[coolbyrne]

If the jury found, for instance, that there was an inexpensive option that could have made a difference, then there is the likelihood that the theater would be found negligent in this matter.

An inexpensive option to thwarting the potential actions of a gunman who had planned this out for ages?

(That's not directed at you, just the "Oh for god's sake" feeling this line of lawyer-type thinking gives me.)

[Morgenstern]

An inexpensive option to thwarting the potential actions of a gunman who had planned this out for ages?

(That's not directed at you, just the "Oh for god's sake" feeling this line of lawyer-type thinking gives me.)


It's not that this is a clear cut case by any means. The plaintiff will probably argue it's negligent to have a door that can be used to enter a dark theater with little or no problem by someone intent on doing harm to a theater goer. Whether it's a jealous boyfriend intent on paying back that guy sitting beside his ex, or a thug wanting to grab a purse and run. Considering that, do you think the theater had an obligation to consider the reasonableness of having that back door available as a means of access to the theater? Is it reasonably foreseeable that someone could do one of those things, or something similar? You're on the jury, you get a vote.

[rsat3acr]

he's an asshole and his lawyer is a whore

[Chimera]

Hey, be careful there. Bubbadog will be offended that you're insulting a victim.

[Boyo Jim]

What I find rather creepy is that the guy (or perhaps his family) didn't just hire a lawyer, but a publicist as well (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/wake-tragedies-lawyers-step-colorado-shooting-survivor-plans-172430871.html). "We're going to make sure whoever is accountable is going to take responsibility for this tragedy," Cassandra Williams of Wet PR said. She said that Brown, who was friends with 18-year-old AJ Boik, one of the shooting victims, is handling the criticism his suit has sparked. "We know it goes with the territory, so he's fine," Williams said. She added that Brown, 18, is seeking therapy and is emotionally distraught after the shooting.

FYI, here is a page of WET PR's website (http://www.wetprinc.com/aboutus.html).

[Filbert]

Whether it's a jealous boyfriend intent on paying back that guy sitting beside his ex, or a thug wanting to grab a purse and run.

Either of whom could just have bought a damn ticket, and got in through the front.

Unless anyone believes that cinemas should run psychological profiling and full criminal record checks on everyone before they enter, I can't see how cinemas have either the duty or the capacity to protect the public from the public.

[Kamino Neko]

But IF the lawyer can convince 12 people that the WB in someway motivated the nutcase to do what he did, then the plaintiff has a defendant with deep pockets.

Pockets deep enough to pay for a team of good lawyers to defend the reputation of the company and one of their cash cow franchises.

[Waenara]

I noticed this quote from the article linked in the OP:Karpel also charges that Holmes' doctors should be held accountable for not carefully monitoring the medication that he was on.Now, I've been reading a lot about this case, but unless I've missed a lot I don't know what orifice the lawyer pulled this out of. I understand the idea of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, but this seems like a pretty specific allegation. At this point has it even been confirmed that Holmes was seeing any doctors about his mental health? AFAIK, there hasn't even been any confirmation that he was on any medication whatsoever. Let alone assuming that the doctors weren't monitoring said medication. If the lawyer wants to include any of Holmes' possible doctor(s) in the lawsuit, could he have used more general terms?

[Waenara]

The article in the OP was published the morning of July 24th, so the lawsuit was filed before that. I googled around and I found this article (http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/defense-james-holmes-psychiatrist-communication-should-be-private-1.3865093) which states that:Friday's defense motion, however, was the first confirmation from the defense that Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist and that he had sent a package to the doctor.It seems that the lawsuit was filed before there was any confirmation that Holmes was even seeing a doctor.

I also found this article (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/28/colorado-shooting-suspect-james-holmes-was-seeing-university-psychiatrist/), which states (my emphasis added in bold):Under Colorado law, mental health professionals cannot be held liable in civil suits for failing to predict a patient’s violent behavior unless it involves a “serious threat of imminent physical violence against a specific person or persons.” Since the package he sent to the shrink was found in the mailroom and not until after the shooting, I think it's unlikely that they could have predicted an "imminent threat". I mean, anything's possible, but I personally doubt a psychiatrist who is familiar with their professional obligations would fail to report an obvious threat (the psychiatrist is a member of the campus-based “behavioral assessment and threat assessment team,” which helps faculty and staff deal with “individuals who may be threatening, disruptive or otherwise problematic).

[Enderw24]

This lawyer really isn't looking at the big picture about what this lawsuit will do to his legal career.
Talk about Karpel tunnel vision.

[RedFury]

Torrence Brown, Jr., who was in the theater during the shooting but escaped uninjured (while his friend was shot and killed), is suing Holmes' doctor, the theater, and Warner Brothers because he was emotionally traumatized and they're all apparently at fault somehow.

Assuming this article (http://www.christianpost.com/news/james-holmes-lawsuit-man-blames-theater-doctors-and-warner-bros-for-shootings-78760/) is correct, Jesus Christ, what a fucking tool. Please tell me there's no chance this douchebag sees a dime from this.

Do you not think he is being prodded by the noblest of professions*? I'll hang my hat that he is...

*In short, the scum of the earth in their majority.

[Enkel]

I understand the idea of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, but this seems like a pretty specific allegation.

NO, the attorney can be sanctioned for Frivolous lawsuits ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/co/narr/CO_NARR_3.HTM ) - So throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks is not a legitimate law practice.

WB = they probably have a cut and paste response to "you're bad movie made my un-handled, un-socialized angel do bad things"; the shooter had not yet seen the movie (remember all trailers would have been PG); WB has no direct control over the environment of the theater. Their first action will likely to be to have themselves removed from the case. They'll provide their cut/paste legal argument for how they had nothing to do with it. And it will be up to this attorney to defeat WB's argument. So the attorney either knew this was a throw everything at the wall addition and wanted the publicity OR the attorney is an idiot.

The Movie Theater = Liable to provide reasonable and prudent safety to patrons. Unless CO has an on-going epidemic of people shooting up theaters, reasonable and prudent does not mean that they were liable to prevent a planned attack by a mentally unstable person. How would any business survive such a requirement? As has been stated above, fire suppression is required in public buildings because fires do happen in a statistically significant frequency. Alarmed exit doors in an unregulated public place are not even a common standard (think of the added expenses, etc). Examples of where you see them are Hospitals (regulated for privacy, drug theft, infant abductions), Police stations, etc. A theater is a public place. I'm sure many people use the exit doors to avoid the lobby crowd or even duck outside for a smoke while waiting for the movie to begin. Good luck proving that it was reasonable and prudent to alarm the doors in a public theater when there is no case history of gunmen using them to mow down a crowd of viewers.

The Doctor = This is the only place that he MIGHT have a case, and that is ONLY if the guy said he was going to go out and shoot up some place (really, he needed to make a more specific threat than that, but the vague threat might sway a jury). Since she was part of the school and he had dropped out a month ago and he mailed her a package (instead of providing it at a visit). I have to wonder just how recently she'd even seen him.

Generic John Does = You can't add a John Doe unless you are alleging that that John Doe has done something in relation to the case. You can't just add three additional place holders without a specific action associated to them. The "John Doe" is because the person doesn't know the real name (e.g. you have a screen name and still need to execute a search warrant against an ISP to find the real name)

That this guy has hired a PR agent also makes this look like a money grab.

I don't hold an 18yo responsible for being used by the attorney, but I really hope the attorney gets reamed by the judicial system before this is all over.

[Absolute]

He had some reasonable expectation of security.
The theater's security features were easily bypassed.

The theater is not obligated to protect its patrons from insane gunmen. His expectation that they do so is not reasonable. They are not a personal protection service.


The program itself had elements of surprise and violence in it so witnesses were first somewhat confused as to exactly what they were seeing.

It's an action movie! What exactly is your point? That Warner Brothers should have made the movie so boring, tedious, and dull that there was no chance of confusion?


His best buddy was brutally murdered and he witnessed it.

This is the fault of the shooter, not the theater, Warner Brothers, etc.

[Morgenstern]

The theater is not obligated to protect its patrons from insane gunmen. His expectation that they do so is not reasonable. They are not a personal protection service.




I would disagree. The theater is obligated to protect the patrons from reasonably foreseeable harm. The fact that an insane gunman isn't as foreseeable as perhaps a homeless, mentally unstable guy wandering in the back door with a knife is irrelevant. Harm to a patron is reasonably foreseeable when the theater design allows unsecured, direct access to a dark theater full of people. It is a recipe for disaster from an unlimited amount of possible scenarios. It isn't the degree of that disaster, but the foreseeability of potential harm that will be the issue with respect to foreseeability. You can be assured the attorney will be hammering that point home if there is a trial.

[Morgenstern]

I'm wondering if something as simple as having the theater lights go on when someone opened the back door would have helped in this situation?

[Patty O'Furniture]

Why do they put fire sprinklers in schools? Why do you have an airbag in your car?

Why do they put doors in the door frames of movie theater exits?

If I defeat the sprinkler system in a school, sabotage the air bags in a rental company's cars or defeat the closing mechanism and/or lock on a theater's exit doors, none of those businesses had any obligation to see that coming.

[Morgenstern]

Why do they put doors in the door frames of movie theater exits?

If I defeat the sprinkler system in a school, sabotage the air bags in a rental company's cars or defeat the closing mechanism and/or lock on a theater's exit doors, none of those businesses had any obligation to see that coming.

You're saying they have no obligation to provide a safe environment.

[Patty O'Furniture]

No more than a grocery store or library does. I'm saying that they can't go to extreme lengths to foresee every possible life-threatening act that might befall their customers.

Now if the exit doors were in disrepair, hanging off the hinges or not properly auto-closing, only then does the plaintiff start to have the barest thread of a case.

[Enderw24]

Look for every insane gunman, there are one hundred thousand teenagers who think it's absolutely hilarious to make the emergency alarm go off in the middle of a movie. So tell me what a theatre is supposed to do as a reasonable preventative measure.

[Morgenstern]

No more than a grocery store or library does. I'm saying that they can't go to extreme lengths to foresee every possible life-threatening act that might befall their customers.

Now if the exit doors were in disrepair, hanging off the hinges or not properly auto-closing, only then does the plaintiff start to have the barest thread of a case.

Actually, the plaintiff's case was born the minute he suffered harm. The question is whether the jury feels the theater allowed a dangerous condition to exist and whether that danger was reasonably foreseeable.

I'm betting he recovers, and I'll also bet this isn't the last lawsuit filed.

[Moonlitherial]

Actually, the plaintiff's case was born the minute he suffered harm. The question is whether the jury feels the theater allowed a dangerous condition to exist and whether that danger was reasonably foreseeable.

I'm betting he recovers, and I'll also bet this isn't the last lawsuit filed.

And this is why costs skyrocket. Can we seriously afford to live in a world where we are required to prepare for the most obscure possibilities? This is crazy.

[Chimera]

And we (well, you attorneys, not me) assume that everyone has the money to defend themselves, even if they're cleared, right. Just another cost of living in this fuckbag world where every goddamned stubbed toe requires filing suit against everyone in the vicinity?

[Miller]

I would disagree. The theater is obligated to protect the patrons from reasonably foreseeable harm. The fact that an insane gunman isn't as foreseeable as perhaps a homeless, mentally unstable guy wandering in the back door with a knife is irrelevant. Harm to a patron is reasonably foreseeable when the theater design allows unsecured, direct access to a dark theater full of people. It is a recipe for disaster from an unlimited amount of possible scenarios. It isn't the degree of that disaster, but the foreseeability of potential harm that will be the issue with respect to foreseeability. You can be assured the attorney will be hammering that point home if there is a trial.

This is completely fucking lunatic. If the guy had shot up a public park, would you be arguing that the Parks Commission is liable because they didn't enclose the park in a barbed wire fence?

[The Second Stone]

Civil lawyer here. In California, my jurisdiction, a property owner has no liability for a crime that might be committed on her property, even if it is a high crime area and there have been previous crimes. There may be liability if the property owner knows for a fact a crime is going to be committed, or is being committed and doesn't call the cops.

I can't speak to Colorado law. But in California, the property owner is in the clear. So are the movie makers.

But let's suppose that Colorado law does allow liability in some cases.

In that event, what are the damages? It is entirely possible for the man to have post traumatic stress disorder and other emotional damages of a lasting nature. But it is too soon to tell for sure. I would in fact think that it is highly likely he is going to be diagnosed with PSTD for such an event.

In which case, he is legally entitled to file suit. His lawyer shouldn't, under the rules of ethics, dawdle about it. But this way too quick for my taste. At least let the gunshot and families of the dead get a few suits in the courthouse first.

I'm reminded of the San Diego MacDonald's shooter of 20 or so years ago. He was killed at the scene. Mrs. Kroc set up a victim's fund. The perp's wife was the first in line to apply to the fund.

I'm also reminded of the Seinfeld episode where George didn't get a new apartment because the committee gave it to someone because he told a sob story about how he survived the Andrea Doria sinking ship disaster. 52 people died. 1660 survived. George lost out to another George.

[jtgain]

As a soon to be 3rd year law student, I can't see the "duty" requirement being met here. A person is only negligent for things that are reasonably foreseeable.

If the lack of an alarm on the doors caused people to be killed in a fire, that's foreseeable. But put yourself on a jury. If you were a movie theater owner, would you have thought, before this incident, that a gun-wielding maniac would shoot your patrons? I wouldn't either.

The problem is that (depending on the legal situation in Colorado) a judge might think this to be a jury question, so the insurance company will pay this guy a few bucks to go away.

[BubbaDog]

Hey, be careful there. Bubbadog will be offended that you're insulting a victim.

No, No! Go right ahead. Your brilliant wit has convinced me that I'm wrong.

In my failed logic I tried to put myself in that guy's shoes. Most theaters hold about 150-300 people and in this particular theater about 1/6 to 1/3 of them ended up dead or wounded. I can't at all see why this guys head shouldn't be filled with puppies and rainbows after being a (bullet dodging) witness to that little picnic.

Damn right he's an asshole. It's obvious that he's thinking clearly and was probably in cahoots with the shady lawyer even before the movie started.

My apologies for calling you a shithead.

[jtgain]

Most theaters hold about 150-300 people and in this particular theater about 1/6 to 1/3 of them ended up dead or wounded. I can't at all see why this guys head shouldn't be filled with puppies and rainbows after being a (bullet dodging) witness to that little picnic.


But here's the thing. Because bad shit happens doesn't mean that you get a pay day. You have to prove that someone was at fault. Yes, that many people were killed or wounded. Is the theater at fault?

It's not strict liability. Just because someone (or many people) get killed in your house, for example, doesn't mean that you have to pay. You have to show that the theater owner did/did not do something that a reasonable theater owner did/did not do.

[Morgenstern]

This is completely fucking lunatic. If the guy had shot up a public park, would you be arguing that the Parks Commission is liable because they didn't enclose the park in a barbed wire fence?

There is a major difference between a business that sells tickets to patrons and a public park. Do you think the theater had a duty to protect a movie goer from assaults from other patrons? Here's something (http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/sufflr19&div=22&id=&page=) to that effect. The theater has an affirmative duty to protect patrons from intentional criminal acts of a third party according to that case.

[BubbaDog]

But here's the thing. Because bad shit happens doesn't mean that you get a pay day. You have to prove that someone was at fault. Yes, that many people were killed or wounded. Is the theater at fault?

It's not strict liability. Just because someone (or many people) get killed in your house, for example, doesn't mean that you have to pay. You have to show that the theater owner did/did not do something that a reasonable theater owner did/did not do.

I agree with everything you said here. What is perplexing to me is why you (and others) think that my position is in opposition to your statements. Go back and reread my posts. I never said that this man has filed a rightful law suit. I only said (and still stand by my initial statement) that this guy may just be a traumatized victim who is focusing his rage in the wrong direction. I'm not yet ready to call him an asshole for taking a blind swing. On the other hand, I don't mind calling someone a shithead for condemning him when said shithead hasn't had the delightful experience of being in the target zone of some maniac as he butchers their buddy.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the shitheads that are condemning this guy walked out of the last theater they visited with whatever companions they entered it with.....as opposed to having their buddy leave the theater in a body bag.

[Grumman]

Had the door had an alarm, somebody would have shut that door after noticing it was propped open before Holmes could re-enter.
No, they wouldn't. From the look of it, the shooter was literally parked about ten feet from the emergency door. He would have been out and back in again before anyone got there.

[Typo Negative]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the shitheads that are condemning this guy walked out of the last theater they visited with whatever companions they entered it with.....as opposed to having their buddy leave the theater in a body bag.So what?

He was getting good wishes from all over the place till he decided to try to get blameless people to pay for his trauma.

Everybody named in the suit is blameless. They did nothing wrong or even out of the ordinary. The only person who DID do something wrong is not named in the suit. Probably, and this is a wild assed guess here, it because he has no money.

Fuck him, and fuck his lawyer.

[Chimera]

No, they wouldn't. From the look of it, the shooter was literally parked about ten feet from the emergency door. He would have been out and back in again before anyone got there.

And alarmed doors require someone to come with the tool to shut off the alarm.

I know, because I used to have to do that on stairwell doors in a college science building that really had no business being alarmed. Students would run through them all the time. Hell, most of the time the batteries in them were dead because they were set off so many times. Which of course made our jobs easier because we didn't have to go turn off a stupid alarm.

On top of that, movies are LOUD and theaters are well insulated for sound. It is extremely unlikely that the door alarm would have been heard beyond the specific screening room itself.

[BubbaDog]

So what?

He was getting good wishes ........

Oh, well that makes it different. With good wishes he must be thinking with a clear head. :rolleyes:

[Rick]

But here's the thing. Because bad shit happens doesn't mean that you get a pay day. You have to prove that someone was at fault. Yes, that many people were killed or wounded. Is the theater at fault?

It's not strict liability. Just because someone (or many people) get killed in your house, for example, doesn't mean that you have to pay. You have to show that the theater owner did/did not do something that a reasonable theater owner did/did not do.
Ya know the theater's lawyer could have some serious fun with what ever ex-spurt the plaintiff puts up to say that they should have prevented this. I can see the questioning now:
Lawyer: So you say the theater had a duty to protect against a madman with a gun?
Ex-spurt: Yes, or course they did
Lawyer: So in the last 20 years how many madmen have attacked movie theaters in the US?
Ex-spurt: None
Lawyer: Anywhere in the world?
Ex-spurt: None
Lawyer: So you say the theater should have prepared for an event which has never happened?
Ex-spurt: Yes
Lawyer: What about zombie attack? We haven't had any of those in the last 20 years that I am aware of, should the theater have prepared for a zombie attack?
Ex-spurt: Well...
Lawyer: Rampaging unicorns, what about attack by rampaging unicorns?
Ex-spurt: aah
Lawyer: Or polar bears, should the theater have put out polar bear traps?
Ex-spurt: aaah

[Miller]

There is a major difference between a business that sells tickets to patrons and a public park. Do you think the theater had a duty to protect a movie goer from assaults from other patrons? Here's something (http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/sufflr19&div=22&id=&page=) to that effect. The theater has an affirmative duty to protect patrons from intentional criminal acts of a third party according to that case.

"...if, based on past experience, it is reasonably foreseeable that the conduct of third parties will endanger patrons."

How many previous times has this theater been shot up by a mass-murderer?

[Carmady]

Harm to a patron is reasonably foreseeable when the theater design allows unsecured, direct access to a dark theater full of people.


That ain't the half of it. I often bring a backpack into the theater with me, which could easily be filled with guns, bombs, and poison gas. They never search it (not even for outside food). So the front door is also unsecured, direct access.

So now we need metal detectors and bag searches for every patron of a movie theater for your argument to be consistent.

As for the exit door, you are probably smart enough to realize that the alarm issue is meaningless. Let's say we do the metal detecting and searches at the front door. If you can still park near the exit, or just leave a bag outside near the exit, you can get to your arsenal before anyone can respond to the alarm.

So we need armed guards at every exit. Nothing less. The exits themselves do, unfortunately, need to be able to open in case of fire.

[Princhester]

Even if he doesn't win, maybe they'll rethink the stupidity of having easy direct access into a freaking theater.

There must be billions of public crowded places in the cities of the US with "easy direct access". Are you saying this is inherently stupid? What do you envisage precisely? Dividing up the entirety of city public space into locked compounds with metal detectors and guards and searches in between or what?

Your post and that of several othes shows the intellectual dishonesty of the entire US and (increasingly) Australian tort systems. Those systems are actually a defacto accident compensation scheme in which anyone injured has a right to be paid a significant amount by any substantial or insured entity in the vicinity. Access to the scheme is dependent upon legal theatre in which the lawyers* pretend it is about negligence when it is really about how badly injured the plaintiff is, and whether they will be destitute if they don't win, and whether the defendant's loss if they lose will be dissipated across society. The problem is not that the goal isn't noble (paying the injured needy) the problem is that the system is massively inefficient, and distorts spending on safety.

If I asked a bunch of people the day before this incident whether (a) movies like Batman would be to blame if they provoked crazy people to conduct mass killings and (b) whether every theatre in the US needed to implement security sufficient to prevent such crazy people (and told them the cost and what it meant for their convenience and for ticket prices) I think almost no one would say yes.

If you ask a bunch of people the same questions after an incident like this, with the benefit of hindsight and with a quadraplegic victim in front of them who is going to be destitute unless they answer the questions in the affirmative, then guess what they are going to say?

*(and I am one, by the way, though I work the defendant's side of the street)

[bengangmo]

"...if, based on past experience, it is reasonably foreseeable that the conduct of third parties will endanger patrons."

How many previous times has this theater been shot up by a mass-murderer?

Actually I'd go further than that - how often has somebody snuck in weapons or similar and done any harm to a patron? (eg - the above mentioned scenario of a jealous ex-boyfriend)

If there was violence happening in a theatre on anything other than a very isolated basis of fights breaking out amongst patrons it might change my mind.

[jtgain]

Your post and that of several othes shows the intellectual dishonesty of the entire US and (increasingly) Australian tort systems. Those systems are actually a defacto accident compensation scheme in which anyone injured has a right to be paid a significant amount by any substantial or insured entity in the vicinity. Access to the scheme is dependent upon legal theatre in which the lawyers* pretend it is about negligence when it is really about how badly injured the plaintiff is, and whether they will be destitute if they don't win, and whether the defendant's loss if they lose will be dissipated across society. The problem is not that the goal isn't noble (paying the injured needy) the problem is that the system is massively inefficient, and distorts spending on safety.


Side question: Whatever happened to the "proximate cause" doctrine that stopped these suits as a matter of law? IOW, a judge would rule that even if the theater was negligent in its security, the supervening criminal act of the shooter sufficiently breaks the chain of causation to make the shooter 100% to blame.

The whole "negligence in the air is not enough" and Palsgraf. Does any state still follow this system?

[Morgenstern]

"...if, based on past experience, it is reasonably foreseeable that the conduct of third parties will endanger patrons."

How many previous times has this theater been shot up by a mass-murderer?

What makes you think it mist foresee the exact nature of the threat? What if it had been two 12 year old boys fighting? What if it was a wino groping young women? Would the theater be off the hook just because no wino had ever groped a young woman before?

[Morgenstern]

Side question: Whatever happened to the "proximate cause" doctrine that stopped these suits as a matter of law? IOW, a judge would rule that even if the theater was negligent in its security, the supervening criminal act of the shooter sufficiently breaks the chain of causation to make the shooter 100% to blame.

The whole "negligence in the air is not enough" and Palsgraf. Does any state still follow this system?

If the court has already established a duty to protect on the part of the theater, then who has a right to be protected? - The patron. When is that right breached? - When he's harmed.

Sure the defendant only has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect, but can you show me one step the defendant took here to provide any protection at all?

[Enderw24]

What makes you think it mist foresee the exact nature of the threat? What if it had been two 12 year old boys fighting? What if it was a wino groping young women? Would the theater be off the hook just because no wino had ever groped a young woman before?

Yes. And yes. And yes.

A theatre can't preemptively stop two 12 year olds from fighting and shouldn't be held accountable for that happening. The question is what they do in response to it. What about the police? Oh sure, they got there in 90 seconds. But why weren't they there in 5 seconds? Couldn't they have reasonably anticipated this happening? It was a violent movie after all.

Do you know how much glass there is in a grocery store? What if I went in and started chucking bottles at people from right off the shelves? Morgenstern, what should a grocery store do to preemptively stop something like that from happening? Lock up every glass bottle behind plexiglass and you have to ask a clerk with a key to unlock it? It's one idea.
You know what's worse? I could go to the cleaning aisle, mix some ammonia and bleach together and kill half the store. Or hell, you know, I can just walk in with some guns and blast away at people. Why not? The doors just slid right open when I walked near, so the store was practically begging me to do it! Why aren't grocery store security measures more strict?

[Patty O'Furniture]

I could go to the cleaning aisle, mix some ammonia and bleach together and kill half the store.

Wow, that's diabolical. I'm actually surprised nobody has thought of that and tried it yet. Then the ammonia will be behind a display case along with the Sudafed.

[Morgenstern]

The court has apparently applied a higher standard of care to theater owners, so arguing what might or might not happen in a grocery store is irrelevant to this plaintiff's case.

[Enderw24]

The court has apparently applied a higher standard of care to theater owners, so arguing what might or might not happen in a grocery store is irrelevant to this plaintiff's case.

Cite?


Oh and an, on a whim, I Googled "standard of care for theatre owners" (without the quotes) and this very post showed up as the #1 hit. I don't think Google used to be that efficient in its search capabilities.

[Morgenstern]

Try post #92.

[Czarcasm]

Try post #92.Try the theatre provided access doors that were locked from the outside, had security for inside the building and out in the parking lot, had cameras in various places in the theatre, and allowed access only to those who had purchased tickets. When you add in the fact that there was no previous history of anything of this sort happening at previous Batman showings, then I'd say they pretty much covered their bases in a reasonable manner.

[Morgenstern]

And, undoubtedly that will be argued to the jury in the theater's defense.

Edited:

We've gone from the original position that the plaintiff had no case to the current position that the plaintiff has a case, but the theater might have a valid defense. It's tough being a juror, not so much for this plaintiff, but for that father that lost his 6 year old daughter, how much do you think sympathy will enter the jury's mindset?

[Czarcasm]

Sure the defendant only has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect, but can you show me one step the defendant took here to provide any protection at all?Well, will you now concede that steps were indeed taken?

[cmosdes]

What I said was that an exit door labeled "Emergency Exit Only, Alarm Will Sound" should, in fact, have an alarm.

For example, suppose parents lose a child in the theater. One of them goes to the interior exit to make sure the child doesn't leave, and the other starts looking around the theater itself. Since the exterior exit says it has an alarm, they don't believe the child could have left there.

So my opinion is that the "Alarm Will Sound" sign should not be used just to scare people. I make no claim about the legal requirement.
You skipped over the question you quoted. Should stores prosecute shoplifters to the fullest extent of the law if they hang a sign saying they will? It not, how is this different?

I know, I know, I'm an evil bastard for not thinking of the poor innocent children that will be kidnapped/run over/lost forever if a door marked "Emergency exit, Alarm will sound" doesn't, in fact, have an alarm.

[Morgenstern]

Well, will you now concede that steps were indeed taken?


Are they really preventative steps?

The camera for instance. A security camera that records (IE, not watched live) might be useful in solving a purse snatching, but merely recording the events of that early morning did nothing to prevent harm to those patrons.

The rear door was allowed to remain open for a period of time while the shooter dressed, and armed himself, so the door was a failure as a preventative measure with respect to entering the theater.

Would an usher have made a difference in that theater? Could he at least have turned on the lights so people could see to exit the theater? Could he have reached and closed the door before the gunman reentered? Could he have sounded an alarm before the carnage started? Or would he too have been a victim?

[Czarcasm]

Are they really preventative steps?Where did those goalposts go, I wonder?
You implied that no steps were taken, I believe.

[Enderw24]

Try post #92.

1) That cite is from the 1st Circuit, which is inapplicable precedent for Colorado's 10th Circuit. Supreme Court denied Cert.
2) Sentence two of the analysis makes it clear that "reasonbly forseeable" is based upon past experiences. There were no past experiences to draw upon in this case.
3) The case you cited was about one group of people antagonizing another group of people throughout the entire movie before escalating things in the parking lot after the show, all without the movie theatre's intervention. I fail to see its applicability to what happened in Aurora during the course of possibly 3 minutes.

[Morgenstern]

Where did those goalposts go, I wonder?
You implied that no steps were taken, I believe.

I never said that. I asked it they were really steps? If they were, were they sufficient to do a single thing to prevent harm to individuals in the theater? I don't see the goal post moving, but I do see the ball in your court.

You think this isn't going to come up in a jury trial?

[Morgenstern]

1) That cite is from the 1st Circuit, which is inapplicable precedent for Colorado's 10th Circuit. Supreme Court denied Cert.

That made me laugh. Thanks for that.



2) Sentence two of the analysis makes it clear that "reasonbly forseeable" is based upon past experiences. There were no past experiences to draw upon in this case.


Did you read the footnotes?


The last part is your opinion. I don't buy it.

[Enderw24]

You think this isn't going to come up in a jury trial?

No. It's not going to come up in a jury trial. It will either be thrown out on summary judgement or it will settle long before trial because the theater owners will swallow their pride and pay money to a fuck nugget rather than risk bankruptcy. Then the folks in Aurora will pay $30 a ticket to cover the cost of the settlement and to ensure that the theatres can employ an usher for every film and every door in the place, lest they get sued again.

[Carmady]

You skipped over the question you quoted. Should stores prosecute shoplifters to the fullest extent of the law if they hang a sign saying they will? It not, how is this different?



That was not your question. You asked if they should be legally required. But my reason for not being comfortable with a fake alarm warning on a theater exit has nothing to do with legal requirements. It has to do with being able to imagine a scenario where the fake warning causes harm, and weighing that against the benefit of a fake warning. If you want to compare that to the shoplifting sign, you will need to explain the harm potentially caused by the fake shoplifting sign, and why it outweighs the benefit. Otherwise your comparison makes no sense.

But again, the entire alarm issue is a red herring, and those using it are arguing in bad faith.

The door was locked from the outside. It is legally required to be able to be opened from the inside. There are no metal detectors or bag searches at the front door. Anyone can park near the exit, leave a bag near the exit, or (if they have one) leave an accomplice outside the exit. An alarm solves none of that.

The only consistent argument against the theater is that they should have searched and metal detected every patron at the front door, and posted guards at every exit.

[kidchameleon]

I find it telling that the plaintiff did not include the shooter in the list of defendants.

[Boyo Jim]

I find it telling that the plaintiff did not include the shooter in the list of defendants.

Of course, the shooter was just a pawn in the hands of the movie and theater industries.

I also expect the shooter will file suit against the manufacturer of the gun that jammed. And the ammunition maker too.

[Morgenstern]

Of course, the shooter was just a pawn in the hands of the movie and theater industries.

I also expect the shooter will file suit against the manufacturer of the gun that jammed. And the ammunition maker too.

A guy charged with 24 counts of 1st degree murder, and 116 counts of attempted murder is pretty much done ever earning a paycheck let alone satisfying any judgment against him. It was probably seen as a total waste of time by his attorney. That's just a guess though.

[billfish678]

A guy charged with 24 counts of 1st degree murder, and 116 counts of attempted murder is pretty much done ever earning a paycheck let alone satisfying any judgment against him. It was probably seen as a total waste of time by his attorney. That's just a guess though.

Till we find out he had bought a winning powerball ticket that morning :)

[cmosdes]

That was not your question. You asked if they should be legally required. But my reason for not being comfortable with a fake alarm warning on a theater exit has nothing to do with legal requirements. It has to do with being able to imagine a scenario where the fake warning causes harm, and weighing that against the benefit of a fake warning. If you want to compare that to the shoplifting sign, you will need to explain the harm potentially caused by the fake shoplifting sign, and why it outweighs the benefit. Otherwise your comparison makes no sense.

But again, the entire alarm issue is a red herring, and those using it are arguing in bad faith.

The door was locked from the outside. It is legally required to be able to be opened from the inside. There are no metal detectors or bag searches at the front door. Anyone can park near the exit, leave a bag near the exit, or (if they have one) leave an accomplice outside the exit. An alarm solves none of that.

The only consistent argument against the theater is that they should have searched and metal detected every patron at the front door, and posted guards at every exit.I can make up a scenario where a kid walks out of the store holding a handful of store merchandise before the parents realize they lost track of the kid. Seeing a sign that says the store will prosecute all shoplifters, they decide the kid must still be inside the store since the alarms would have gone off or the store would have seen the kid leaving. Now is it an apt comparison?

You indicated earlier that you believe a door labeled as having an alarm should be alarmed because there is a remote chance it could lead someone to a bad decision. You never followed up with what you thought the consequences of that bad decision would be, but I'll assume you believe it could lead to the death or injury of the child or maybe permanent psychological damage to the kid and/or parents? You'd have to agree that that original scenario is unlikely, to say the very least. And the worst case scenario based off that is even more unlikely. Kids are probably far, far more at risk in a theater from other things than they would be from a misleading sign, don't you think?

I agree that the door being alarmed or not has nothing to do with the culpability of the theater. I think the theater is blameless in this, with or without a misleading sign, so I think we mostly agree.

[jtgain]

If the court has already established a duty to protect on the part of the theater, then who has a right to be protected? - The patron. When is that right breached? - When he's harmed.

Sure the defendant only has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect, but can you show me one step the defendant took here to provide any protection at all?

I'm saying that in the old way of looking at this, the shooter would be the one held 100% liable. Whatever stupid little measures the theater did or did not do PALES in comparison to a person walking in with 4 guns blazing.

But even under the new way of looking at things, a madman shooting up a theater is such an unforeseeable act that there is nothing that a reasonable theater owned should have done to prevent it. We've talked about ushers and armed security and metal detectors.

Try to find someone to testify that reasonable theater owners employ those things to protect against maniacs. They don't. The public doesn't want it either. There was absolutely no duty to protect against an anomaly such as this.

[Vinyl Turnip]

A guy charged with 24 counts of 1st degree murder, and 116 counts of attempted murder is pretty much done ever earning a paycheck let alone satisfying any judgment against him. It was probably seen as a total waste of time by his attorney. That's just a guess though.

Well, at least his time is valuable.

[Chimera]

Well, you know, in the eyes of some attorneys, *SOMEONE has to pay*, and since the perpetrator of the incident cannot do so, it is simply a matter of finding some other poor sucker to pin just enough blame on to squeeze for money.

[billfish678]

I think you pretty much got it Chimera. The "deep pockets" theory is closely related. Somebody is "out" or "deserves" X amount of money for something that happened to them. One party is only "culpable" to a very tiny degree for said bad thing. But hey, they are only ones with any money...so hey they should pay X because they have "deep pockets"!

[Princhester]

We've gone from the original position that the plaintiff had no case to the current position that the plaintiff has a case, but the theater might have a valid defense. It's tough being a juror, not so much for this plaintiff, but for that father that lost his 6 year old daughter, how much do you think sympathy will enter the jury's mindset?

Actually ISTM the OP's primary points were that the plaintiff in this suit is a douche, and the OP hoped he wouldn't win. You are arguing he might. I think for most of us, the point is he shouldn't, which is a totally different thing.

[Princhester]

Sure the defendant only has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect, but can you show me one step the defendant took here to provide any protection at all?

Your reasoning is flawed. A duty to take reasonable steps to protect does not imply that any steps at all need to be taken where the degree of risk doesn't justify it. Would you say that the theatre owner was liable if injuries were caused when the theatre was hit by a meteor? Why not, since I bet the owner took no steps at all to prevent such injuries?

[Chimera]

Question: Do you have any reasonable duty to protect me from Terrorists or Insane Gunmen if I am in your house or yard? Does a Church or Shopping Mall have a duty to protect me from these people?

if so, please prove what can be done to protect me from this sort of thing.

Having spent 4 years as a Security Officer, two of them armed, I can tell you that suggesting security guards is pollyanna bullshit. Just like in the movies, they'll either be the first people shot, or they'll be running away like everyone else. Or worse, if they *are* armed, and I speak from industry experience here, there is NO WAY they will ever pull their guns and start shooting unless they are already under attack, and by that time it's usually too late. And hell, even if they did, they'd probably be fired and disavowed for having done so, because of all of the liability issues. (Hit a bystander? Congratulations, both you and your company are FUCKED.)

And then too, is that our goal for a 'safe society'? To have armed private guards everywhere? Shopping mall, grocery store, theater, restaurants? To be a fucking (private police) Police State on perpetual lockdown?

Do we have locked and alarmed doors at every turn? Surveillance cameras every 2 feet like in Britain? And if so, is this real security or only the illusion of security? Does the presence of these things then guarantee the property owners that they are immune from future lawsuits of this kind? If not, then what value are they and why would they be required?

Honestly, if you're going to push for a society where making such arguments in court is a valid path, then I expect some kind of explanation and justification for the end game.

[Rick]

Your reasoning is flawed. A duty to take reasonable steps to protect does not imply that any steps at all need to be taken where the degree of risk doesn't justify it. Would you say that the theatre owner was liable if injuries were caused when the theatre was hit by a meteor? Why not, since I bet the owner took no steps at all to prevent such injuries?
This is exactly the point I was making back in post 98.

[Chicagojeff]

Try the theatre provided access doors that were locked from the outside, had security for inside the building and out in the parking lot, had cameras in various places in the theatre, and allowed access only to those who had purchased tickets. When you add in the fact that there was no previous history of anything of this sort happening at previous Batman showings, then I'd say they pretty much covered their bases in a reasonable manner.

THIS..(Agree with you Czarcasm) I think the biggest mistake is in the days after the incident local theatres here in atlanta.. and I'm guessing elsewhere too.. started hiring off duty cops.. Years ago I worked off duty armed security at a local huge chain theatre.. but they discontinued us and went with some unarmed 10 dollar an hour guys..

I'm not advocating nor supporting armed security guards everywhere where the public gathers..I think the local theatres have now set themselves up..if something were to happen AFTER you hired armed security cops and let them go a couple of months after the hoopla.. ahhh gotcha..
You set a certain standard of security and then abandoned it..

[Morgenstern]

Question: Do you have any reasonable duty to protect me from Terrorists or Insane Gunmen if I am in your house or yard? Does a Church or Shopping Mall have a duty to protect me from these people?

if so, please prove what can be done to protect me from this sort of thing.


No. None of those are theaters.




Honestly, if you're going to push for a society where making such arguments in court is a valid path, then I expect some kind of explanation and justification for the end game.

How about several court cases that find the theater has an obligation to protect.
Is that sufficient justification for sending the matter to a jury?

[Chicagojeff]

And, undoubtedly that will be argued to the jury in the theater's defense.

Edited:

We've gone from the original position that the plaintiff had no case to the current position that the plaintiff has a case, but the theater might have a valid defense. It's tough being a juror, not so much for this plaintiff, but for that father that lost his 6 year old daughter, how much do you think sympathy will enter the jury's mindset?

Sorry reason number one why cops/detectives aren't allowed on juries.. My first though would be.. what kind of an asshole brings a six yr old to the Dark KNight. and a midnight movie at that..
Oh I know.. the same one who calls me because their 13 yr old refuses to go to school.. the same one I catch behind the church smoking weed.. and when i bring him home the parents shrug and say.. What do you expect me to do..

Yeah.. the parents who just.. can't say.. I guess I can't make this midnight movie since we couldn't get a sitter and grandmom's unavailable..

[Morgenstern]

Your reasoning is flawed. A duty to take reasonable steps to protect does not imply that any steps at all need to be taken where the degree of risk doesn't justify it. Would you say that the theatre owner was liable if injuries were caused when the theatre was hit by a meteor? Why not, since I bet the owner took no steps at all to prevent such injuries?

A good argument for the jury. But remember, you have a plaintiff (plaintiff's representatives) showing pictures of a deceased victim on an autopsy table, family members in court crying, and evidence of a life cut short in it's prime. And a theater saying we took no measures to protect, because it wasn't foreseeable? Or we put up security cameras, they weren't actively viewed, but would you like to see the video of the massacre? And we don't care if back doors are left open and unsecured for several minutes while people enter and leave the establishment unobserved, it's too much work to monitor them.

I'm betting the insurance company for the theater is shitting bricks about now.

[Morgenstern]

For thpose who think it wasn't reasonably foreseeable, what about now? It's certainly foreseeable now isn't it? Should the theater do anything about that problem now?

[PunditLisa]

For thpose who think it wasn't reasonably foreseeable, what about now? It's certainly foreseeable now isn't it? Should the theater do anything about that problem now?

It's always been foreseeable that nutjobs exist. What is unforeseeable is how and when the nutjobs will strike. At a kid's camp? On a university campus? At a movie theater? In a restaurant parking lot?

We could spend our entire lives, and tons of money, trying to prevent what we can't possibly predict. Or we could just all agree as humans that nutjobs do exist, that we have no way of predicting when they will strike, and that will all hold innocent third parties harmless, should they have the misfortune to own the venue that some random whack-a-doodle chooses to stage his violent acts.

[Morgenstern]

So it is foreseeable, but not predictable? Does this mean the theater is not obligated to make any changes to protect their patrons?

[Morgenstern]

The mother of one of James Holmes' massacre victims has hired a high-powered attorney to sue the Aurora, CO movie theater where he opened fire ... killing 12 people, and injuring 58 others.

TMZ has learned Shirley Wygal is retaining a lawyer in Los Angeles to handle her case -- and we're told she plans to go after the Century 16 Theater.



Sources close to Shirley tell us she believes the theater's emergency exit doors should have been alarmed, or there should have been security guards posted next to them ... especially for a premiere as anticipated as "The Dark Knight Rises."


http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/30/colorado-shooting-lawsuit-james-holmes-movie-theater-rebecca-wingo/

[artemis]

So it is foreseeable, but not predictable? Does this mean the theater is not obligated to make any changes to protect their patrons?

No, the theater is not obligated to make any changes (at least not in a sane society). I don't expect theaters, shopping malls, grocery stores, etc. to protect me from insane gunmen any more than I expect them to protect me from meteorite strikes. Both those dangers are equally real, equally unpredictable, and equally unlikely.

Sometimes you have to give up the illusion of control and just get on with living your life. Life's not safe - it never has been.

[Chimera]

How about several court cases that find the theater has an obligation to protect.
Is that sufficient justification for sending the matter to a jury?

Based on what law?

[Czarcasm]

So it is foreseeable, but not predictable? Does this mean the theater is not obligated to make any changes to protect their patrons?Instead of asking vague questions, just tell us what you think would be adequate security for a movie theatre in such situations. Keep in mind that this theatre had sixteen screens.

[Moonlitherial]

So it is foreseeable, but not predictable? Does this mean the theater is not obligated to make any changes to protect their patrons?

Let me put it this way. I would rather not have the theatre pay (and pass on to it's patrons) to make the theatre safe from nutjobs. Not because I don't want to be safe but because it doesn't make sense.

If you protect the theatres nutjobs (who aren't 100% insane) will move on to the park or the church or the street corner. It's crazy to consider spending that kind of money to protect from the relatively few incidents of nutjobs causing a dozen victims.

If we've got that kind of money laying around lets put it into controlled highways so that cars are centrally controlled. We'll reduce traffic deaths by far more than the lives saved with the theatre security option and have the potential to improve commute times too.

There are any number of things that kill far more people than nutjobs in a theatre that would be a better place to spend that money, they're just not the emotional hot button right now.

[Acsenray]

We as a society are not going to pay to post guards at every motherfucking door on the planet, nor would that necessarily have stopped him. He'd have just shot the guard.

Actually, this can form the basis for a reasonable argument that there should be payouts when these kinds of things happen. Society benefits by not having to expend huge resources on posting guards at every door. So, you might say it's only fair to offer significant compensation when someone does suffer harm as a result of guards not being everywhere.

[Chimera]

So if I come over to your house and your neighbor shoots me, YOU owe me money because you didn't have guards posted to protect me?

[Czarcasm]

Actually, this can form the basis for a reasonable argument that there should be payouts when these kinds of things happen. Society benefits by not having to expend huge resources on posting guards at every door. So, you might say it's only fair to offer significant compensation when someone does suffer harm as a result of guards not being everywhere.Which could lead to situations where Person/Group A attacks Person/Group B at Site C for the purpose of creating a lawsuit situation.

[Chimera]

And again it comes down to: What law, precisely, mandates having guards posted and indicates that liability is held if they are not present?

[Czarcasm]

And again it comes down to: What law, precisely, mandates having guards posted and indicates that liability is held if they are not present?Or even a court case involving a similar situation where a theatre was found to be negligent.

[Acsenray]

So if I come over to your house and your neighbor shoots me, YOU owe me money because you didn't have guards posted to protect me?

And again it comes down to: What law, precisely, mandates having guards posted and indicates that liability is held if they are not present?

You don't necessarily need an explicit mandate under negligence law, which exists under every state law in the United States in one form or another. In order to impose liability for negligence you have to show:

1. The existence of a duty of care.
2. Breach of such duty.
3. Harm proximately caused by the breach.

Which could lead to situations where Person/Group A attacks Person/Group B at Site C for the purpose of creating a lawsuit situation.

Why do you think that would work?

[Morgenstern]

So if I come over to your house and your neighbor shoots me, YOU owe me money because you didn't have guards posted to protect me?

No, homeowners are held to a lower standard than are those who charge the public to enter their theater facilities.

[BottledBlondJeanie]

I don't know the law in Colorado, but a duty to protect patrons may arise if the theater volunteered certain safety measures and then negligently failed to provide them. I don't agree that the specific harm needs to be foreseeable, only that harm to the patrons arising from failure to provide promised safety measures could occur.

For instance, if an alarm was supposed to sound when the door opened and did not, this may be enough. If there is a prohibition against bringing weapons into the theater and patrons' belongings have been checked for weapons in the past, that may be enough. If security was supposed to patrol around the emergency exit doors and did not, that may be enough. If there was a burned out bulb or two outside the exit, that may be enough.

Read up on property owner liability due to criminal third party actions. Landlords have been held liable for rape when third story windows didn't have adequate locking mechanisms, restaurants/hotels etc. have been held liable for persons injured by shootings there.

Courts are very reluctant to grant summary judgments as to proximate cause as the analysis is usually very fact based. No, this would never be a class action. The victims are not incredibly numerous, are all easily identifiable, and their various injuries are too disparate.

Jtgain, you're a smart kid, but you kinda drive me bonkers with your almost-a-third-year legal opinions.

Lastly, here's a fun case that somewhat describes foreseeability. Although it's in a product liability context, property owner liability is used as an analogy. I haven't Shepardized it though. 12 year old kid rides a vacuum cleaner and somehow :wink: gets his penis caught in the hose where it is tragically lopped off. Is that foreseeable? http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/571/571.F2d.51.77-1276.77-1275.html

[Bob Ducca]

Morgenstern - I've never noticed before, but have you always been this fucking stupid?

[Czarcasm]

No, homeowners are held to a lower standard than are those who charge the public to enter their theater facilities.Any comment on post #145?

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Oops, guess he was 11 and although there was conjecture penis went in hose, evidence suggested his penis slipped through cracks or vents near the fan. Still had us in tears in torts class.

[Vinyl Turnip]

So it is foreseeable, but not predictable? Does this mean the theater is not obligated to make any changes to protect their patrons?

"Welcome to the Homeland Cinema 50. Folks, we've got two lines. Checkpoint wait time is currently estimated at 30-45 minutes. Reminder to remove your shoes and empty your pockets, removing all metal objects before you pass through the scanner. Please have your ticket and a valid photo ID ready. Sir, you can't bring that through. Yes, I know you bought it at the concession stand. No liquids are allowed through."

[Morgenstern]

"Welcome to the Homeland Cinema 50. Folks, for your viewing safety, we've added a security feature to the back doors. When one is opened, a light will go on, and an alarm will sound and continue to sound as long as the door remains open".

[Deeg]

I'm sure we've had this discussion before, but what can we do to minimize stupid lawsuits like this? To me the problem seems to be that there's no down-side for a lawyer to include anybody and everybody as defendents (i.e. the shot-gun approach). "Loser pays" sounds like a decent idea; maybe "loser pays 50%".

[Czarcasm]

I'm sure we've had this discussion before, but what can we do to minimize stupid lawsuits like this?Make kicking lawyers in the nutsack an Olympic sport?

[Vinyl Turnip]

"Welcome to the Homeland Cinema 50. Folks, for your viewing safety, we've added a security feature to the back doors. When one is opened, a light will go on, and an alarm will sound and continue to sound as long as the door remains open".

Which will absolutely thwart all but the world's most ingenious would-be mass killers who, I dunno, stuff weapons into their coat pockets before entering the theater.

Oh shit. I hope they're not reading this!

[Morgenstern]

Instead of asking vague questions, just tell us what you think would be adequate security for a movie theatre in such situations. Keep in mind that this theatre had sixteen screens.

Seriously. Herding an audience into a crowded, dark room, and allowing access to those helpless patrons through an unsecured rear door (one bypassing the lobby) is a recipe for disaster. I realize fire regulations prevent boarding up those exits, but those regulations don't prohibit restricting ingress to the building via those doors.

This is a major issue and will be one of the major issues for everyone filing a lawsuit over this incident.

[Morgenstern]

Which will absolutely thwart all but the world's most ingenious would-be mass killers who, I dunno, stuff weapons into their coat pockets before entering the theater.

Oh shit. I hope they're not reading this!

And you may well find metal detectors in theater lines when this is over. After all, they have them in courtrooms, airports and schools, etc.

[Czarcasm]

Seriously. Herding an audience into a crowded, dark room, and allowing access to those helpless patrons through an unsecured rear door (one bypassing the lobby) is a recipe for disaster. I realize fire regulations prevent boarding up those exits, but those regulations don't prohibit restricting ingress to the building via those doors.

This is a major issue and will be one of the major issues for everyone filing a lawsuit over this incident.So are you going to answer the question or not?

[BottledBlondJeanie]

The theaters seem to realize this may be a new liability risk as there were about 10 off-duty cops outside the showing of Batman I attended this weekend. I've heard this from friends in other locales, too. Initially, it's a response to the threat of copycats, but one of my partners has just been asked to review the safety policies and procedures for small theater chain.

[artemis]

And you may well find metal detectors in theater lines when this is over. After all, they have them in courtrooms, airports and schools, etc.

No, we won't. And that's because installing metal detectors will put theaters out of business. Why would I subject myself to an intrusive search when I can just stay home and watch Netflix?

And are you going to put metal detectors on grocery store doors, shopping mall doors, post offices, bus stations, private businesses, all sporting complexes large and small, etc.? Because if not, all that happens is that the nutso killer shifts his attack to another venue. Absolute security and a free, open society are diametrically opposed.

[Morgenstern]

The theaters seem to realize this may be a new liability risk as there were about 10 off-duty cops outside the showing of Batman I attended this weekend. I've heard this from friends in other locales, too. Initially, it's a response to the threat of copycats, but one of my partners has just been asked to review the safety policies and procedures for small theater chain.


I'll bet dollars to donuts that every theater chain is scrambling to review their safety procedures as well as updating their insurance after this incident.

[PunditLisa]

"Welcome to the Homeland Cinema 50. Folks, we've got two lines. Checkpoint wait time is currently estimated at 30-45 minutes. Reminder to remove your shoes and empty your pockets, removing all metal objects before you pass through the scanner. Please have your ticket and a valid photo ID ready. Sir, you can't bring that through. Yes, I know you bought it at the concession stand. No liquids are allowed through."

You forgot to include that the price of a movie is now $45 to pay for the TSA screeners.

[PunditLisa]

So it is foreseeable, but not predictable? Does this mean the theater is not obligated to make any changes to protect their patrons?

Absolutely. It is not in their scope of duty to protect me from all the nutjobs in the world. And I'd prefer if they didn't even try, because all it's going to do is inconvenience the 99.99% of theater goers who aren't whackadoodles.

[Czarcasm]

I'll bet dollars to donuts that every theater chain is scrambling to review their safety procedures as well as updating their insurance after this incident.Thank you for continuing to point out that people overreact in the face of tragedy, Capt. Obvious.
What would an adequate measure of security consist of, in your opinion?

[Morgenstern]

Thank you for continuing to point out that people overreact in the face of tragedy, Capt. Obvious.
What would an adequate measure of security consist of, in your opinion?

Shall we, once again, talk about restricting access to the theater from the parking lot? I mean, I've only mentioned that what, 5 times already?

Cliffs note version for you Czarcasm
Secure Rear Door access.

[Czarcasm]

Shall we, once again, talk about restricting access to the theater from the parking lot? I mean, I've only mentioned that what, 5 times already?

Cliffs note version for you Czarcasm
Secure Rear Door access. So restricting entry to the the main front door of the theatre would be enough of a security measure as far as you are concerned?

[Moonlitherial]

So restricting entry to the the main front door of the theatre would be enough of a security measure as far as you are concerned?

Of course, if they come through the front door guns blazing the employees will be the first to die.

The entire crowd trying to exit through the tiny emergency door might cause some issues though.

[Morgenstern]

So restricting entry to the the main front door of the theatre would be enough of a security measure as far as you are concerned?

That's not what I said. Front is that way, rear is the other way. When you can tell front from rear, we'll try this again.

[Czarcasm]

That's not what I said. Front is that way, rear is the other way. When you tell front from rear, we'll try this again.Substitute "main" for "front", then. Would this be enough of a security fix in your opinion?

edited to add: To rephrase the question, would changing the access rules to the way you have previously described them be the only change necessary to make in your opinion?

[PunditLisa]

Shall we, once again, talk about restricting access to the theater from the parking lot? I mean, I've only mentioned that what, 5 times already?[/U]

Envisioning James Holmes walking up to the back door of the theater, armed with sufficient ammunition to take out a small village.

He reaches out and jiggles the door handle. It's locked.

"Dammit! Foiled again!"

(Shoulders slumped, he walks back to his car.)

P.S. You can't restrict access any more than they do already. It's a fire code violation.

[Morgenstern]

No it's not. The fire code requires egress from the building. People need to leave a burning building. Ingress is not required.

[Inner Stickler]

Wasn't it already locked from the outside, though? Wasn't that why he went inside and propped it open? You could lock it from the inside but then you're just going to get sued the next time a theater of patrons burns up waiting for a manager to come unlock the door.

[Czarcasm]

Wasn't it already locked from the outside, though? Wasn't that why he went inside and propped it open? You could lock it from the inside but then you're just going to get sued the next time a theater of patrons burns up waiting for a manager to come unlock the door.I think it was marked as a one-way exit door, and the proposal was that it be changed to an alarmed emergency door, I think.

[Morgenstern]

Substitute "main" for "front", then. Would this be enough of a security fix in your opinion?

edited to add: To rephrase the question, would changing the access rules to the way you have previously described them be the only change necessary to make in your opinion?\

Once again. We're talking about the rear door. The one with unrestricted access to and from the dark parking lot at the rear of the building. We're not talking about the front or the main door. Please don't make me repeat that again.

[Czarcasm]

Of course, just alarming the door wouldn't be enough, because the badguy could pop out, grab weapons and start shooting before anybody could react to the alarm. You would need both security outside the exit looking for suspicious packages, and ushers standing by the emergency exits to make sure nobody exits inappropriately. One or two exits per theatre x 16 screens.

[Czarcasm]

\

Once again. We're talking about the rear door. The one with unrestricted access to and from the dark parking lot at the rear of the building. We're not talking about the front or the main door. Please don't make me repeat that again.I fucking understand what you are saying-are you saying that the security measure you wish to implement concerning access should be enough to forstall suits, or is there still more that should be done?

[Morgenstern]

Would a security guard wandering the parking lot be a bad idea?

Edited.

I'm saying that this door issue will be a major issue in these trials that will follow. If you eliminated that, the theater would have one less very major issue to deal with.

[Czarcasm]

Would a security guard wandering the parking lot be a bad idea?

Edited.

I'm saying that this door issue will be a major issue in these trials that will follow. If you eliminated that, the theater would have one less very major issue to deal with.So answer the question, for fuck's sake!
What would it take to convince you that adequate security was being provided by the theatre? Don't give me "to start withs", "at the very leasts" or "one of the things they could dos". Just tell me what it would take, security wise, for you to say that the theatre had done enough.

[PunditLisa]

No it's not. The fire code requires egress from the building. People need to leave a burning building. Ingress is not required.

Exactly. By law, they can't prevent him from leaving. And if you can leave, you can enter, too, by simply propping open the door. An alarm would have done nothing to protect those poor people, unless you propose arming ushers with semi-automatic rifles.

Besides, "Law enforcement officials were on scene within a minute and a half of the incident. Twenty-five police officers first responded to the scene, eventually 200 officers were on the scene."

What more do you want?

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/world_news&id=8743134

[artemis]

Once again. We're talking about the rear door. The one with unrestricted access to and from the dark parking lot at the rear of the building.

But the rear door already DOES have restricted access from the parking lot! It's locked from the outside. That's why Holmes had to come in via the front door, them prop the emergency exit door open for a minute or so in order to go outside to get his stuff.

And no, alarming the emergency exit doors won't stop that. All he has to do is to place his bag o'guns right by the exit door before he goes into the theater via the main entrance. Sure, when he opens the door, the alarm will go off - but so what? He'll be able to reach the bag and grab his guns in a matter of seconds. All an alarm does is guarantee that the theater security people will get shot along with the patrons. (If they even respond promptly to the alarm sound in the first place; I suspect after a few hundred incidences of the alarm going off because a dumbass teenager was horsing around will have induced a "boy who cried wolf!" effect quite thoroughly by the time Mr. Nutcase Gunman pulls his stunt.)

[Morgenstern]

So answer the question, for fuck's sake!
What would it take to convince you that adequate security was being provided by the theatre? Don't give me "to start withs", "at the very leasts" or "one of the things they could dos". Just tell me what it would take, security wise, for you to say that the theatre had done enough.


It would take 2 or more years of pre-trail discovery and a jury verdict in favor of the theater. As it stands right now, I'd drive to Las Vegas to bet on a positive outcome for the plaintiffs in this case and I'll bet I go home a winner.

[Czarcasm]

It would take 2 or more years of pre-trail discovery and a jury verdict in favor of the theater. As it stands right now, I'd drive to Las Vegas to bet on a positive outcome for the plaintiffs in this case and I'll bet I go home a winner.Thank you for wasting our time, gutless wonder. This had absolutely nothing to do with what a fucking lawyer could get away with manipulating a jury. I was asking what it would take to convince you that adequate security measures had been taken.

[artemis]

As it stands right now, I'd drive to Las Vegas to bet on a positive outcome for the plaintiffs in this case and I'll bet I go home a winner.

Based on what? You've yet to show any negligence on the part of the theater. Why should the plaintiffs get a single dime, when the theater was pretty much like every other theater in the town in regards to the level of security provided?

[Vinyl Turnip]

It would take 2 or more years of pre-trail discovery and a jury verdict in favor of the theater. As it stands right now, I'd drive to Las Vegas to bet on a positive outcome for the plaintiffs in this case and I'll bet I go home a winner.

I understand you believe that; what's not clear is why you seem to think that's the proper and just outcome. Unless I'm mistaking your dogged devil's advocacy for... advocacy, in which case I apologize.

If you were the sole arbiter, would you award damages to the plaintiff?

[Czarcasm]

Based on what? You've yet to show any negligence on the part of the theater. Why should the plaintiffs get a single dime, when the theater was pretty much like every other theater in the town in regards to the level of security provided?He doesn't give a shit whether there was adequate security or not. He just thinks that a lawyer would be able to manipulate a jury into awarding the client.

[PunditLisa]

It would take 2 or more years of pre-trail discovery and a jury verdict in favor of the theater. As it stands right now, I'd drive to Las Vegas to bet on a positive outcome for the plaintiffs in this case and I'll bet I go home a winner.

...Until you go to the theater again, and have to pay an extra $2 to cover the cost of frivolous and merit-less lawsuits. Then we all lose.

[Enderw24]

"Welcome to the Homeland Cinema 50. Folks, for your viewing safety, we've added a security feature to the back doors. When one is opened, a light will go on, and an alarm will sound and continue to sound as long as the door remains open".

And, as I mentioned before, that will only encourage the 100,000 teenagers who find it absofuckinglutely hilarious to make the alarm go off in the middle of a movie. And it won't stop a gunman whatsoever. Sure, on the 100,001st time it goes off, you may have an actual gunman and get 30 seconds of warning from the alarm when he runs to his car and runs back again. The rest of the time you've just annoyed your patrons for no reason whatsoever. You've also given your patrons one less exit to the theatres when the movie's over.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that every theater chain is scrambling to review their safety procedures as well as updating their insurance after this incident.

Of course they are. Because we live in a world where you can hit the goddamned jackpot when something bad happens to someone else. And, again, as I said in another post, it doesn't matter how well or piss poor this plays before a jury because this blackmail lawsuit will be settled out of court.
But along with Czarcasm's repeated request for what you feel would be adequate security, I'll ask you this: if a theatre enacted whatever security you felt to be adequate, wouldn't they then open themselves up to even greater liability specifically because they put security measures in place? Clearly the theatre was conceding that there was a threat.

Oh and I seriously want to smack you for this comment:
A good argument for the jury. But remember, you have a plaintiff (plaintiff's representatives) showing pictures of a deceased victim on an autopsy table, family members in court crying, and evidence of a life cut short in it's prime. .

As if that emotional bullshit has ANYTHING to do with the legal question of whose fucking fault it is. That you're even saying shit like this means you've completely lost track of what this entire thread is about.

[kidchameleon]

I'll bet dollars to donuts that every theater chain is scrambling to review their safety procedures as well as updating their insurance after this incident.

Which is pointless, as they will need to rebuild their facilities to survive a rental-truck full of improvised explosives parked outside, lest they be liable for not protecting their patrons from possible harm.

[Morgenstern]

Oh and I seriously want to smack you for this comment:





Go ahead, say what's on your mind. (If you'll forgive the overstatement)

[Morgenstern]

LOL. It appears I'm not the only one thinking theaters were scrambling to review security concerns. (http://www.wopular.com/dark-knight-shooting-leaves-theaters-scrambling-address-security-concerns)

[The Dord]

He went to enjoy toy time.


:dubious: toy time? you're a dirty scoundrel! :eek: :D

[Carmady]

Shall we, once again, talk about restricting access to the theater from the parking lot? I mean, I've only mentioned that what, 5 times already?

Cliffs note version for you Czarcasm
Secure Rear Door access.


Oh, indeed. And I dare say theaters should not only secure rear door access but also restrict attendance to non-mass-murderers (as long as we're speaking in platitudes).

But I have a question for you:

What do you think would be adequate security for a movie theater in such situations?

[Waenara]

LOL. It appears I'm not the only one thinking theaters were scrambling to review security concerns. (http://www.wopular.com/dark-knight-shooting-leaves-theaters-scrambling-address-security-concerns)Did you not bother reading other people's responses at all? Several people acknowledged that you're right, theaters are probably reviewing their security. But not because it's actually justified, just because they're afraid of being sued. And look how "successful" the TSA is with it's security theater - it's not surprising that theater security theater (heh!) may well come into being. But it's not in any way the rational thing to do.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Oh and I seriously want to smack you for this comment:

A good argument for the jury. But remember, you have a plaintiff (plaintiff's representatives) showing pictures of a deceased victim on an autopsy table, family members in court crying, and evidence of a life cut short in it's prime.

Go ahead, say what's on your mind. (If you'll forgive the overstatement)


I'm guessing:

1. Lawyer using appeal to emotion to achieve lofty goal of doing justice
2. The idea that the victim of a shooting spree (where there were dozens of witnesses and the assailant has been captured and has confessed) might need to be autopsied
3. Plaintiff's attorney might somehow obtain those pictures
4. Judge would have no problem with the jury seeing them
5. Inappropriate apostrophe

I want to slap you only for #5.

[Enderw24]

Go ahead, say what's on your mind. (If you'll forgive the overstatement)

It's been said already. By me and others multiple times in this thread. You clearly can read so I have to assume the problem is more comprehension-based.

Oh, indeed. And I dare say theaters should not only secure rear door access but also restrict attendance to non-mass-murderers (as long as we're speaking in platitudes).

Ah, but they did. Up until the point he started shooting he wasn't a mass murderer. Though I'm certain he'll now have a picture up at the ticket kiosk with a "don't sell to this man" written underneath. Possibly a lifetime ban too.

[Rick]

It's been said already. By me and others multiple times in this thread. You clearly can read so I have to assume the problem is more comprehension-based.



Ah, but they did. Up until the point he started shooting he wasn't a mass murderer. Though I'm certain he'll now have a picture up at the ticket kiosk with a "don't sell to this man" written underneath. Possibly a lifetime ban too.
The warning to the cashier will probably be along the lines of "Don't sell tickets to a guy that looks like Beaker from the Muppets"

[Princhester]

Morgenstern is having his own little debate and discussion in which he triumphantly announces that he will win bets and smugly congratulates himself on the accuracy of his predictions, without appearing to realise that he's at cross purposes with everyone else. You can't win a bet if no one will take your bet because they agree with your prediction of the outcome. There is nothing to be smug about in accurately predicting what is obvious to all.

Czarcasm your line of questioning is admirable but pointless. If you are of the plaintiff tort lawyer mindset, your question just doesn't make sense. Such questions simply cannot be asked prospectively. They can only be asked retrospectively, and the answer is always: "the steps the defendant should have taken are the steps that the defendant did not take which, if they had been taken, might have prevented the harm that occurred in the incident that has already happened".

[Czarcasm]

Morgenstern is having his own little debate and discussion in which he triumphantly announces that he will win bets and smugly congratulates himself on the accuracy of his predictions, without appearing to realise that he's at cross purposes with everyone else. You can't win a bet if no one will take your bet because they agree with your prediction of the outcome. There is nothing to be smug about in accurately predicting what is obvious to all.

Czarcasm your line of questioning is admirable but pointless. If you are of the plaintiff tort lawyer mindset, your question just doesn't make sense. Such questions simply cannot be asked prospectively. They can only be asked retrospectively, and the answer is always: "the steps the defendant should have taken are the steps that the defendant did not take which, if they had been taken, might have prevented the harm that occurred in the incident that has already happened".Let me rephrase the question, then. If you were the owner of a sixteen screen theatre, what specific steps would you be taking to avoid the same horrible tragedy happening at your establishment?

[Princhester]

Nah, doesn't compute. Plaintiff tort lawyers don't own things. They tell other people after the fact what they should have done with their things.

[billfish678]

Nah, doesn't compute. Plaintiff tort lawyers don't own things. They tell other people after the fact what they should have done with their things.

Which is usually give 70 percent of their things to some stranger and 30 percent to them.

[Cicero]

Which is usually give 70 percent of their things to some stranger and 30 percent to them.

Wrong way round.

[Morgenstern]

I'm guessing:

1. Lawyer using appeal to emotion to achieve lofty goal of doing justice
2. The idea that the victim of a shooting spree (where there were dozens of witnesses and the assailant has been captured and has confessed) might need to be autopsied
3. Plaintiff's attorney might somehow obtain those pictures
4. Judge would have no problem with the jury seeing them
5. Inappropriate apostrophe

I want to slap you only for #5.

#1. Absolutely. It's called representing his client. The goal is to make the jury 100% empathetic to the clients cause of action while painting the defendant a negligent, uncaring bastard - in as nice of a way as possible. Some lawyers even go so far as to employ psychologist to aid in creating criteria for the plaintiff to use in jury selection that is favorable to their client's claim.

#2. Because there is a criminal case, the autopsies will already have been done. And that information will be available to the plaintiff via discovery.

#3. Oh, they will get them. They are necessary to establish elements necessary to the case. Not only that, I've seen plaintiff's attorneys pay artist to redraw x-rays adding little things like red where the breaks in the bones are, and otherwise enhance the pictures. (yes, they x-ray deceased victims too) They clearly identify them as drawings, but they create undeniable jaw dropping moments for a jury, who can understand an enhanced drawings better than a typical x-ray. Then, after it is introduced, that picture is set in such a way that it remains in full view of a jury for the rest of the day.

#4. As they (the pictures) relate to pain and suffering, and answer other questions that only the forensic evidence can, yes. Most likely the coroner, or other expert witness, will be called to review the autopsy reports and the pictures and offer an opinion related to the death (instantaneous or prolonged). Thus giving yet another opportunity to introduce the pictures and reports as evidence of what the MD used to arrive at his findings.

#5 -' there, I took it back.

[Enderw24]

Actually, I'd disagree with you on the use of autopsy photographs. In a civil case where the issue is negligence, the use of autopsy photographs would be deemed more prejudicial than probative and barred from use in the courtroom.
Anyway, you seem to be missing the point. Again.

Yes, we all get that the attorney is going after the movie theatre because it has deep(ish) pockets. Yes, we all get that they will put on the stand crying witnesses of what happened that night. Yes, we all get that any jury in the world will be bawling its eyes out listening to that testimony. Yes, we all get that this case will probably settle out of court specifically because the defendant won't want to try to compete against a jury listening to crying witnesses from a massacre like this. Yes, we all get that at the end of this all, the plaintiff will probably make out pretty darn well on this lawsuit.

We get it. We understand all that. We're not arguing that. We get it. I'm repeating myself because I hope that maybe one of these sentences will sink in. WE. GET. IT.

The argument, from the very begining, has never been about all that. It's been that we think this guy is a douche for suing the movie theatre and we think you're a douche for saying that him making money off the movie theatre is in any way a just or fair outcome. It isn't. You know it isn't because you've already admitted you have no clue what they could have done to prevent this, nor do you have any clue what will prevent a shooting like this in the future. And you've admitted that he's going after them not because they're at fault but because, unlike the shooter, the defendants have money. Not blame. Just money.

So just admit that this guy's a douche and we can wrap this whole thread up in a neat little bow.

[gamerunknown]

Inappropriate apostrophe.

"What's"? Seems fine to me, a contraction of "what" and "is"?

Still had us in tears in torts class.

I have a feeling that the male members present were crying for a different reason.

[Vinyl Turnip]

The warning to the cashier will probably be along the lines of "Don't sell tickets to a guy that looks like Beaker from the Muppets"

Note to self: pick a different costume to wear to the premiere of the next Muppet movie.

[Morgenstern]

I don't know the law in Colorado, but a duty to protect patrons may arise if the theater volunteered certain safety measures and then negligently failed to provide them. I don't agree that the specific harm needs to be foreseeable, only that harm to the patrons arising from failure to provide promised safety measures could occur.



What about an implied promise?

[billfish678]

So just admit that this guy's a douche and we can wrap this whole thread up in a neat little bow.

Thank you. You whole post pretty much sums it up IMO.

But in the douche's "defense" being a douche isn't illegal. And unfortunately it is quite profitable. If only Obama could harness the douchebagger of America to restart our economy and take it the sky. The potential is certainly there :)

[Morgenstern]

Actually, I'd disagree with you on the use of autopsy photographs. In a civil case where the issue is negligence, the use of autopsy photographs would be deemed more prejudicial than probative and barred from use in the courtroom.
Anyway, you seem to be missing the point. Again.

Yes, we all get that the attorney is going after the movie theatre because it has deep(ish) pockets. Yes, we all get that they will put on the stand crying witnesses of what happened that night. Yes, we all get that any jury in the world will be bawling its eyes out listening to that testimony. Yes, we all get that this case will probably settle out of court specifically because the defendant won't want to try to compete against a jury listening to crying witnesses from a massacre like this. Yes, we all get that at the end of this all, the plaintiff will probably make out pretty darn well on this lawsuit.

We get it. We understand all that. We're not arguing that. We get it. I'm repeating myself because I hope that maybe one of these sentences will sink in. WE. GET. IT.

The argument, from the very begining, has never been about all that. It's been that we think this guy is a douche for suing the movie theatre and we think you're a douche for saying that him making money off the movie theatre is in any way a just or fair outcome. It isn't. You know it isn't because you've already admitted you have no clue what they could have done to prevent this, nor do you have any clue what will prevent a shooting like this in the future. And you've admitted that he's going after them not because they're at fault but because, unlike the shooter, the defendants have money. Not blame. Just money.

So just admit that this guy's a douche and we can wrap this whole thread up in a neat little bow.

You can use more words to express less thought than any person I've ever met.

[Deeg]

I thought Enderw24 summed it up quite well, actually.

[billfish678]

I thought Enderw24 summed it up quite well, actually.

No kidding. Pretty much every sentence in there either hits one of Morgensterns talking points ,and/or debunks them, or addresses a point worth making. I'm not seeing much extra verbage in there myself despite Morgensterns complaint. Of course the dipshit had to quote a couple of paragraphs to make a one sentence comment so he should know about word wastage.

[Morgenstern]

No kidding. Pretty much every sentence in there either hits one of Morgensterns talking points ,and/or debunks them, or addresses a point worth making. I'm not seeing much extra verbage in there myself despite Morgensterns complaint. Of course the dipshit had to quote a couple of paragraphs to make a one sentence comment so he should know about word wastage.

There is little point in discussing anything with an idiot like Enderw, he'll merely Google something else he doesn't understand and present it as if he did. He's done that several times in this thread already. He's failed to point out a single cite for his wild ass guesses.

[billfish678]

There is little point in discussing anything with an idiot like Enderw, he'll merely Google something else he doesn't understand and present it as if he did. He's done that several times in this thread already. He's failed to point out a single cite for his wild ass guesses.

Perhaps.

But he did a bang up job on summarizing your points and explaining why your points (right or wrong) weren't what people cared about.

[Morgenstern]

Example one of his absolute ignorance.
1) That cite is from the 1st Circuit, which is inapplicable precedent for Colorado's 10th Circuit. Supreme Court denied Cert..

He has no clue what he's saying, let alone what Certiorari is. Not that that statement isn't funny for other reasons, but it's representative of someone with more mouth than brains.

Actually, I'd disagree with you on the use of autopsy photographs. In a civil case where the issue is negligence, the use of autopsy photographs would be deemed more prejudicial than probative and barred from use in the courtroom.
Anyway, you seem to be missing the point. Again.


Again, his ignorance of the legal system is hidden by his ability to Google concepts he does not understand and present them as if he did. In fact, what he is denying is done every day

Consequently, his posts deserve little more than a wave off.

[mlees]

No, homeowners are held to a lower standard than are those who charge the public to enter their theater facilities.

You've said this twice now.

Do you think the mere act of charging admission increases the obligation the property owner has towards ensuring the safety of the people who enter the property?

[Morgenstern]

Actually, I'd say,( without Shepardizing), the Silva vs. Showcase Cinema (supra) case provides the standard of care the theater owner faces. The point about paid admission was a reference to one of many reasons a homeowner wouldn't face a similar standard of care for a similar event.

[Czarcasm]

Actually, I'd say,( without Shepardizing), the Silva vs. Showcase Cinema (supra) case provides the standard of care the theater owner faces. The point about paid admission was a reference to one of many reasons a homeowner wouldn't face a similar standard of care for a similar event.So if you owned a 16 screen theatre complex what steps would you now be taking to forestall any future lawsuits aimed at your establishment?

[Morgenstern]

If I owned the theater.

1. I would put a light at the inside, and on the outside, of every rear exit (to the parking lot) door. Said light would illuminate when/while the door was open or ajar.

2. I would have an alarm sound, and remain on for the duration the exit door was open. Except then the theater lights were turned up as they are between movies.

3. I would hire a security guard, or more for a larger theater, to patrol the parking lot, and the lobby. I would equip him with a cell phone and a radio to his supervisor.

4. I would have an usher in the theater to aid people getting to and from their seats, and to supervise the audience.

5. I would have security cameras that were visible to the manager, that could view any alarms that sounded.

Would any of that stopped this shooting? Who knows? One can assume that if the shooter saw that the doors were lit and alarmed when opened, and that there were security personnel patrolling the area, he might have moved to an easier target.

Would any of that prevent liability in the Aurora case? I don't know, but it would certainly look as if most l reasonable steps had been taken to protect the audience from harm.

[Enderw24]

He has no clue what he's saying, let alone what Certiorari is. Not that that statement isn't funny for other reasons, but it's representative of someone with more mouth than brains.


Is Certiorari one of those European cars?

No seriously. Tell me how a case before the 1st Circuit which didn't reach the Supreme Court is in any way precedent for what happens in Colorado? Go on more brains than mouth, explain it to me. And please use small words because i no smart.
Again, his ignorance of the legal system is hidden by his ability to Google concepts he does not understand and present them as if he did. In fact, what he is denying is done every day.

As for your dismissal of my other not-main point while yet again purposely ignoring the larger issue, well, seeing as you've only cited yourself as an opinion, I think I know how much credence to give it.

[Czarcasm]

If I owned the theater.

1. I would put a light at the inside, and on the outside, of every rear exit (to the parking lot) door. Said light would illuminate when/while the door was open or ajar.

2. I would have an alarm sound, and remain on for the duration the exit door was open. Except then the theater lights were turned up as they are between movies.

3. I would hire a security guard, or more for a larger theater, to patrol the parking lot, and the lobby. I would equip him with a cell phone and a radio to his supervisor.

4. I would have an usher in the theater to aid people getting to and from their seats, and to supervise the audience.

5. I would have security cameras that were visible to the manager, that could view any alarms that sounded.

Would any of that stopped this shooting? Who knows? One can assume that if the shooter saw that the doors were lite and alarmed when opened, and that there were security personnel patrolling the area, he might have moved to an easier target.

Would any of that prevent liability in the Aurora case? I don't know, but it would certainly look as if most l reasonable steps had been taken to protect the audience from harm.1. Easy enough...and already done in a lot of theatres.
2. So all exits that lead directly to the lot would be emergency only, and everyone would have to leave through the main lobby...that is already filled with people waiting in line for popcorn, drinks and the next show?
3. The theatre in question already had a security officer, and he had the equipment you described. The trouble is that a 16-plex is a large building with four sides, so he is out of view of any one side of the build at least a quarter of the time.
4. An usher?? To escort people to their seats? Most movie screens have entrances designed so that you can enter from from left or right of the center isle, so you're really talking about a minimum of two ushers per screen. While each usher is "helping someone to their seat", 20 other people have entered the theatre and have no intention of waiting for their turn to be "helped". A minimum of 32 ushers slowing things down to a crawl and creating bad will.
5. Would you have the manager sitting in the security room viewing cameras until something happens? You have no idea what a theatre manager in a large complex does, do you?

[Deeg]

If I owned the theater.

1. I would put a light at the inside, and on the outside, of every rear exit (to the parking lot) door. Said light would illuminate when/while the door was open or ajar.

2. I would have an alarm sound, and remain on for the duration the exit door was open. Except then the theater lights were turned up as they are between movies.

3. I would hire a security guard, or more for a larger theater, to patrol the parking lot, and the lobby. I would equip him with a cell phone and a radio to his supervisor.

4. I would have an usher in the theater to aid people getting to and from their seats, and to supervise the audience.

5. I would have security cameras that were visible to the manager, that could view any alarms that sounded.

Would any of that stopped this shooting? Who knows? One can assume that if the shooter saw that the doors were lit and alarmed when opened, and that there were security personnel patrolling the area, he might have moved to an easier target.

Would any of that prevent liability in the Aurora case? I don't know, but it would certainly look as if most l reasonable steps had been taken to protect the audience from harm.
The problem is that this addresses the single instance of the Aurora shooting and not the almost-infinite other ways someone could pull off a mass killing in a theater. You aren't checking for hand-grenades, poisonous gases, biotoxins, guns, pipe bombs, truck bombs, or suicide bombers. This almost certainly wouldn't have stopped Holmes if he had had an accomplice to simply let him in. You can plan all you want but there will always be a way to do damage unless you want to lock down theaters like an airport.

[Morgenstern]

Is Certiorari one of those European cars?

No seriously. Tell me how a case before the 1st Circuit which didn't reach the Supreme Court is in any way precedent for what happens in Colorado? Go on more brains than mouth, explain it to me. And please use small words because i no smart.


As for your dismissal of my other not-main point while yet again purposely ignoring the larger issue, well, seeing as you've only cited yourself as an opinion, I think I know how much credence to give it.

The Supreme Court gives consideration to a very small fraction of cases each year. If someone desires to have a case reviewed by the Supreme Court, they do so by petitioning the Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari. If the court finds that there are one or more issues that should be reviewed, it grants certiorari (cert.). If the court decides not to review the case, it denies certiorari. When the court denies certiorari, it is in fact, letting the lower court ruling stand.

The decision to deny cert. does not constitute a Supreme Court review of the issues as they are, but it allows the lower court decision to stand, and therefore, become precedent.

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Example one of his absolute ignorance.


He has no clue what he's saying, let alone what Certiorari is. Not that that statement isn't funny for other reasons, but it's representative of someone with more mouth than brains.



Again, his ignorance of the legal system is hidden by his ability to Google concepts he does not understand and present them as if he did. In fact, what he is denying is done every day

Consequently, his posts deserve little more than a wave off.

I'm confused as to whose side I'm on. It's very likely a summary judgment surviving case could be made if there's some decent discovery, but I don't agree there really should be a case against the theater absent new details.

That said, 1st Circuit precedent isn't generally controlling in the 10th. Are you quibbling over the fact it's persuasive? And apparently, the SCOTUS didn't grant the petition for cert. What's your issue with him mentioning that?

As for autopsy photos or injury photos, you're both right. Sometimes they get in, sometimes not depending on the basis. Yep, pain and suffering is a great way to do it, but if the person died instantly, then surely they're likely to be excluded as more prejudicial than probative. Hell, it's a balancing test reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Morgenstern you sneaked in there while I was posting.

It didn't appear Ender24 was suggesting denial of cert. involved a review of the issues. But, I guess he can speak for himself.

[Morgenstern]

1. Easy enough...and already done in a lot of theatres.
2. So all exits that lead directly to the lot would be emergency only, and everyone would have to leave through the main lobby...that is already filled with people waiting in line for popcorn, drinks and the next show?
3. The theatre in question already had a security officer, and he had the equipment you described. The trouble is that a 16-plex is a large building with four sides, so he is out of view of any one side of the build at least a quarter of the time.
4. An usher?? To escort people to their seats? Most movie screens have entrances designed so that you can enter from from left or right of the center isle, so you're really talking about a minimum of two ushers per screen. While each usher is "helping someone to their seat", 20 other people have entered the theatre and have no intention of waiting for their turn to be "helped". A minimum of 32 ushers slowing things down to a crawl and creating bad will.
5. Would you have the manager sitting in the security room viewing cameras until something happens? You have no idea what a theatre manager in a large complex does, do you?

#1. No issue.

#2. Not what I said at all. Please reread what I wrote.

#3 I already said "more in a larger theater." This is probably a larger theater, I've never see it so I have no idea how large it really is. Here's another problem. If they undertook to provide security, did they do it in a negligent manner by hiring too few guards to do the job?

#4 Yes, an usher. To escort people, keep teenagers from screwing each other, keep kids from throwing drinks at the screen, you know. Perhaps even close an exit door that was open for a few minutes while the shooter donned his armor, adjusted his crotch protector, fitted his mask, and grabbed his weapon.

#5. I've never been a manager in a theater. What exactly do they do?

[Enderw24]

The Supreme Court gives consideration to a very small fraction of cases each year. If someone desires to have a case reviewed by the Supreme Court, they do so by petitioning the Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari. If the court finds that there are one or more issues that should be reviewed, it grants certiorari (cert.). If the court decides not to review the case, it denies certiorari. When the court denies certiorari, it is in fact, letting the lower court ruling stand.

The decision to deny cert. does not constitute a Supreme Court review of the issues as they are, but it allows the lower court decision to stand, and therefore, become precedent.

I originally wrote something extremely crude and snarky to this but I decided to delete it. You were actually trying to be helpful and I appreciate it, but I see what we have is a simple misunderstanding. I know what Cert is. My point in even bringing the Supreme Court into it was to say that because the high court didn't hear it, it's not a national precedent. That's why all along I've been pointing out the difference between a 1st and 10th Circuit case. You've been attempting to argue law that's inapplicable in Colorado and I'm pointing that out to you.

[Morgenstern]

I'm confused as to whose side I'm on. It's very likely a summary judgment surviving case could be made if there's some decent discovery, but I don't agree there really should be a case against the theater absent new details.

That said, 1st Circuit precedent isn't generally controlling in the 10th. Are you quibbling over the fact it's persuasive? And apparently, the SCOTUS didn't grant the petition for cert. What's your issue with him mentioning that?

As for autopsy photos or injury photos, you're both right. Sometimes they get in, sometimes not depending on the basis. Yep, pain and suffering is a great way to do it, but if the person died instantly, then surely they're likely to be excluded as more prejudicial than probative. Hell, it's a balancing test reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.

The Silva case was quoted to show there is a precedent for the standard of care with respect to a theater.

As to the photos. Even with a deceased person, you still must prove several things. That they are in fact dead, who done it, and how did they do it. And, of course, how bad was it.......
"What is your opinion as to the cause of death doctor?"
"What, if any evidence did you use to support that finding doctor?"
"Did you examine the autopsy photos in coming to that conclusion?"
"You testified that the severed aorta was the cause of death, could you describe that to the jury please?"
"Would a picture help you explain this injury better?"

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Usually death is generally stipulated to IME as is cause in circumstances like these unless you're trying to backdoor photos to inflame the jury. Assuming instant death, unless there's an issue of positioning of the bodies related to claimed negligence on the part of the theater, it would be a rare judge who would let those photos in.

[PunditLisa]

#3 I already said "more in a larger theater." This is probably a larger theater, I've never see it so I have no idea how large it really is. Here's another problem. If they undertook to provide security, did they do it in a negligent manner by hiring too few guards to do the job?

The police, with actual training and actual guns, were reportedly on the scene in 90 seconds. 90 seconds. Even if you hired two Security guards per movie theater, unless you are willing to arm them, they'd be absolutely useless in such a scenario.

[Enkel]

So it is foreseeable, but not predictable? Does this mean the theater is not obligated to make any changes to protect their patrons?

Indoor malls have been shot up several times over. In my area, I can still walk into the local indoor malls without passing through metal detectors.

[Morgenstern]

Usually death is generally stipulated to IME as is cause in circumstances like these unless you're trying to backdoor photos to inflame the jury. Assuming instant death, unless there's an issue of positioning of the bodies related to claimed negligence on the part of the theater, it would be a rare judge who would let those photos in.


Gruesome photographs (murder scene photos - autopsies) showing scenes of mayhem, carnage gore, are generally admissible if they truly relate to a material fact or issue in the trial. IE, the cause of death, the nature and extent of the injury, even as it relates to the intent of the shooter, the location of the shooter, etc.

That the defendant may move to exclude this evidence including photograph and drawings, on the probative vs prejudice value is true, If the only reason the photograph is being used is to inflame the jury the judge would rule them inadmissable. But you'll agree that there are many doors that can be opened to allow this type of evidence.

Sometimes, the evidence the jury isn't allowed to see backfires on the defendant when the jury wonders just what the defendant doesn't what them to see.

[Morgenstern]

The police, with actual training and actual guns, were reportedly on the scene in 90 seconds. 90 seconds. Even if you hired two Security guards per movie theater, unless you are willing to arm them, they'd be absolutely useless in such a scenario.

How long do you think it took the shooter to put on leg armor, one leg at a time, put on ankle protectors, one ankle at a time. Put on a tactical vest, then a crotch protector, then a neck protector, then a gas mask, then get his weapons and gas canisters from the car. Minutes? Long enough for the cops, who were 90 seconds away, to arrive and take action. What if a security guard had called the cops when he observed this happening?

[Enkel]

12 year old kid rides a vacuum cleaner and somehow :wink: gets his penis caught in the hose where it is tragically lopped off. Is that foreseeable? http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/571/571.F2d.51.77-1276.77-1275.html

I haven't read through the link, but just the concept of boy bits getting stuck in a vacuum hose (or even the suction of a hot tub outlet)... I've known a lot of people who've had first hand experience in responding to these situations either as EMTs, medical professionals, or parents. Those devices seem especially dangerous to the young and those who are developmentally arrested at a young maturity level. If someone told me that there was a 10% chance of any male getting his boy bits caught in a suction device by age 16, it wouldn't surprise me at all. NOW, it does surprise me that they got sucked right off. I haven't ever heard of that one.

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Gruesome photographs (murder scene photos - autopsies) showing scenes of mayhem, carnage gore, are generally admissible if they truly relate to a material fact or issue in the trial. IE, the cause of death, the nature and extent of the injury, even as it relates to the intent of the shooter, the location of the shooter, etc.

That the defendant may move to exclude this evidence including photograph and drawings, on the probative vs prejudice value is true, If the only reason the photograph is being used is to inflame the jury the judge would rule them inadmissable. But you'll agree that there are many doors that can be opened to allow this type of evidence.

Sometimes, the evidence the jury isn't allowed to see backfires on the defendant when the jury wonders just what the defendant doesn't what them to see.

Yeah, I think we're saying the same thing. Thank goodness for backdoors, but due to the likely purpose of inflaming passion (of course that's not why we're trying to admit them for that purpose, how dare you suggest such a thing!) judges do view it with a jaundiced eye.

[Enkel]

it doesn't matter how well or piss poor this plays before a jury because this blackmail lawsuit will be settled out of court.


Considering that the question of liability in this case has potentially several hundred other traumatized patrons waiting in the wings for their payday, I would guess that the theater's insurer is motivated to take this case to trial so the question can be settled.

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Considering that the question of liability in this case has potentially several hundred other traumatized patrons waiting in the wings for their payday, I would guess that the theater's insurer is motivated to take this case to trial so the question can be settled.

Depends on the insurer's limits and duty to defend. If there is any decent case that can be made about lax security that even had a remote possibility of contributing to the ease with which the shooter accomplished his plan it could just dump its limits in a court trust account. This assumes an insurer can do that in CO and it removes any duty to defend the theater.

[Carmady]

If I owned the theater.

1. I would put a light at the inside, and on the outside, of every rear exit (to the parking lot) door. Said light would illuminate when/while the door was open or ajar.

2. I would have an alarm sound, and remain on for the duration the exit door was open. Except then the theater lights were turned up as they are between movies.

3. I would hire a security guard, or more for a larger theater, to patrol the parking lot, and the lobby. I would equip him with a cell phone and a radio to his supervisor.

4. I would have an usher in the theater to aid people getting to and from their seats, and to supervise the audience.

5. I would have security cameras that were visible to the manager, that could view any alarms that sounded.



So if a theater did these 5 things, and then a grad student with a backpack full of weapons waltzed right through the front door, into the theater, took out his weapons in the darkness and started shooting...

You would say the theater was completely blameless, correct?

[Chimera]

I asked the same basic question several pages ago and never got an answer.

[Deeg]

Me too!

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Off topic again, but to show the absurdity of some of these cases against property owners, a friend just settled a case where a restaurant's security guard (who worked there for years) was shot while on duty. He claimed the restaurant had insufficient security. Settled despite the fact the restaurant was in a very low crime area, the shooting was in broad daylight, there had never been so much as a single physical altercation at the restaurant in 5 years, and the guard pretty much wrote the restaurant's security policies and procedures.

Why? The guard's injuries necessitated an above-the-knee amputation and the judge would not grant summary judgment.

[PunditLisa]

How long do you think it took the shooter to put on leg armor, one leg at a time, put on ankle protectors, one ankle at a time. Put on a tactical vest, then a crotch protector, then a neck protector, then a gas mask, then get his weapons and gas canisters from the car. Minutes? Long enough for the cops, who were 90 seconds away, to arrive and take action. What if a security guard had called the cops when he observed this happening?

Even if a Security Guard had been in the theater, there is no guarantee that he'd have seen the perpetrator do anything. As you brought up yourself, perhaps he would have been distracted breaking up teenagers fornicating in Row I, one stroke at a time.

The ONLY thing a non-armed guard could have done, would be to... call the cops at the first sign of trouble. When you have a few hundred cell-phone carrying patrons with the same ability, there is zero advantage in having a security guard.

[Enkel]

How long do you think it took the shooter to put on leg armor, one leg at a time, put on ankle protectors, one ankle at a time. Put on a tactical vest, then a crotch protector, then a neck protector, then a gas mask, then get his weapons and gas canisters from the car. Minutes? Long enough for the cops, who were 90 seconds away, to arrive and take action. What if a security guard had called the cops when he observed this happening?

I thought he walked in already wearing all those things. They were thought to be a costume for the movie.

[Morgenstern]

So if a theater did these 5 things, and then a grad student with a backpack full of weapons waltzed right through the front door, into the theater, took out his weapons in the darkness and started shooting...

You would say the theater was completely blameless, correct?

See, I overlooked a reasonably foreseeable event. My theater patrons suffered due to my negligence. I'll probably get sued and I may well lose. But, starting tonight, I'm having my staff search all backpacks and large purses.

[Morgenstern]

I thought he walked in already wearing all those things. They were thought to be a costume for the movie.

Yes and no. He apparently exited the theater, dressed, armed himself and returned in costume through the door he had propped open.