- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: People finally get punished for a frivolous lawsuit
Posted on 9/1/16 at 8:13 am to PrivatePublic
Posted on 9/1/16 at 8:13 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
They fought back against the growing notion in this country that businesses are somehow liable for every bad thing in the world and when something goes wrong, no matter how far beyond their control it is, they should be made to pay.
And they won.
I get that, but speaking in terms of a business standpoint, it's not worth it, especially in the age of social media. Of course I'm viewing it through profits and not ideology.
2
Posted on 9/1/16 at 8:24 am to AUbagman
Time will tell, I guess. It's a tug of war between short term survival and long term survival. Sure, bad publicity can take a business down short term (particularly small business more so than large), but all it takes is one liability lawsuit to pay a huge sum and the deluge is opened that is liability, leading to future suits and big payouts, higher costs for increased security (at a fricking movie theater - no way I'm going to go spend $20 for a patdown at a 2 hour movie), or both, driving down profits and driving away customers until the business is simply unsustainable.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 8:26 am to cubsfan5150
The attorneys should have to pay also
Posted on 9/1/16 at 8:27 am to Grandioso
thanks for the clarification, I didn't read past "life" at the end of that article.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 8:43 am to tigerpimpbot
quote:
a business has 10 of its patrons robbed 10 times in their exclusively controlled parking lot in the span of say 60 days, and that business fails to take any security measures, when the 11th person gets shot and killed in their parking lot, you think it's "frivolous" to hold that business accountable for failing to make any reasonable security measures?
Was that theater shot up 10 times before? And if it had been, what idiot would actually continue to go there?
Posted on 9/1/16 at 8:47 am to cubsfan5150
God I hope the contingency fee lawyers are on the hook for it!
Posted on 9/1/16 at 8:50 am to TigerBait1127
quote:
Second, even if it was, is there really a point in more than 1 life sentence? Going to be hard to collect on that second, third, fourth, etc.
I'd imagine it has something to do with the legal wording of the charges and how the appeals process would work.
If somehow one life sentence gets overturned, he still has to deal with multiple other life sentences.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 8:52 am to AUbagman
quote:
I get that, but speaking in terms of a business standpoint, it's not worth it, especially in the age of social media. Of course I'm viewing it through profits and not ideology.
I mean, they did offer them a settlement and the plaintiffs refused.
Why should the defendant be on the hook for $700k in legal costs when they did nothing wrong? As a reasonable individual this would not negatively affect my opinion of the defendant(s)
Posted on 9/1/16 at 9:04 am to TigerBait1127
quote:
How the hell does this guy kill 12 people and shoot 70 more and only get a life sentence?!? Our legal system is so fcked up!
quote:
is there really a point in more than 1 life sentence? Going to be hard to collect on that second, third, fourth, etc.
Thank you, TigerBait1127, thank you. What the hell is the point to sentencing someone to more than one life sentence?
What does it accomplish?
It's not a crime deterrent.
Are we setting a precedent so in the future when people can be resurrected by science, we can force them to serve out multiple life sentences?
What a dumb idea!
Posted on 9/1/16 at 9:28 am to dgnx6
quote:
Was that theater shot up 10 times before?
We were discussing generally the tort of negligent security as a theory of lability, not the specific facts of the case.
quote:
And if it had been, what idiot would actually continue to go there?
Someone who is visiting from outside the area who has no knowledge of the 10 prior incidents.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 9:58 am to Barrister
quote:
Frivolous? I'm not sure you understand what that word means
It most certainly was frivolous. The movie theater wasn't responsible for that shite. They just saw a potential payday because they thought a jury would be dumb enough to award them money.
This post was edited on 9/1/16 at 10:15 am
Posted on 9/1/16 at 10:08 am to Cold Cous Cous
quote:
Good luck collecting on that.
Oh, they'll collect at least some of it with that many plaintiffs.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 10:20 am to jbgleason
quote:
I am going to call bullshite on this. If you are going to argue that every business bears a duty to keep you secure against any threat, regardless of how foreseeable, then we can just shut down every public venue. Because I don't want to pay $40 a movie ticket so they can have metal detectors and armed guards at the theater. What happened was terrible but it was the actions of the shooter and not Cinemark that hurt the victims.
Look, you can bet your arse that Cinemark has a security policy and that all theaters are supposed to follow it. This security policy likely lists specific controls that should be in place, such as
quote:
Movie theatre policy to staff 4 security guards around the cinema
quote:
Movie theatre is supposed to monitor security cameras in and around the theatre during all working hours
quote:
Movie theatre was supposed to routinely check and keep secure all outdoor/fire exits and make sure they are shut.
I'm not saying that those are their exact policies, but they have to have a policy for their theaters to follow. The security controls serve different purposes. For instance, an automated notification system that notifies management / security for when emergency exits are opened...this is probably more to keep people from sneaking in than for safety, but in hindsight, keeping these doors closed / locked from the inside could make it harder for someone to do what the killer did. If there is an armed security guard in the front, there's not much he can do to prevent someone from walking in through the emergency exit with a duffel bag full of guns and ammo, unless those doors are secured.
I can see both sides of the argument, and I think it's ignorant to call the survivors lawsuit "frivolous." With a better lawyer, they may have won.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 10:26 am to Topwater Trout
I'm wondering how inflated the cost was by Cinemark's attorneys. I mean come on, $750k?
Posted on 9/1/16 at 10:39 am to RealityTiger
quote:
The theater chain’s lawyers had spent $500,000 on experts to testify on its behalf...
That's kind of a lot. Would love to see a detailed accounting.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 10:44 am to RealityTiger
quote:
I'm wondering how inflated the cost was by Cinemark's attorneys. I mean come on, $750k?
The bulk was to pay the long list of experts that they had to bring in. $500k worth.
Posted on 9/14/16 at 12:19 pm to cubsfan5150
Just read that the cinema has dropped the 700k request since the plaintiffs wisely agreed to not appeal the verdict of the lawsuit.
Posted on 9/14/16 at 12:37 pm to Grandioso
quote:
ould the movie theatre potentially have done something different to thwart this heinous attack? I know nothing about the suit, but for example:
-Movie theatre policy to staff 4 security guards around the cinema and on the day of the shooting, they only had 1 security guard scheduled to work.
-Movie theatre is supposed to monitor security cameras in and around the theatre during all working hours. The day of the incident, the security cameras were inoperable.
-Movie theatre was supposed to routinely check and keep secure all outdoor/fire exits and make sure they are shut. The day of the incident, the POS shooter came in through the back, fire door exit.
This is precisely the issue, and a jury trail was precisely the place to determine the answer.
Was the security at the theater up to industry standards?
If it was and they sued anyway, the theater has every right to recover expenses. Sucks, but that is what happens when you lose.
Posted on 9/14/16 at 12:46 pm to cubsfan5150
quote:LINK
those people got what they deserved
Posted on 9/14/16 at 12:50 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
Just read that the cinema has dropped the 700k request since the plaintiffs wisely agreed to not appeal the verdict of the lawsuit.
That's business as usual. Weren't there only 3 or 4 plaintiffs who continued to pursue it?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News