- 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: Cinemark Bills Colorado Shooting Victims 700k for Legal Fees
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:13 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:13 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
The insurance companies have run a fantastic PR campaign villainizing trial lawyers for why insurance rates are so high. Check out the profits these guys are making on your State's department of insurance website and tell me how bad they really have it.
Now some Plaintiffs' lawyers play right into the stereotype, but the situation is far from as dire as the insurance companies would have you believe.
The EBRP school board hemorrhages money every year due to out of court settlements because they don't want to bring every bullshite claim to court. It's much cheaper to pay these people off. If loser pays is implemented, how many of those claims do you think will disappear?
1
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:15 pm to castorinho
quote:
1. They'll probably not be able to get that much money from those families
They may not be able to get it right away but they can put liens on their property and garnish their wages and get it all eventually.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:16 pm to lsu480
If you sue and lose you should pay ... pretty simple imo.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:18 pm to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:Agreed, and the lawyer/firm that talked you into it by claiming you had a slam dunk should be held partially liable as well.
If you sue and lose you should pay ... pretty simple imo.
This post was edited on 6/30/16 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:18 pm to CaptainsWafer
quote:
Well the victims certainly aren't responsible.
They are responsible for lawsuits they filed. Not Cinemark's fault for utilizing the law that clearly says they are okay to seek compensation for legal fees.
Why should Cinemark pay for something they are deemed not responsible for?
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:18 pm to castorinho
quote:
2. The negative PR likely won't be worth it.
What competition does Cinemark really have, though? They are the 3rd largest in the USA and in many smaller areas they are the only option. People won't stop going to their theaters over this. Well...reasonable people won't.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:20 pm to tduecen
Surely the victims must have been advised by their lawyers that this was a possibility. If not, then maybe they should sue their attorneys for poor legal advice.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:21 pm to ihometiger
quote:
This is nothing more than the insurance companies trying to make some money off the victims families.
I wonder how some of you people tie your own shoes much less get through life as a functioning adult.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:22 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
The EBRP school board hemorrhages money every year due to out of court settlements because they don't want to bring every bullshite claim to court. It's much cheaper to pay these people off. If loser pays is implemented, how many of those claims do you think will disappear?
They'd still pay their defense lawyers to bring the matter to trial. Say we have loser pays and the School Board goes after the brokedicks bringing frivolous suits... A judgement is only as good as a defendant's ability to pay.
So under your scenario, the School Board would still pay defense counsel to bring it to trial, win, and not be able to recoup their fees.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:22 pm to stout
Yeah but is it trashy or not?
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:23 pm to tduecen
The lawyers for the "victims" should have to pay half.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:25 pm to Count Chocula
I don't know, man. If you lose on a motion to dismiss right away and a judge awards sanctions, that is one thing. But, a plausible claim that just doesn't go your way with the jury is another story. I'm mostly in federal court, so don't know the state rules that well, but Michigan has a nice middle ground where you have to pay the other side's costs/fees after a neutral case evaluation panel puts a number on your case at the end of discovery if you don't do 10% better at trial. This forces a lot of settlements.
There is probably some hardcore insurance reason we don't know about here for the theater to take the PR hit. A first responder in OKC told me he was there when the doc cut off a woman's leg trapped under a beam from the bombing, and the woman sued the doc. That sounds bad, but maybe it was the only way she could get comp or something.
There is probably some hardcore insurance reason we don't know about here for the theater to take the PR hit. A first responder in OKC told me he was there when the doc cut off a woman's leg trapped under a beam from the bombing, and the woman sued the doc. That sounds bad, but maybe it was the only way she could get comp or something.
This post was edited on 6/30/16 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:26 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
They'd still pay their defense lawyers to bring the matter to trial. Say we have loser pays and the School Board goes after the brokedicks bringing frivolous suits... A judgement is only as good as a defendant's ability to pay.
So under your scenario, the School Board would still pay defense counsel to bring it to trial, win, and not be able to recoup their fees.
The point is that your average broke dick won't try to get any penny they can from the school board because they have headaches, PTSD, and night terrors from slipping on wet grass after a football game. It's a deterrent against bullshite claims. They may not recoup their fees immediately but they can definitely garnish wages and benefits.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:26 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Cinemark chose to spend $700K defending themselves. We all agree Cinemark shouldn't be held responsible and that this was a common sense case. One could argue you didn't need to spend $700K to win in the first place.
There were 30 plaintiffs so they spent just over 20k per plaintiff. Any decent attorney charges $500 an hour so the amount they spent was far from excessive, especially when you factor in how much they would have lost if the judge had found them at fault.
quote:
Agreed. A "Loser pays the fees" system sounds good in theory but all it does is present a barrier to entry for the common citizen.
Lawyers already only get paid when they win so they typically only take cases they feel very confident about, I am sure if you had a strong enough case you could find an attorney that would also agree in advance to pay the other sides legal fees if you lost.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:29 pm to tduecen
Shouldn't the "ambulance chasing" lawyers pay this?
Since they would have taken 40% or so of the cut had they won, even though none of their family members were murdered?
Since they would have taken 40% or so of the cut had they won, even though none of their family members were murdered?
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:29 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
so don't know the state rules that well, but Michigan has a nice middle ground where you have to pay the other side's costs/fees after a neutral case evaluation panel puts a number on your case at the end of discovery. This forces a lot of settlements.
Louisiana has a similar mechanism called an offer of judgment
LINK
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:30 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
There is probably some hardcore insurance reason we don't know about here for the theater to take the PR hit.
i think they just want to force the plaintiffs to waive any appellate rights and they'll waive the $700k
and as for "loser pays", this would make things crazy b/c liability isn't an issue in probably 95%-ish of cases. that means plaintiff lawyers could drag out a surefire winner because now they're not limited to 40% of a $15k minimum policy. they can just bill hourly and rack that shite up on every small case
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and as for "loser pays", this would make things crazy b/c liability isn't an issue in probably 95%-ish of cases. that means plaintiff lawyers could drag out a surefire winner because now they're not limited to 40% of a $15k minimum policy. they can just bill hourly and rack that shite up on every small case
Damn good point, Jake, J.D., DCL, Esq.
This post was edited on 6/30/16 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:40 pm to Napoleon
I don't know...I think it can be argued that the theater should share some responsibility for not having reasonable controls on emergency exits. The emergency exit was left open, which allowed the shooter to leave the theater and come back through the emergency exit. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess, and who knows if things would have gone differently if an alarm was sounded when the door was left open, or if theater staff / security were automatically notified. The main purpose of an emergency exit door being locked from the outside has been mainly to keep people from sneaking in. These days, it seems like it should also be a safety mechanism as well. It may not prevent things like this from happening, but it probably makes it more difficult to get into a crowded theater with several weapons on you.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 3:42 pm to tduecen
Isn't this what all you tort reform dipshits want?
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News