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?
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?
If I owned the theater.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I would have an usher in the theater to aid people getting to and from their seats, and to supervise the audience.
-
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.
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.
- Easy enough…and already done in a lot of theatres.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
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.
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’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.
** 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.
#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?
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.
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?”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.