You’re saying they have no obligation to provide a safe environment.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 to that effect. The theater has an affirmative duty to protect patrons from intentional criminal acts of a third party according to that case.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, well that makes it different. With good wishes he must be thinking with a clear head. :rolleyes:
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
“…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?
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.