Survivors of Massacre are forced to pay $700K

[_Doc]

So yeah... The Aurora theater massacre survivors are ordered to pay $700K. All 28 people who sued have to pay that total. These 28 individuals attempted to sue Cinemark for lack of security. But, they failed in that court case. Is this fair at all?

Link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3768375/Survivors-Aurora-shooting-massacre-ordered-pay-theater-chain-700-000-fees.html

[Sapphire Lightning]

Someone in PR should have told them that forcing these people to pay such a massive sum to such a large company will cost them more in the long run than they would have lost if they just moved on. I hope people bring this up in social media, as I am sure there will be many people who will refuse to go to this brand of theatres any more. Just to cover their new image problem Aurora will have to spend more than 700k on marketing to cover just for the fact they are pulling such a crap move on the "little people".

[brimstoneSalad]

So yeah... The Aurora theater massacre survivors are ordered to pay $700K. All 28 people who sued have to pay that total. These 28 individuals attempted to sue Cinemark for lack of security. But, they failed in that court case. Is this fair at all?

They have to pay the legal costs, because they're the ones who brought the frivolous lawsuit.
It's both fair and necessary that the plaintiff pays the legal costs of the defendant if it was a baseless suit. And this was.

Theaters aren't required to have that kind of security in case a madman decides to kill people -- that would require every theater across the country to install metal detectors and have guards everywhere. Going to the movies would turn into the TSA. I don't think anybody wants that.

And we definitely don't want a world where people can file frivolous lawsuits and you have to pay for your defense whether they win or lose. That just encourages more frivolous lawsuits which burden the court systems and cost everybody a fortune but the lawyers.

That said, I think the predatory attorneys who talked these innocent victims into pressing the suit should be liable for the costs.
Tort reform is badly needed

[brimstoneSalad]

Someone in PR should have told them that forcing these people to pay such a massive sum to such a large company will cost them more in the long run than they would have lost if they just moved on.

I'm sure they did. If it doesn't mention it, that article is probably yellow journalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinemark_ ... a_shooting

The theater was sued by victims families, who alleged the theater may have taken greater measures to prevent the shooting. After years of legal battling, a jury took three hours to deliver a unanimous verdict that the theater chain was not liable to any degree for the tragedy that transpired, and the judge allowed the theater company to submit a bill of costs to recover expenses imposed on it due to the litigation, as Colorado state law allows for prevailing parties. The theater chain has a pending motion in state court for certain cost reimbursements in the amount of 699,000.[24] A separate group of victims were also dismissed in federal court when U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled that "killer James Holmes’ own ‘premeditated and intentional actions were the predominant cause of the plaintiffs’ losses.’" Legal analysts cited in news outlets opined that the theater company will likely refrain from seeking costs from the plaintiffs and argued costs may have been submitted to dissuade appeals from being filed by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, which would further prolong the tragedy.[25][26]

There's no reason to believe that they will move to collect those costs unless the lawyers don't drop it.

[Red]

Wasn't this that shooting that happened 4 years ago during the screening of that Batman movie?

Anyways, this kind of suing happens all the time; My best guess is that people just want money. It may not apply for this case, but it happens a lot. It happened to my grandfather and his business; I recall one case where a woman tripped over a small crack (that was due to the tree's roots, and discussions were being made about doing something about it) in front of the restaurant, and they sued us for a quite unreasonable amount of money, despite the fact that if I'm not mistaken the woman got barely hurt, if at all. I mean, we won that case, but I guess it just goes to show that people are willing to find trivial things to sue people for.