Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
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.
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: