• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cinemark wants losing Aurora Massacre Plaintiffs to pay Legal Bills

ludin said:
The argument was that the theater did not take proper measures to protect the people there.
It cost them a ton of money to fight it in court.

A judge tossed the case that what happened could not be predicted and the movie theater was not liable.

Now the movie theater wants the money it spent on legal fees back
Click to expand...

I agree with that 100%.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Same way as always, education and willpower. When the elite encourage the little people to be weak victims we tend to live down to the expectations eventually. Victim culture needs to end, and to make this happen the elite need a tune-up (GO TRUMP!). Yes I know it is a nice ego boost for them to have a bunch of victims to mind ("OH SAVE US ELITE/GOVERNMENT, WE NEED YOUR HELP SO MUCH!") but we have big problems, we have no time for this. Hook up and help pull the wagon, those who cant/wont have to be left by the side of the road to fend for themselves, till they are ready to help the collective as well as suck off of it. Maybe they die instead. THat is OK, that is part of justice.

I am Zen, NO WORK NO EAT comes easy to me.
Click to expand...
an interesting philosophy....thanks for the input
 
TurtleDude said:
Cinemark Wants Losing Aurora Massacre Plaintiffs to Pay Legal Costs - Law Blog - WSJ

Just heard this on my local news as well

Victims and survivors of the 2012 Colorado movie theater massacre failed to convince a jury that the theater’s owner should be held responsible for the bloodshed. Now they may have to reimburse the company they sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs.

actually this sounds [FONT=Chronicle SSm, serif]reasonable. Some of the victims were nailed with lawyers' fees when they sued the gun makers as well. Loser pays is a good idea to cut down on frivolous suits[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Hopefully the losing attorneys are charged their share as well. THAT would be a BEAUTIFUL thing.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I think the lawyers that took this frivolous lawsuit to court should be responsible for paying the theater's legal bills.

Isn't this what Feinstein wants? To be able to sue the gun manufacturers and FFL dealers?

TORT REFORM
Click to expand...

I totally agree. You can always find a lawyer to take any bull**** lawsuit you want to file. In this case they were probably banging on the door of the relatives of the victims within the first twelve hours. I was in a wreck once, new car totalled, not injured and a week later I got a letter from a lawyer. In huge red print was "You might never have to work again." He went on to explain he had a chiropractor who was an expert at diagnosing permanently disabling injuries that you don't even know you have. Bastards.

And, just think. The Democrats had one of the scum who made $29 million on bogus lawsuits proudly running for the nomination for president.
 
danarhea said:
I do not understand the reasoning here. How was Cinemark negligent? Because that's what these ambulance chasers are going to have to prove.
Click to expand...

Actually, they don't have to prove anything. The way it works now is that a lawsuit is filed that will cost the defendant tens of thousands of dollars to fight. If they can pay off the lawyers with fewer tens of thousands to make the suit go away, then they do. The lawyers take their cut, the people suing laugh all the way to the bank, no one goes to court, and the whole thing repeats the next time someone gets hurt. It really doesn't matter who is to blame. It only matters who has deep enough pockets to pay those tens of thousands and sometimes a lot more to avoid court.

Sometimes the accuracy of my cynicism scares even me.
 
MaggieD said:
Hopefully the losing attorneys are charged their share as well. THAT would be a BEAUTIFUL thing.
Click to expand...

The losing plaintiffs probably have a malpractice claim unless the attorneys thoroughly explained the risk of pursuing such a suit
 
_Sal said:
so how do we get back to that dual balance because it has to be logic but tempered with feeling
Click to expand...

Basically tell the emo'ers to sit down be quiet and grow a pair.
The only way to combat emotions is with logic and reason.
 
ludin said:
Basically tell the emo'ers to sit down be quiet and grow a pair.
The only way to combat emotions is with logic and reason.
Click to expand...

Oh, emotions are far more persuasive than logic and reason.
 
In criminal court the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil trials the standard is a preponderance of the evidence. It's often quite ludicrous. For example, in John Edwards lawsuits he had doctors testifying as experts that the birth defect of the children could possible maybe have been caused by the doctor failing to deliver the baby cesarean. Of course, it's maybe possible. Now the defendant must find an expert who can say it couldn't not possibly have been caused by the doctor. At the time, and now, the cause is unknown so it's much easier to say it couldn't possibly have maybe been this rather than it cannot possibly have been this.

We need tort reform. Lawyers don't need it but the rest of us do.

It's bogus but it's where attorneys get the big bucks. It's why the Trial Lawyers Association gives millions to the Democrats and zip to the Republicans. That's why Democrats refuse to even discuss tort reform.
 
Patrickt said:
In criminal court the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil trials the standard is a preponderance of the evidence. It's often quite ludicrous. For example, in John Edwards lawsuits he had doctors testifying as experts that the birth defect of the children could possible maybe have been caused by the doctor failing to deliver the baby cesarean. Of course, it's maybe possible. Now the defendant must find an expert who can say it couldn't not possibly have been caused by the doctor. At the time, and now, the cause is unknown so it's much easier to say it couldn't possibly have maybe been this rather than it cannot possibly have been this.

We need tort reform. Lawyers don't need it but the rest of us do.

It's bogus but it's where attorneys get the big bucks. It's why the Trial Lawyers Association gives millions to the Democrats and zip to the Republicans. That's why Democrats refuse to even discuss tort reform.
Click to expand...

also in some states, Like Texas and NC, you can sue in any county you want, even if the tort took place 300 miles away. So Plaintiffs' attorneys bring suit in a county full of uneducated backwards types who are generally uneducated and hostile towards doctors etc. and the judges are bought and paid for by the trial attorneys
 
TurtleDude said:
also in some states, Like Texas and NC, you can sue in any county you want, even if the tort took place 300 miles away. So Plaintiffs' attorneys bring suit in a county full of uneducated backwards types who are generally uneducated and hostile towards doctors etc. and the judges are bought and paid for by the trial attorneys
Click to expand...

I have a different take. Screw the theater. I agree that plaintiffs should pay defendants legal fees in frivolous lawsuits they lose. As in suing firearm mfgs and ammo dealers.

But, If the franchise's policy forbids me from carrying my firearm, the franchise should be required to provide my security and liable if they fail to do so.
 
Bootlace said:
I have a different take. Screw the theater. I agree that plaintiffs should pay defendants legal fees in frivolous lawsuits they lose. As in suing firearm mfgs and ammo dealers.

But, If the franchise's policy forbids me from carrying my firearm, the franchise should be required to provide my security and liable if they fail to do so.
Click to expand...

a point I made long before this decision was announced. I want the plaintiffs who sued Bushmaster over Sandy Hook obliterated financially
 
TurtleDude said:
a point I made long before this decision was announced. I want the plaintiffs who sued Bushmaster over Sandy Hook obliterated financially
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
 
TurtleDude said:
also in some states, Like Texas and NC, you can sue in any county you want, even if the tort took place 300 miles away. So Plaintiffs' attorneys bring suit in a county full of uneducated backwards types who are generally uneducated and hostile towards doctors etc. and the judges are bought and paid for by the trial attorneys
Click to expand...

and, of course, the doctor or whoever is being sued has to travel 300 miles to defend himself. That's just wrong.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and, of course, the doctor or whoever is being sued has to travel 300 miles to defend himself. That's just wrong.
Click to expand...

can you imagine if prosecutors could do that? Try a inner city black in the hills of Appalachia in say Ohio or a Latino Gang banger from NYC in the most rural part of NYS?
 
TurtleDude said:
also in some states, Like Texas and NC, you can sue in any county you want, even if the tort took place 300 miles away. So Plaintiffs' attorneys bring suit in a county full of uneducated backwards types who are generally uneducated and hostile towards doctors etc. and the judges are bought and paid for by the trial attorneys
Click to expand...

When I lived in Colorado, finance companies routinely sued people living in Denver in Grand Junction. If they showed up for court, the finance company's lawyers would ask for, and usually get, a continuance. There were newspapers stories about the nonsense but nothing happened while I was living there. Since the California invasion I would say it's likely nothing has happened in a positive way since I left.
 
Bootlace said:
I have a different take. Screw the theater. I agree that plaintiffs should pay defendants legal fees in frivolous lawsuits they lose. As in suing firearm mfgs and ammo dealers.

But, If the franchise's policy forbids me from carrying my firearm, the franchise should be required to provide my security and liable if they fail to do so.
Click to expand...

And if they did let people in with guns and a gunfight erupted they could be sued for that, too. Ah, a liberal heaven.
 
Patrickt said:
And if they did let people in with guns and a gunfight erupted they could be sued for that, too. Ah, a liberal heaven.
Click to expand...

In my county the concealed carry class was given by a sheriff captain. He said your bullet is worth a million dollars and you own it from the time you pull the trigger until it comes to rest. Hit an innocent bystander and you will pay. Keep that in the back of your mind when you pull the trigger.
 
TheGoverness said:
Good. This lawsuit was BS from the get go.
Click to expand...
The ''justice system'' should have a type of ''pre-hearing'' to weed out frivolous lawsuits BEFORE they advance beyond the .. say $100 stage .. IMO, in this case , the lawsuits were themselves criminal ..ludicrous to blame the gun or the theater ..
 
Bootlace said:
In my county the concealed carry class was given by a sheriff captain. He said your bullet is worth a million dollars and you own it from the time you pull the trigger until it comes to rest. Hit an innocent bystander and you will pay. Keep that in the back of your mind when you pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

I don't carry a gun. For thirty years I did carry a gun. I never worried about when I could shoot someone because I didn't want to shoot someone. I would only have done so if I had no choice.

And, people rarely wanted to sue me for anything. I didn't have much. They wanted to sue the city. If the movie theater lets armed customers in and someone gets shot it is the theater that will get sued. They have what lawyers call, the deeper pockets.

The most dangerous person with a gun is a frightened person.
 
one of those who sued was on our local news tonight (Channel 12, CBS, Cincinnati) whining about having to pay the legal costs of the winning party (Cinemark)

some free legal advice to this guy. SUE your attorneys. UNLESS they told you that there was a very real chance of them losing and CINEMARK coming after you for their costs, they have most likely committed malpractice.
 
TurtleDude said:
one of those who sued was on our local news tonight (Channel 12, CBS, Cincinnati) whining about having to pay the legal costs of the winning party (Cinemark)

some free legal advice to this guy. SUE your attorneys. UNLESS they told you that there was a very real chance of them losing and CINEMARK coming after you for their costs, they have most likely committed malpractice.
Click to expand...

And good luck with that. Best advice: Suck it up and learn. Don't get involved in any more frivolous lawsuits.
 
TurtleDude said:
Cinemark Wants Losing Aurora Massacre Plaintiffs to Pay Legal Costs - Law Blog - WSJ

Just heard this on my local news as well

Victims and survivors of the 2012 Colorado movie theater massacre failed to convince a jury that the theater’s owner should be held responsible for the bloodshed. Now they may have to reimburse the company they sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs.

actually this sounds [FONT=Chronicle SSm, serif]reasonable. Some of the victims were nailed with lawyers' fees when they sued the gun makers as well. Loser pays is a good idea to cut down on frivolous suits[/FONT]
Click to expand...


I agree, however, if the legislation proposed recently gets any traction, a business that clearly marks itself as a gun free zone, and then something like this happens, they would be open to paying damages. In that case I would side with the victims.

Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom