So it is foreseeable, but not predictable? Does this mean the theater is not obligated to make any changes to protect their patrons?
*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.”*
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.
Based on what law?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Which could lead to situations where Person/Group A attacks Person/Group B at Site C for the purpose of creating a lawsuit situation.
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.
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:
- The existence of a duty of care.
- Breach of such duty.
- Harm proximately caused by the breach.
Why do you think that would work?
No, homeowners are held to a lower standard than are those who charge the public to enter their theater facilities.
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 
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
**Morgenstern **- I’ve never noticed before, but have you always been this fucking stupid?
Any comment on post #145?
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.
“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.”
“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”.
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%”.