
Aurora massacre survivors sued, and four ended up owing the theater $700k - smacktoward
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-batman-shooting-lawsuit-20160822-snap-story.html
======
Broken_Hippo
I find so much of this article simply appalling. I'm not sure how the movie
theater is actually responsible for the shooting. The shooting was a horrible
and tragic event, yes. Could safety be improved? In general terms, probably.
Would these general safety things helped this incident? Almost certainly not.

Is expecting a movie theater to provide this level of security reasonable?
Probably not - and the truth is that most reasonable folks wouldn't want this
level of security at a movie theater. It is probably best left to law
enforcement.

I understand these folks' lives have changed for the worst. I truly think they
are entitled to have their medical bills and therapy and things covered. If
they cannot work, I do think they are entitled to having income at their
previous levels. But not by the theater.

And all along, this lawsuit had many failings. I find it amazing that a lawyer
would take the case. I find it amazing that said lawyer, if he was not paid
upfront, is not partially responsible for the other side's fees. (being paid
upfront changes things, as he'd not really profit from the winnings). I find
it weird that the case was allowed through and not thrown out earlier. I find
it appalling that these folks aren't taken care of as I mentioned before -
because I truly believe this stuff would lessen such lawsuits.

Such an odd world we live in.

~~~
lintiness
you find it odd that a lawyer would take this case? you must not know many
lawyers. here in colorado, we've allowed them to advertise their services.
almost all of daytime tv is inundated with ads for ambulance chasing shit
slingers.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Yeah, in a way. At some point, doesn't a reasonable person stop to say, "This
is quite ridiculous, isn't it?"

I forget about those commercials, honestly. I remember a few from Indiana some
years back, but disconnected from TV and switched countries since then (and
that could affect my viewpoint). I don't view those folks well - but at least
occasionally they wind up actually taking justifiable cases. Again, though,
the safety net thing would render them unnecessary in many cases.

~~~
meddlepal
A good lawyer will generally advise you not to take on near unbeatable odds or
politely decline to take a case like this.

~~~
jessaustin
The "good" lawyers should start taking some responsibility for the shit
lawyers like "Marc Bern" mentioned in TFA. Law is still considered a
profession, by some people anyway. Physicians don't let other physicians sell
snake oil; why are lawyers and judges comfortable doing that?

However the "good" lawyers in this case are also scumbags. On an open-and-shut
case like this, in which the plaintiffs spent $22k on expert testimony, how is
it reasonable for the defense to spend $500k? It isn't clear from TFA that
defense expenses will have to be paid for the state-level suit, but if so most
of that should be thrown out. If in fact the federal judge doesn't throw out
most of the apparently >$700k federal expenses, the two explanations for that
would be corruption (of course) and a fit of pique against the intransigent
four for not respecting his authoritay.

Incidentally TFA is a mess. Why does it use the defense expenses for the state
trial to calculate what the federal plaintiffs will have to pay?

~~~
dogma1138
>Physicians don't let other physicians sell snake oil;

Eh? do you know how many BS "Doctor" (MD, Ph.D. And Wannabe) sites, tv and
radio shows, segments and infomercials that sell snaken oil (and in many cases
simple snake poison) are out there?

~~~
jessaustin
No I don't know. Regardless, one wouldn't hold physicians responsible for the
actions of PhDs and other charlatans. If a snake oil salesperson claims to be
an MD (or DO?) on the internet, one could believe that or not. When I am
treated by physicians, they are held to the standards of their profession. If
I consulted an attorney, that wouldn't be the case.

~~~
dogma1138
There are plenty of MD's which are utter charlatans and sell considerably
worse things than snake oil and they aren't being called out by physicians
everywhere.

Both physicians and attorneys are held to the standards of their profession
both of them have code of ethic they have to follow, and both of them are
liable for their actions. Just like physicians lose their licenses over gross
misconducts attorney are disbarred all the time.

If an attorney can be proven to have acted not in the interests of client, not
in good faith, was negligent etc. they can be sued for legal malpractice even
if the bar does not investigates them directly.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_malpractice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_malpractice)

People can be selfish assholes regardless of their profession, there is
nothing inherently more just or ethical in the actions of physicians over any
other profession.

~~~
lintiness
lawyers serve clients and a system; they aren't paid to give a shit about the
truth (or justice for that matter), and most don't.

~~~
dogma1138
This isn't about the truth this is about representing the interests of your
client, if you as a lawyer are serving your own interests for example by not
advising them very strongly to take a settlement knowing that they are most
likely going to lose in court just because your cut form the proposed
settlement isn't enough in you taste you have committed a gross violation of
the codes of ethics of the legal bar, you can be disbarred for it, and are
liable to be sued for legal malpractice.

"Truth and Justice" do not exist out of context, these are meaningless terms
even with applied arbitrarily to the legal system.

------
rmchugh
It seems like a really bizarre case from a European perspective. If one
concluded that the theatre was liable for the actions of a gun carrying
lunatic wouldn't the same apply for all service providers acting in public
space? Concerts, bars, cafés etc would all be expected to prepare for
terrorist-style shooting incidents. Whatever about the excessive cost of such
preparations (which would be passed on to the consumer), the effect on public
consciousness by constantly rubbing up against militarised zones would be
horrible.

~~~
lostlogin
It would be a problem that was largely solved if gun manufacturers held any
liability - a far better target than the cinema. The protection of lawful
commerce in arms act protects them.

~~~
unclenoriega
I'm not against gun control measures, but I've never understood this argument.
Maybe I'm missing something, but is there another industry where we hold
manufacturers liable for a properly functioning, legal product? If there is
something they can do to make guns safer, just require it. If there isn't, it
just makes more sense to ban gun sales than to make gun manufacturers liable
for gun crimes.

The automobile industry seems like a good parallel. Manufacturers can be
liable for manufacturing defects, and seat belts and such are required. There
are more advanced safety features available, but as far as I am aware, a
manufacturer can't be held liable for injury simply for not including them.

Perhaps it's just an end-run around the 2nd amendment. That's the only way
this policy has ever made any sense to me.

~~~
niftich
In the US, the tobacco industry was litigated against both by states and by
private individuals until the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement [1] of 1998.

Interestingly, a widow of a smoker suing the tobacco companies is the plot of
the 1996 John Grisham novel 'The Runaway Jury'. When it was made into a movie
in 2003, the script was adapted to a widow suing gunmakers after a workplace
shooting.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement)

~~~
unclenoriega
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't the premise of this litigation that tobacco
companies engaged in marketing and other campaigns to hide or muddy the waters
around the negative effects of smoking? I don't think that applies to gun
manufacturers, whose product is designed to kill and marketed as such.

------
kbart
_" Weaver had been pushing for, an acknowledgment that the theater chain would
take new measures to protect patrons."_

Another TSA at the cinema? No, thanks. We can't secure every step from mass
shooting and/or terrorists attacks without making cities into the huge
prisons. While our society functions normally and mass killings are _very_
rare, there's no need to take additional security measurements. A much better
way is to invest these money into mental health programs. So no, despite the
alarmist tone on this article, the court ruling was sane and probably the best
one in this case.

~~~
lostlogin
What about dealing with mental health and guns? Both of these are hard but the
guns one is pretty much untouchable unfortunately.

~~~
LyndsySimon
In the US, depriving someone of a right is a legal process. If someone has
been adjudicated mentally incompetent, they cannot legally own a gun.

~~~
lostlogin
Except when the correct process isn't followed and they just buy one, which
unfortunately occurs. [http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-
health-...](http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-
records-in-background-check-system-tripled-since-release-of-fatal-gaps-report-
pressed-states-to-submit-records-of-prohibited-gun-purchasers/)

~~~
LyndsySimon
Your response is a complete non sequitur. If someone has been adjudicated
incompetent, they may not legally own a gun.

~~~
lostlogin
Except when they walk into a shop and buy one, hence the link.

~~~
LyndsySimon
Please cite an example of someone adjudicated mentally incompetent who
purchased a firearm from a "shop".

~~~
lostlogin
I'm not sure you get what I have just said. The process doesn't work. People
clearly mentally unfit to own guns can buy them legally. The process is not
followed and they don't get barred. People who are unfit don't get flagged as
unfit and then buy guns. How many examples would you like? Half a dozen come
to mind. There are no shortages of publications that state this.

~~~
LyndsySimon
I can think of no examples where someone who has been adjudicated as
incompetent has purchased firearms from an FFL and gone on to commit crimes -
and I'm _quite_ familiar with the process, let me assure you.

You saying someone is "unfit to own guns" does not make it so.

~~~
lostlogin
It does when it's their healthcare professional and that is what they are
seeking help for. When their doctor fails to follow the correct process things
fall apart. This has happened repeatedly, as the provided link indicates.

~~~
LyndsySimon
It takes more than a medical diagnosis. A person must be involuntarily
committed or adjudicated incompetent. Both of these are legal processes, not
medical ones.

This is appropriate. Individuals should not be deprived of their basic human
rights without due process.

------
300bps
tl;dr There were 41 survivors suing the movie theater for failing to secure
the theater from an armed attacker. 40 voted to settle for a small amount of
money. One rejected the settlement which caused it to fail. 37 then removed
themselves as plaintiffs fearing they would lose the case and be responsible
for the movie theater's legal costs. The four remaining lost the case and were
held responsible for the movie theaters bills. And that's how 4 of the
survivors ended up owing the movie theater $700,000 in legal costs.

------
gambiting
The article seems to paint the theatre in bad light, as if they are
responsible for the shooting, or at least for not preventing it - do we really
want to live in reality where you have to go through metal detector to see a
movie? While I feel very sorry for the survivors, I feel like they are a bunch
of exploitative arseholes for trying to sue the theater for any damages - it's
beyond ridiculous.

~~~
simbalion
Why is this even an acceptable hypothetical? "if they are responsible for the
shooting"... Seriously? Unless someone employed by the theater hired the
shooter, I would love to know what other scenario could possibly have made
them responsible for it.

Adults since ancient man have been expected to be responsible for their own
self-defense. But for some reason in modern day America, people think someone
else is responsible for protecting them. Well they're not.

~~~
lintiness
it's mostly predatory whore lawyers causing problems like this. we're a
ridiculously litigious country, and the expense is visible in everything from
the cost of healthcare to insurance to buying carrots at the store.

~~~
simbalion
The experts who gave testimony might be to blame too, it sounds like they
charged a years salary for their 30 minutes of testimony.

------
mcphage
> Then one plaintiff rejected the deal. Her suffering had been profound: Her
> child was killed in the shooting, she was left paralyzed and the baby she
> was carrying had been lost.

I'm curious if she rejected the settlement—and (presumably) stayed on the
case—because she thought they would win? Or because she thought shooting
victims owing the theater $700k would be a bigger black mark against Cinemark,
than it settling for $150k?

A $150k settlement makes it sound like Cinemark wasn't at fault and they
settled for a pittance to make it go away (which is true); having the shooting
victims owe it $700k sounds like an injustice. I certainly doubt Cinemark
wants the results of this case to be widely publicized. It's not like they're
ever going to receive even a fraction of that $700k anyway.

~~~
rhapsodic
> I'm curious if she rejected the settlement—and (presumably) stayed on the
> case—because she thought they would win? Or because she thought shooting
> victims owing the theater $700k would be a bigger black mark against
> Cinemark, than it settling for $150k?

I don't think there was any logic involved in her decision at all. I'm
guessing that the unimaginable horrors that had been inflicted upon her and
her family clouded her judgement. I feel really sorry for her, but I agree
with the decision, and the law that led the judge to make it.

~~~
mcphage
> I don't think there was any logic involved in her decision at all.

Yeah, probably. I guess I'd prefer to think that she knew what she was doing,
but who knows. I can't imagine Cinemark is very happy with the results, since
rather than the case going away quietly they got a $700k judgement they can't
do anything with. But then insurance gets involved, and I'm not going to
pretend I know that will work out.

------
rhapsodic
> On a conference call, the federal judge overseeing the case told the
> plaintiffs’ attorneys that he was prepared to rule in the theater chain’s
> favor. He urged the plaintiffs to settle with Cinemark, owner of the Century
> Aurora 16 multiplex where the July 20, 2012, shooting occurred. They had 24
> hours.

Is it common for a judge to tell one party in a dispute which way he intends
to rule, in advance of the actual ruling? That would seem to give that party
an unfair advantage in settlement negotiations. The article doesn't say that
Cinemark was given the same information in advance. Had they had that
information, they wouldn't feel compelled to offer much of anything to settle
the lawsuit, except perhaps for the sake of PR.

------
lintiness
tldr: most plaintiffs settled for peanuts (the judge didn't believe the
theater was to blame or could have reasonably prevented the massacre), the
others went against judicial advice and ate cinemark's attorney's fees.

~~~
celticninja
That TL:DR is inaccurate.

All plaintiffs agreed to settle for a share of $150k rather than face the
prospect of paying the legal costs of the theatre. One plaintiff (who was one
of the plaintiffs getting a larger share) refused the deal at the final minute
which meant there was no settlement for anyone. The next day the judge found
for the theater and costs were assigned to the plaintiffs. At which stage
there were only 4 left on the case as the others had withdrawn so im not sure
if the 700k was between all original defendants or the 4 remaining ones.

~~~
kahnpro
I don't understand how they can just withdraw after an attempt at settlement
but before the decision was made. Seems to me like all 41 should be on the
hook for those legal fees.

~~~
celticninja
But 40 of the 41 would have accepted the settlement so why should they be on
the hook for the fees when only one refused the settlement.

~~~
kahnpro
Because they're a part of the lawsuit? Refusing the settlement doesn't mean
the lawsuit is lost.

~~~
celticninja
did you read the article? All this is explained. The lawsuit was lost, the
judge had pretty much told them he would be giving a decision in favour of the
defendants the next day hence the need to agree a settlement.

------
simbalion
Suing the theater for something so obviously out of their control is crooked.
Suing the victims to re-pay the exhorbitant fees for your "expert testimony"
is also crooked. Everyone involved are crooks. That is interesting.

~~~
unclenoriega
I wonder if it makes sense to limit fees for expert testimony.

~~~
simbalion
People summoned to give testimony should not be allowed to get paid for it at
all. It's enough to cover their expenses. It should be a duty.

~~~
icebraining
That's both counterproductive and unfair. Counterproductive because unless
you'd start arresting and forcing people to testify, you'd just mass evasion,
just like there already is for jury duty. The only "experts" willing to come
would be self-promoters trying to get their name on the newspaper.

Unfair, because that "duty" would be almost exclusively levied on the most
capable and productive members of society. If you think expert testimony is a
social duty, then it should be imposed on the whole of society, by getting the
State to finance it.

------
aaron695
Good.

Why do we assume people who were just sitting in a theater where good people?

Why should they get to sue?

Do we realise what would have happened if they won.

TSA at theaters being needed to keep their insurance.

Theaters going broke.

The judge even gave them warning.

Bad things happen every day. A car accident is an awful thing.

Why do people get special preference the more media coverage they get.

