|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 31, 2016, 09:21 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Rulings In Cinemark Theater Aurora, CO Shooting Case
We have had repeated threads here on TFL where people say the victims should sue businesses when they have been disarmed (often described as being rendered 'defenseless') by gun free zones and have been hurt/killed. Sometimes the attitude has been to try to financially harm the businesses into giving up their rights a to allow people to carry. While Tennessee has made from carry-friendly law changes holding businesses more responsible, the other 49 states and US territories have not.
So what happens if you are in a shooting in Colorado and want to hold the business responsible? It may cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars if you lose. That is what has happened for at least 4 plaintiffs who decided to press their civil case against Cinemark, even after being told they should reconsider by the judge after another case against Cinemark had been ruled that Cinemark could not have foreseen the shooting and therefore was not responsible. Long story short, of the 41 plaintiffs in the case, 4 decided to pursue it and 4 are now left holding the bag, losing the case for which Cinemark has the right to recover lost legal fees as the winner of the suit. http://theweek.com/speedreads/646024...-theater-chain http://www.businessinsider.com/auror...-naught-2016-8 http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/30...ms-legal-fees/ Mind you, these cases were not for the purpose of forcing Cinemark to allow concealed carry. These were simply for there being a safer environment via means such as security guards, door alarms, etc.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
September 1, 2016, 06:40 PM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
So, another reckless nuisance lawsuit has predictably failed, and the legal firm who brought it is leaving the plaintiffs holding the bag.
Gee, why does that sound familiar? The attorneys bringing these cases should be sanctioned, if not charged with fraud. After the 1984 McDonald's shooting in San Ysidro, the court ruled quite clearly that the proprietor could not be reasonably expected to anticipate something like this. Had the attorneys done any research, they would have known this.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
September 1, 2016, 08:17 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Exactly. However we regularly have people who think a lawsuit is in order as something of a knee-jerk reaction to a business' gun policies. The suggestion comes up regularly. So this was a timely reminder of the difficulty of winning such a case and in some cases, the significant personal ramifications of a loss.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
September 2, 2016, 07:34 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
|
|
September 2, 2016, 09:17 AM | #5 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Yeah, I get that "gun-free zones" are a problem, but this is not the avenue for solving that.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
September 2, 2016, 10:50 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
^^^ 100% Agreed.
Although I have no statistics to back this up, I'm confident that far more movie theater, restaurant, and retail patrons are killed each year in vehicle-pedestrian parking-lot accidents than in shootings inside buildings. Should landlords be required to erect guardrails, install flashing-light crosswalk signals, or ban cars and trucks altogether? We don't prohibit ice cream parlors near airports because of vanishingly unlikely tragedies such as this. Recognize that this is a major slippery slope.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; September 2, 2016 at 11:03 AM. |
September 2, 2016, 11:23 AM | #7 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
Quote:
Either a major corporation like McDonalds can argue that they have never heard of any kind of shooting at a place of business or they know it can and does happen. Knowing about something and being responsible for it are two wholly different things. Denying something which is obvious, in a weak attempt to avoid responsibility, only makes one look foolish. |
||
September 2, 2016, 11:40 AM | #8 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,436
|
I think we need to differentiate between our argument and the argument of the plaintiffs in the Aurora case. They didn't sue because they were unarmed due to Cinemark's "No guns" policy and thus could not protect themselves. They sued (effectively) because Cinemark didn't provide armed security to protect them.Yes, I understand that the argument is "If you're going to disarm me then it's your responsibility to protect me." In fact, I agree with that argument.
But that was not the argument of the Aurora plaintiffs. |
September 2, 2016, 11:51 AM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Quote:
|
|
September 2, 2016, 01:06 PM | #10 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Quote:
Just because you go into somebody else's business does not mean that the business assumes all responsibility for your safety against illegal acts. Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|