Lounge 4 colorado shooting victims owe 700,000

Aurora colorado movie theater got their expenses charged by court order to the losers of the case against them who claimed the security was substandard and could have prevented the tragedy
There is a law that the winner of a case can sue to recoupe their costs from the losers.

I think this is a good way to go. So many people in this country know that if they sue, big companies(or anyone else) will settle because it will cost them X amount of legal feels. So companies and individuals feel that even if they win......they lose.

In colorado....I guess people know that if they are going to sue....they better have a real good case.

BECAUSE THERE....the winners....win. And the losers can really lose.

Interested in the view of MrV for sure

 

I'll give ya something to chew on while we wait for V...

If you've read me at all, you'll likely know I'm big on personal responsibility and LOATHE our litigious society. I feel a lot of our ills as a country come from this, and also feel I have lost not-inconsequential freedoms as a result of low class bastards taking a whack at the litigious lottery. When it comes to stomping it out, you'll find it tough to find someone with as loud a voice as me screaming "END IT!"

However, I really do not like this CO. thing at first glance. We must never forget the words "...with Liberty and Justice for all", and I feel CO.'s actions are firmly in the arena of "unintended consequences".

When it comes to folks taking a shot, of course I feel ZERO remorse. Anyone trumping up charges in hopes for a payday should be publicly flogged, IMO. BUT, do we want to create an atmosphere where people are afraid or literally unable to pursue justice out of fear of a lost case and the financial doom it would spell?

I can't do it, man. "Innocent until proven guilty" has let myriad scumbag fuckers off Scott free, but I see that as a necessary evil to prevent the wholly unjust action of laying guilt on an innocent party. One sucks, but the other is unacceptable, in other words. I feel this is the same. It really gets my goats when people abuse the system, BUT it is wholly unacceptable to rob folks the liberty of pursuing justice.

They get an 8/10 for effort, but a complete 0/10 in execution.

 

however in this case it could be viewed by a reasonable person that they could lose. I mean its not like there was a rash of movie theater shootings. They are quite rare. And in these "multiplex" theaters its so easy to have one theater get shot up while the security guard is at theother end of the building. This is not ISREAL ....yet. We dont sit at streetside cafes, or go to movie theaters with the thought that we may be shot and assume there will be plenty of security should a shooter armed to thehilt attempt to gun me down.

Really, what is the real expectation when you go to a restaurant , if a shooter came in and killed a bunch of people and injured you.....is the place of business at fault. Do we expect armed guards at the door .
Do we expect that at a movie theater, or at a local theater that puts on plays.

Its not like the theater was showing a controversial documentary that may be viewed as anti-something. It wasnt in the inner city where there was a history of shootings.

It was just a normal movie-going night. I think a good lawyer who took this case would have given them the odds of a loss...and then they make a decision.

There is a feeling in this country that if something bad happens to you....automatically someone else has to pay for it. If you fall over your own two feet on my pristine driveway that has no flaws.......there is a feeling that my insurance has to pay for your misfortune. But thats not the case. My homeowners insurance company may come down, and view the structure of the driveway, see there are no irregularities that could be tripped over, and deny the claim siting that I (my property) did not contribute to the injury. Its not an automatic payment.

Even slip and falls in a supermarket on a "spilled" item....you have to prove that management was notified about the spill and didnt react in a reasonable amount of time. But if a customer drops a grape on the floor, and 2 minutes later you step in it and slip.....good luck suing successfully

So just because something bad happened at the movie theater, doesnt mean someone else has to pay for it. Its not like the emergency exit doors were blocked.
Just because a madman happens to strike somewhere....doesnt automatically put the place where he strikes on the hook for damages...unless you would reasonably expect armed security to be there normally in numbers to handle such a situation.

I really dont think people expect the average movie theater to have armed security in the numbers needed to quell a madman

Maybe eventually that may be the expectation as more madmen and terrorists have at it. But right now, I dont see how reasonable people would think that this case was a slam dunk. AND if this case was not a slam dunk.......the plaintiffs should have realized the worse case scenario was possible. And if they feel that they werent properly advised....well then thats another suit

 

In England, if you sue someone and lose you owe the defendent his cost of defending himself.

 

No argument with most of your post, and emphatic agreement with many of the things in there. The theatre (restaurant, grocer, arena) don't owe you squat in these cases.

But your OP didn't specify just these types of cases, so I assume it's any suit, including the completely reasonable and well deserved. And when it comes to court, and I'd be surprised if MrV DIDN'T agree, I feel like it's less right vs wrong and more down to who can play the better game. I don't recall V specifying what particular type of lawyer he is, but I'm sure he has contact with the criminal types, the ones who've cornered for the defendant. And so, so often, total red handed crimes are tossed, they are lost, because of technicality. I'm sure similar things exist in divorce, or corporate, all types of different court. It's not about being right. It's about being the better competitor.

I'm not a court type of fella because 1) I'm a pretty good guy, 2) I'm an even better criminal (=p), and 3) We 'round here settle things the Old Way. There's a meet, a discussion, an argument, and by blood or bond, it gets settled. No system involvement. But thinking if I was in that type of situation, I can totally see myself stuck. I was sort of just in something similar with family court, having less than zero time to attend, and negative dollars in my account. That's a bit different because it's my kid, and there's no limit to what I'd do in that case. But I think I can put myself in a position of needing court for a civil case, and seeing the resource expenditure it was already would put a severe strain on my ability to pursue it. Now there's not only that but the real possibility that my champion is not the better of the two, and I could be held liable for an undetermined-but surely-more-than-I-can-afford penalty on top?

I'd not be likely to pursue. In fact, as risk adverse as I am financially, I can't imagine a scenario where I WOULD pursue. And that's unacceptable. It's sort of the argument those against voter ID have, that the financial requirement serves as a tax that would dissuade the less able in participating. I hate that argument, I think it's weak, BUT, we're talking base rights here. The meat and potatoes. Speech, guns, privacy, security, silence... it doesn't matter if it's a fleck of an argument. These must be defended from all attacks, missile to mosquito.

Bad guys go free because punishing an innocent is the bigger evil. I feel the same about this. I'd love nothing more than a public example be made of these Slippin' Jimmy's. But the defense of the common man is more important. Liberty and Justice for all, even if dickbags abuse it.

 

I agree with your assessment about a corporate affordable "dream team" vs my affordable newly graduated inexperienced lawyer. But that happens in all states of the union. Granted without the financial penalty of a loss.

But its not all as cut and dry as....better 10 guilty people get set free than for 1 innocent go to jail. What if one of those 10 set free kills a family of 4. So do we say, better a family of 4 gets killed than an innocent person go to jail? Or if one of those 10 rapes or violently assaults.
Its not that simple. Its very rarely just either /or. Its not like the guilty that get set free then disappear into the ether .

So the system has alot of moving parts, and when you say you like one part......it leads to some inequity in another part. In your example, in my examples...there are downsides and chances for good intentioned people to be given the short end of the stick

In this particular case maybe they were told that they had a 50/50 chance. ANd rolled the dice to see if they could win 100 million vs paying 700k.

Even if the victims couldnt see straight and felt someone needed to pay....it was up to the lawyer to tell them the other side of it through the eyes of someone not fully invested in the shooting.
But in this case......of course I dont have all the evidence.....but I still think a reasonable person could have forseen the possibility of THIS verdict.

I still think its a good system, yet imperfect as far as paying the winner side. Just as letting the 10 guilty people go free is a good system but can possibly lead to immeasurable grief for innocent families due to repeat offenses.

 

Yeah, there's certainly faults with the current system. There are things that slip through cracks. But I'm either too passionate or too extremist to budge, it seems. I feel the same about guns; yes, there are a lot of severe injuries enabled by our allowance, but our allowance is far too precious to sacrifice. And I've never been one to expect or demand safety by legislation. So if 10 are let off for every one deserved off, so be it. There are other ways to deal with the 10:1 problem without sacrificing that which is most sacred.

 

And another layer is "the greater good of society". So maybe people to pay the other side is unfair in a small percent of the cases..but in general the greater good of society is served.
I am making up these numbers, but lets say in Mexico, someone goes in the hospital and erroneously gets their leg amputated instead of the gall bladder removed. In mexico maybe they can recover 500k. In the united states the hospital settles to pay 50 million because they know a jury trial would charge them 100 million.
In mexico..more people can afford healthcare because of this. Heck americans go to mexico for procedures because of the cost differential.
So for the greater good of society the woman with the missing leg gets 500k but in return more people get healthcare.Children get vaccines, treated for infections, people live longer.
In the good [removed, pay to advertise] USA there is no cap. The sky is the limit. And if a jury would easily award millions for spilled coffee on the crotch,..then god help the others getting sued for medical damage. And we all pay for these settlements and jury awards.

Like I said....alot of moving parts where one part impinges on another part....and they en up all intersecting with society

 

Attorney fees are typically awarded either because a statute or contract allows it.

In the Colorado case, I assume it is statutory.

While I am unfamiliar with the facts of this case, it sounds like the legal theory was that the theater was negligent, and that their negligence led to the deaths.

Stupid legal theory.

How many movie theaters have armed guards, or require people to walk through scanners to detect weapons?

My guess: none.

So if the "reasonable man" running a "reasonable theater" doesn't have armed guards, why should an exception be made for the Colo. theater?

I have no problem with losers being ordered to pay the winner's fees.

 

I agree, and even if people are made to walk through scanners....what keeps someone from just walking in in plain view, shooting anyone in their way, walking through the scanner and walking into theater 5.
I dont think a couple armed guards with pistols and a scanner would have stopped this guy.

sometimes bad things happen to good people.....and sometimes there is no one there to pay the damages...legally

 

In family law, if you want to file to change custody, you have to first show that your case is strong enough, at an "adequate cause" hearing.

The court reads all filed materials and determines whether the case warrants going forward to trial.

If the court "kills" the case for lack of adequate cause, it is required to award attornyey fees to the prevailing party.

This cuts down dramatically on the number of idiots filing "just because."

 

Do you ever think tort reform will ever occur? And do you think maximums need to be drawn

 

Re: "Award millions spilled coffee on the crotch"

If you're talking about the woman going through the drive-thru at McDonalds, she actually should have won -- it wasn't a fluke win.

 

My response is somehow in the body of the quote stating with the word GENIUS...above

 

Larry, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

That is as cogent and informative as I can expect from you
Excellent

 

You're saying she didn't deserve to win and "only in America", as if somehow the outcome of the case was ridiculous....which it was not. When McDonalds was already getting many hundreds of people complaining about the extremely hot coffee (180 will melt through your skin), warned multiple times to lower the temperature of their coffee....let's not forget it wasn't some "18 year old mishap" it was part of their coffee-making standards (to keep coffee that hot). You can't even drink coffee when it's that hot (McDonalds coffee was 50 degrees hotter than an average coffee maker makes coffee, apparently, to put it into perspective). Since then they've lowered the average holding temperature by at least 10 degrees....and if you've been to McDonalds recently and gotten a coffee, try drinking THAT immediately after purchasing it....or try pouring some on yourself (then add 10 degrees to that).

Problem with America is there are dumbfucks like you (Larry) who read "woman mcdonalds spills coffee awarded $2.7M+ in court" and your mind begins to make shit up and think stuff happened that didn't happen. You're probably voting for Hillary soon, aren't'cha? You seem like one of them (since you can't vote for Bernie Sanders anymore).

 

your reading comprehension is thatof a 3 year old.
I said she didnt deserve to wni 3 million dollars...
There is something called personal responsibility.
SHE decided not to ask for a drink tray to help her add cream to her coffee
SHE decided to put the cup of hot coffee between her legs.
SHE decided(since the car was still) not to get out of the car, put the coffe cup on the hood and pour the cream in
SHE decided not to use the car cup holder
She was clumsy and spilled the coffee.

the judge realized that 2.7 in punitive damages awarded by the american jury was excessive ....and reduced it to aeound 500k which is more in line with what her contribution to the injury was.

However it shows what juries award....and why malpracitce insurance is so costly, and why doctors run a multitude of tests on patients to cover themselves from being at the mercy of these incredible hury awards.........hence healthcare costs are higher, drug costs are high, costs of products are high....because people sue over every little thing

People wouldhave a nervous breakdown if soda cans had the old sliver of metal that detached. Beverage companies would be sued out of business.

 

I agree lots of times there are frivolous law suits and people may attempt to sue over the smallest of things or for something stupid -- but using the McDonald's coffee case is an awful example. (Wasn't her idea to sue in the first place, she asked for $20k from McDs to cover her hospital bills.)

Your example is almost as bad as when people talk about racism in America then use Trayvon Martin & Zimmerman as an example....