4 ms·

4 Survivors of Aurora Shooting Massacre Ordered to Pay Theater Nearly $700,000

12 points by ourmandave 10y ago

StavrosK 10y ago
Isn't the theater in the right here? If you sue a theater because they didn't employ anti-terrorist personnel (and, let's face it, that's a lawsuit designed for a quick buck if I ever saw one), you should have to pay their costs if you lose.
- smoyer 10y ago
  I'd like to see this happen a lot more often ... The amount of civil litigation happening in the US is just ridiculous.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Sort of. I'm actually a little sympathetic in this situation. Most theaters (and many other public places) prohibit people from possessing the means to defend themselves, and yet also fail to provide security themselves. It's unfair to pull crap like that, but they get away with it. However, in the end, I'm too libertarian to say a theatre should be required to do or not to anything for its customers. But boy does this situation suck for the customer.
  - hansthehorse 10y ago
    Do you really think if a citizen uses a concealed firearm in a movie theater to stop an attack the theater company would attempt to sue them or something? It is not illegal to carry a firearm inside a business that has a no gun policy. The worst that can happen is you are asked to leave. I carry my concealed weapon everywhere I go except state mandated exclusion zones.
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      > It is not illegal to carry a firearm inside a business that has a no gun policy. Absolutely. But Cinemark prohibited firearms. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-guns-policy-at-cinemark-theaters.html http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-guns-policy-at-cine... http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater.html http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shoot... --- Granted, a "gun policy" without a metal detector is like underwear policy without a strip check....if they know you're in violation, you're not doing it right ;)
- gtirloni 10y ago
  It seems the American rule re: attorney's fees might be to blame for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe... I live in a country with the English rule, so people think twice before trying to make a quick buck with some litigation (they know they will have to pay both sides' legal expenses). It's still crazy enough and courts are overloaded, but nothing near US levels.
iisbum 10y ago
Click bait headline which sucks because the issue of who pays legal fees in cases like this an important one.
detaro 10y ago
previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12397513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12397513

12 points by ourmandave 10y ago

Isn't the theater in the right here? If you sue a theater because they didn't employ anti-terrorist personnel (and, let's face it, that's a lawsuit designed for a quick buck if I ever saw one), you should have to pay their costs if you lose.

smoyer 10y ago
I'd like to see this happen a lot more often ... The amount of civil litigation happening in the US is just ridiculous.
paulddraper 10y ago
Sort of. I'm actually a little sympathetic in this situation. Most theaters (and many other public places) prohibit people from possessing the means to defend themselves, and yet also fail to provide security themselves. It's unfair to pull crap like that, but they get away with it. However, in the end, I'm too libertarian to say a theatre should be required to do or not to anything for its customers. But boy does this situation suck for the customer.
- hansthehorse 10y ago
  Do you really think if a citizen uses a concealed firearm in a movie theater to stop an attack the theater company would attempt to sue them or something? It is not illegal to carry a firearm inside a business that has a no gun policy. The worst that can happen is you are asked to leave. I carry my concealed weapon everywhere I go except state mandated exclusion zones.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    > It is not illegal to carry a firearm inside a business that has a no gun policy. Absolutely. But Cinemark prohibited firearms. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-guns-policy-at-cinemark-theaters.html http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-guns-policy-at-cine... http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater.html http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shoot... --- Granted, a "gun policy" without a metal detector is like underwear policy without a strip check....if they know you're in violation, you're not doing it right ;)
gtirloni 10y ago
It seems the American rule re: attorney's fees might be to blame for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe... I live in a country with the English rule, so people think twice before trying to make a quick buck with some litigation (they know they will have to pay both sides' legal expenses). It's still crazy enough and courts are overloaded, but nothing near US levels.

iisbum 10y ago

Click bait headline which sucks because the issue of who pays legal fees in cases like this an important one.

detaro 10y ago

previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12397513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12397513