Rulings In Cinemark Theater Aurora, CO Shooting Case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Double Naught Spy

Double Naught Spy

Sus Venator
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
12,344
Location
Forestburg, Texas
In the 101st post in the original thread on the mass shooting at the theater in Aurora, CO, it was wondered if there was a leg to stand on regarding a lawsuit regarding disarming the populous. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=668808&highlight=gun+free+zone+lawsuit

It was part of a promo bluster, but Ignatius Piazza offered to pay the legal fees of the first person to file a very specific type of lawsuit against Cinemark. Apparently, nobody took him up on it and I wonder if he would have paid the resultant decision?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=671660&highlight=lawsuit+cinemark

It has been argued that we should sue the businesses of gun free zones to allow gun carry, that the businesses are responsible for the safety of the patrons who visit there, and that the only way to make them understand this is to make them pay. Well, to my knowledge, such lawsuits have never worked and the issues of the business being responsible for the unforeseen specific actions such as happened in Aurora, CO have resulted in two different wins by Cinemark, the second turning out to be VERY costly for the remaining plaintiffs.

Because of CO law, the party getting sued in legal matters has the right to be compensated for legal fees if the plaintiff's case is lost. Back in just, the first case did not go in the plaintiff's favor and the judge told the plaintiff's in the second case that it would not likely go well in their case either and that they should settle for the $150K (divided 41 ways) within 24 hours to continue on with consequences. 37 withdrew and four folks remained in the lawsuit. They lost. They are now responsible for paying nearly $700,000 in Cinemark legal fees for the case.

http://www.businessinsider.com/aurora-shooting-plaintiffs-believe-their-case-was-for-naught-2016-8
http://theweek.com/speedreads/646024/survivors-aurora-shooting-have-pay-least-700000-theater-chain

Lawsuits for safety against illegal activities by 3rd parties often do not go well. This is an example where state law means not going well and be downright horrendously bad for the plaintiffs. Each now owes more than Cinemark offered to pay the entire original 41 plaintiffs.
 
Last edited:
But this case was not about Cinemark restricting carry at all . . .

Not holding businesses responsible for the actions of criminals is a good thing for the gun community.

I fully support looser pays. Sad that victims and their relatives allowed themselves to be taken advantage of. I wonder if counsel adequately explained the risk to all 41 up front?

Mike
 
Entering the suit if the lawyers are not working on contingency is not smart. They will take a large part of the settlement but if they lose, you aren't on the hook.
 
If I understand your premise correctly, you think that it should be possible for victims to sue businesses of gun free zones because those businesses limit the ability of their patrons to protect themselves if they choose to conceal carry during an emergency like an attack?

If I understand your premise correctly, Tennessee has enacted a law that does exactly that...hold businesses responsible if they choose to make the business a gun free zone so that if something happens, a concealed weapons license holder can sue the business because the business made the license holder defenseless but failed to protect the patron. I think it's a great law and hope it spreads across the country.
 
People should be held accountable if they tell people that do normal regular activities they must do them disarmed, and then fail to adequately protect them from a threat that is directly related.


If your business is about having random members of the public come in, and requires them be disarmed, but then provides inadequate security or screening resulting in them being injured or killed they are directly responsible.

If they allow people to fend for themselves, including using their own legally carried firearm then they are not responsible.
 
The only people deterred from carry in a posted gun free zone are legally armed permit/license holders who strictly follow the law.

In some jurisdictions, gun free zone signs can be worded in ways that don't apply to legally armed carriers; one local business posted a custom made sign "No Illegal Weapons Allowed" which appeared to be a wink'n'nod. (If you have doubts, call the posted business and politely ask if they intended to bar patrons who were legally armed.)

Arizona Mike posted "... this case was not about Cinemark restricting carry ..." so news reports may be spinning this case wrong; any links to the actual complaint and decision?*

______________________________
*("It's the news media; I'm shocked, utterly shocked to find opinionating and editorialisation going on in news reports. Can such things be?")
 
Let me get this straight.... If I am armed and in a business and am shot, I will have no recourse against the business if I have a permit.

If I am not armed and have a permit and am shot, I have a case? (How do I prove that I intentionally disarmed because of the businesses rules and just didn't leave the house and forgot my gun?)

If I am armed and in a business and am shot and don't have a permit, do i or don't I have a case? (Or could I be charged with trespass and/or carrying without a permit?)

And finally, I'm not a permit holder and I don't have a gun. It sounds like the courts currently hold that a business has no obligation to protect me at all.

Somehow this all seems that Tennessee is giving special protections and privileges to a specific class of people. What happened to "equal protection under the law"? Or does that little piece of paper that can be purchased turn one into a protected class????
 
.
And finally, I'm not a permit holder and I don't have a gun. It sounds like the courts currently hold that a business has no obligation to protect me at all.
Click to expand...

I believe the courts said that for the business to be held liable the threat or danger must be "foreseeable " and that a "gunman" entering and shooting up the business was not foreseeable ?
 
for the business to be held liable the threat or danger must be "foreseeable "
Click to expand...

That being the case, what situation could be "foreseeable" that would justify my carrying a gun into their place of business and their being held liable for keeping me from doing it?
 
IMO, you have no "justification" for violating the wishes and rights of a private party.

What situation would would hold them liable for not allowing you to carry? According to this ruling and others, something legally "foreseeable" and so far an active shooter ain't it
 
That being the case, what situation could be "foreseeable" that would justify my carrying a gun into their place of business and their being held liable for keeping me from doing it?
Click to expand...

None to date. Notice all the cases the NRA/GOA has NOT backed on this matter? Notice all the cases not won in this regard?

Businesses typically are not liable for unforeseen illegal acts, particularly by 3rd parties, just like you aren't liable for the safety of guests in your home during a home invasion.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
I fully support looser pays. Sad that victims and their relatives allowed themselves to be taken advantage of. I wonder if counsel adequately explained the risk to all 41 up front?
Click to expand...
They weren't taken advantage of. They were hoping for a lottery win and lost.

The judge told the plaintiff's lawyers that he was going to rule against them and advised them to settle before he handed down his ruling.

The lawyers advised their clients to settle for the offer from Cinemark...all 41 had to agree for it to settle with the understanding that Cinemark would address their security. All the plaintiffs agreed to settle except for one.

37 of the plaintiffs pulled out of the suit that night and 4 went forward. Those four have to split the $700k they owe Cinemark
 
LocoGringo said:
Tennessee has enacted a law that does exactly that...hold businesses responsible if they choose to make the business a gun free zone so that if something happens, a concealed weapons license holder can sue the business because the business made the license holder defenseless but failed to protect the patron. I think it's a great law and hope it spreads across the country.
Click to expand...

I believe you are referring to SB 1736?

here is the original,

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Bill/SB1736.pdf

This has been amended to read,

by deleting all language after the enacting clause and substituting instead the following:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, is amended by
adding the following as a new section:
(a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property
and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting, pursuant to § 39-
17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such
person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on
the property by posting pursuant to § 39-17-1359.
(b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or
other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or
wanton misconduct.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2016, the public welfare requiring it.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Amend/SA0692.pdf

So correct me if I am wrong here. The original amendment has been deleted and SB 1736 now has no such provision.

It now says that if a business does NOT post a sign they cannot be held liable, it does not say that a business can or will be held responsible if they DO post a sign.
 
Here is Washington, a guy fiddling with his carry weapon while watching a movie at a theater shot another movie goer.


Should the shooting victim sue the theater owners because they failed to ban carry in their theater?


Seems like the exact same problem.
 
The amendment to Senate Bill 1736 says that a Tennessee property owner who could prohibit weapons by posting but does not prohibit weapons by posting shall be immune from civil liability.

Businesses have claimed that they posted "no weapons" because their insurance required it or their lawyer advised it due to possible lawsuits if they did not post and there was a weapons incident.

Even if a property owner had no problem with permit holders carrying on their property, they were required or advised to post "no weapons" to avoid a possible lawsuit as a result of a weapons incident. If there was an incident and they were posted, they could not be sued.

Under this amendment, the original language that they could be sued if a permit holder was harmed in an incident in their posted zone has been replaced with language that they cannot be sued if they don't post and there is an incident by a third party and the incident is not due to the property owner's gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

Remember "gun free" signs inhibit the law abiding but don't stop the criminal or crazy. It is already a violation of Tennessee's "going armed" statute to carry a weapon in public for offense, or to carry a weapon in public for defense without a carry permit. Those who carry for offense or who carry for defense without permit are usually the kind of people who would ignore those signs. Those signs are primarily a bar to legally armed people with permits.
 
Last edited:
LocoGringo said:
If I understand your premise correctly, you think that it should be possible for victims to sue businesses of gun free zones because those businesses limit the ability of their patrons to protect themselves if they choose to conceal carry during an emergency like an attack?

If I understand your premise correctly, Tennessee has enacted a law that does exactly that...hold businesses responsible if they choose to make the business a gun free zone so that if something happens, a concealed weapons license holder can sue the business because the business made the license holder defenseless but failed to protect the patron. I think it's a great law and hope it spreads across the country.
Click to expand...
can you link that law?
 
steve4102 said:
Why Not?
Click to expand...
I received a registered mail this week. I was not home when they attempted delivery so I have to go onto the post office (i.e. gun free zone) to collect it.

I work for the federal government. As such I work every day on federal property (i.e. gun free zone).

There's two reasons. I suppose I could just ignore the registered mail or quit my job but I don't think those are realistic options.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 
mdauben said:
I received a registered mail this week. I was not home when they attempted delivery so I have to go onto the post office (i.e. gun free zone) to collect it.

I work for the federal government. As such I work every day on federal property (i.e. gun free zone).

There's two reasons. I suppose I could just ignore the registered mail or quit my job but I don't think those are realistic options.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

A state law has no effect on the examples you give. The Federal government is not subject to any state or local jurisdiction. The Federal Tort Claims Act specifies what you can sue the Federal government for. Getting shot on Federal property by a third party is not one of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Dr. Ignatius Piazza and Front Site
Replies
24
Views
3K
Sheepdog1968
S
G
  • Locked
Aurora CO families owe $203,000
Replies
7
Views
826
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
D
  • Locked
(CA) Local case could blaze trail in drive to control weapons
Replies
2
Views
475
Blackhawk
B
C
  • Locked
Missouri: "Lawsuit isn't likely to dampen concealed gun growth"
Replies
0
Views
542
cuchulainn
C
L
  • Locked
True hero of the D.C. ruling:
Replies
9
Views
835
Lucky
L
Back
Top