Even if they were, movie theaters don’t have gunman proof doors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
They could have had the Arch Angel Gabriel there as well.
Sounds like you are copping out of an indefensible position.
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.
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.
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: