Cinemark theater chain not liable in 2012 Colorado movie massacre: jury

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

The owners of a movie theater where 12 people were killed during a screening of the Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises" are not liable for the mass shooting, a jury ruled on Thursday, in the first civil lawsuit stemming from the 2012 incident.

Jurors ruled in favor of Cinemark USA Inc (CNKMAI.UL) in the lawsuit filed by more than two dozen surviving victims of the shooting and relatives of the dead, court spokesman Rob McCallum said on Twitter.

Gunman James Holmes, who pleaded innocent by reason of insanity at his murder trial, was found guilty last summer of killing 12 people and wounding 70 when he opened fire during a midnight screening of the film. He was sentenced to life in prison.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Cinemark and its co-defendants, the theater's property owners, should be held liable for various security lapses which they said had contributed to the tragedy at the Century 16 Theater multiplex in Aurora, Colorado.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-colorado-shooting-lawsuit-idUSKCN0YA06P

---

World | Thu May 19, 2016 2:27pm EDT
DENVER | BY KEITH COFFMAN

[Ex Lurker]

1. Correct decision, in my view NT

[whatthehey]

2. Thank Hanuman for that

Because had it gone the other way the only sane response would have been a massive TSA level security theater every time you wanted to enter a public place of business so they could avoid liability. Taking shoes and belts off and being groped every time you went into a restaurant or bar and paying for it too with higher prices. I'll take the 0.0000001% chance of being shot, thanks.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. You mean

like going into a courthouse

[whatthehey]

25. Honestly, with no snark intended, I've never been in one

But presuming that this means they have silly levels of airport-type security, yes like that. Courthouses have some (not enough, but some) excuse for being more security-conscious of course. Cinemas are not by definition places where those of a criminal bent are given the worst news of their lives on a routine basis. Unless the local GOP were on a trip to see Battlefield Earth perhaps.

[bucolic_frolic]

26. Yes airport type security

in some states for courthouses

I did some deed research there ... empty all pockets, inspect wallets, remove
metals ...

I haven't been in an airport since all this security started, much like your courthouse experience

[MynameisBlarney]

3. Why was that ever even a question?

Oh, right...because, lawyers.

[christx30]

4. Because when someone loses a family member

to a tragedy like this, they are going to look at the bank account of the shooter, then they are going to look at the bank account of the theater chain, and decide who can give them the bigger pay day.
And, like you said, lawyers.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. The theater company had deeper pockets than the shooter.

So of course blame the theater company, or the gun manufacturer, anyone but the penniless shooter.

[yallerdawg]

5. This lawsuit is how we bring about...

reasonable change and accommodation in our world. Make it safer for all of us if we determine there is merit.

The theater was not held liable for these extreme extraordinary circumstances.

Now - what about the gun manufacturers?

[branford]

6. Under long-standing and accepted product liability jurisprudence,

and ignoring the PLCAA for purposes of discussion, what do you believe the basis would be for finding civil liability on behalf of any pertinent firearm manufactures concerning this particular event?

Are there any other type of manufacturers (no less ones who produce a constitutionally protected product) you believe must be punished when their products comply with all pertinent statutes and regulations, function exactly as designed and intended, and then are criminally misused by third-parties with whom manufacturers have no direct relationship?

[yallerdawg]

12. We can sue a movie theater...

but we can't sue the manufacturer of the product used to slaughter innocent people?

To at least restrict the sales in some way or to somehow make it safer?

[branford]

15. As a preliminary matter, note that the plaintiffs lost against the movie theater.

In any event, the owner of a commercial establishment has certain well established duties of care with respect to patrons on their premises, including providing reasonable and expected security.

However, you don't just get to sue someone because you don't like their product, and you are not entitled to a "deep pocket" just because you suffered a tragedy.

So, I'll ask again, under what accepted legal theories would any manufacturers (no less ones who produce a constitutionally protected product like a firearm) be liable when their products comply with all pertinent statutes and regulations, function exactly as designed and intended, and then are criminally misused by third-parties with whom manufacturers have no direct relationship?

Your suggestion would be no different than holding automobile manufacturers liable for drunk drivers.

[hack89]

9. What about them? What state and federal laws did they break or ignore? nt

[yallerdawg]

10. What key word do you all "trigger" off of?

Is it "gun"?

Is it "gun manufacturer"?

Is it the name of a mass shooting site?

Is it the name of a mass shooter?

[hack89]

11. Not going to defend your comment? Smart move. nt

[yallerdawg]

13. Our Democratic nominee must be scaring the crap out of y'all!

When Bernie is done - your fall back can only be Trump!

[hack89]

14. Either of the Democratic candidates will be good for gun owners.

they always are. Look at how far gun rights have advanced under Obama. We expect the same under President Clinton.

[yallerdawg]

16. Gun rights?

You mean gun sales.

When you put out "He's coming to get our guns!" propaganda.

[hack89]

17. No - I mean laws and court rulings that lessen restrictions on gun ownership.

you have been paying attention, haven't you?

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

23. I spent an entire 6 day trip...

in the Smoky Mountains National Park.

Packing heat in the real, deep backwoods.

Thanks, Obama!

[branford]

18. I'm a litigation attorney.

I was "triggered" when you wanted to "sue" firearm manufacturers as an appropriate remedy for the movie theater shooting.

I enjoy discussing legal issues and also believe strongly in gun rights (and the rest of the Constitution).

Now, are you prepared to actually substantively discuss and defend your suggestions, or shall you continue to deflect and insult?

[yallerdawg]

19. You see no inconsistency in our common right to sue the theater...

and a unique Congressional protection provided gun manufacturers denying that right?

Bernie Sanders himself said gun-related lawsuits would put gun manufacturers out of business!

You want to argue we don't have a right to sue gun manufacturers?

[branford]

20. No, no inconsistency because I actually understand product liability jurisprudence.

Firearms manufacturers' lack of liability is not because of the PLCAA, but rather because manufacturers of any product are not normally liable when their legal and highly regulated products function properly and are criminally misused by third parties. For instance, as I inquired earlier, do you believe Ford or Toyota should be liable for drunk drivers, or do you believe your hatred of firearms creates some unique legal loophole?

The PLCAA was passed because gun control groups and some municipalities backed by taxpayer funding were attempting to employ nuisance and SLAPP-type suits to bankrupt the firearms industry with meritless claims. The PLCAA still fully permits lawsuits when a firearm is actually defective. Note also that Bernie actually voted for the PLCAA (where it is popular in his home state of Vermont) and his recent "evolution" is arguably little more than vote-seeking and pandering during a primary.

Most importantly, the purported fact that lawsuits could put firearm manufacturers out of business is not an actual legal argument for holding such manufacturers liable under accepted product liability jurisprudence, and appears more of an admission concerning ignorance about the law and willingness to abuse the courts for political purposes (the very strategy that resulted in the PLCAA).

[yallerdawg]

21. I have no hatred of firearms!

If a manufacturer designed a car for its ability to most effectively mow down citizens on a sidewalk and then marketed it for that ability and design feature, would that car manufacturer be held liable?

We don't manufacture guns for their ability to effectively slaughter moviegoers or elementary school children, but when they are used to do exactly what they have been designed to do, the manufacturer answers to no one?

[branford]

24. You're almost getting it.

We don't manufacture guns for their ability to effectively slaughter moviegoers or elementary school children

This is very important. Guns, like many other powerful tools, can be misused, but they are not designed to be misused.

but when they are used to do exactly what they have been designed to do, the manufacturer answers to no one?

No, when products are criminally misused by third-parties, manufacturers are not normally held liable. To repeat my earlier example, it's the same reason why car and alcohol manufacturers are not liable for drunk or reckless drivers despite the ease and regularity of automobile accidents, both criminal and the result of simple negligence.

Your complaint is essentially that guns, despite their legality (and constitutional protection), intense regulation, mature technology, and safety and reliability to the owner, should be treated differently that all other products. You want to accomplish through the courts what you cannot do properly through the legislature. It's a strategy that has already been attempted and failed miserably, and besides resulting in the PLCAA (and originally voted for and supported by Bernoe!) is one of the reasons why gun rights supporters do not trust gun control advocates at all and refuse any comprise due to lack of good faith.

The pertinent firearms manufacturers need to answer to no one in the movie theater shooting because they did nothing wrong under any accepted legal theory.

[Xolodno]

22. That would be like suing Bacardi...

...for a drunk driver that slammed into you. Not gonna work.

Now, if said drunk driver left a bar impaired and the bar knowingly served him in excess...then you have a case and the bars liquor liability insurance kicks in.

So to correlate, sue the business or person who sold him the gun. But if they complied, with all background checks....think they are exempt.