Should Cinemark be held civilly liable for the Aurora massacre?

[TurtleDude]

victims of the Holmes mass shooting in Aurora Colorado have filed a suit against the movie theater-Cinemark-claiming that their injuries or the deaths of family members could have been prevented if Cinemark had armed guards or a better security system (the killer propped open a rear entry to the theater and used that to retrieve weapons he had stashed outside the theater and attack the patrons).

Cinemark has defended against this tort suit on the grounds that the massacre was unforeseeable

Trial begins in lawsuit against Cinemark in Aurora movie theater shooting - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com

 

[radcen]

victims of the Holmes mass shooting in Aurora Colorado have filed a suit against the movie theater-Cinemark-claiming that their injuries or the deaths of family members could have been prevented if Cinemark had armed guards or a better security system (the killer propped open a rear entry to the theater and used that to retrieve weapons he had stashed outside the theater and attack the patrons).

Cinemark has defended against this tort suit on the grounds that the massacre was unforeseeable

Trial begins in lawsuit against Cinemark in Aurora movie theater shooting - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com

No. It was unforeseeable.

 

[joG]

victims of the Holmes mass shooting in Aurora Colorado have filed a suit against the movie theater-Cinemark-claiming that their injuries or the deaths of family members could have been prevented if Cinemark had armed guards or a better security system (the killer propped open a rear entry to the theater and used that to retrieve weapons he had stashed outside the theater and attack the patrons).

Cinemark has defended against this tort suit on the grounds that the massacre was unforeseeable

Trial begins in lawsuit against Cinemark in Aurora movie theater shooting - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com

We know that there will be people shotin the street. That is foreseeable. Can the government be sued for not preventing an individual incident? After all, the prime duty of government and the main reason to have one ist to maintain security and safety for the citizens.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I feel for those families. I really do. But you can't prepare for everything. And sometimes **** just happens. And I don't really want armed guards every place I go.

I don't think it is a business establishment's duty to protect its customers from outside dangers. You aren't required to utilize their services. As opposed to schools and government buildings, who I DO believe have a duty to protect the people inside.

I am personally against gun free zones but also believe a private business has the right to make itself one. You get to decide whether or not you want to do business with that establishment and accept the risks involved.

 

[fredmertzz]

If we expect public businesses to start protecting us against every possible threat, costs will increase exponentially. It would be ludicrous to expect emergency back door exits (that are required to exist, by law) to be monitored at all times at all businesses. The business is not at fault in this incident. There is of course a factor of negligence that can play a part in other cases. But no such negligence exists in this case, IMO.

 

[Ikari]

victims of the Holmes mass shooting in Aurora Colorado have filed a suit against the movie theater-Cinemark-claiming that their injuries or the deaths of family members could have been prevented if Cinemark had armed guards or a better security system (the killer propped open a rear entry to the theater and used that to retrieve weapons he had stashed outside the theater and attack the patrons).

Cinemark has defended against this tort suit on the grounds that the massacre was unforeseeable

Trial begins in lawsuit against Cinemark in Aurora movie theater shooting - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com

Armed guards in a movie theater? Geez.

No, the move theater is liable for anything, this was completely unforeseen. People just trying to cash in on tragedy.

 

[molten_dragon]

victims of the Holmes mass shooting in Aurora Colorado have filed a suit against the movie theater-Cinemark-claiming that their injuries or the deaths of family members could have been prevented if Cinemark had armed guards or a better security system (the killer propped open a rear entry to the theater and used that to retrieve weapons he had stashed outside the theater and attack the patrons).

Cinemark has defended against this tort suit on the grounds that the massacre was unforeseeable

Trial begins in lawsuit against Cinemark in Aurora movie theater shooting - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com

The attack was unforseeable. I don't think any reasonable person expects armed guards at a movie theater.

 

[TurtleDude]

The attack was unforseeable. I don't think any reasonable person expects armed guards at a movie theater.

I believe that if a public area bans CCW then it has a duty to provide security.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

I feel for those families. I really do. But you can't prepare for everything. And sometimes **** just happens. And I don't really want armed guards every place I go.

I don't think it is a business establishment's duty to protect its customers from outside dangers. You aren't required to utilize their services. As opposed to schools and government buildings, who I DO believe have a duty to protect the people inside.

I am personally against gun free zones but also believe a private business has the right to make itself one. You get to decide whether or not you want to do business with that establishment and accept the risks involved.

By making it a GFZ, the proprietor assumes some level of responsibility for its patrons. If I recall correctly, Aurora was a GFZ, though I'll have to verify that. Almost every mass shooting in the last few years has incurred in one.

As for being "unforeseeable", that's disingenuous. There were too many incidents of GFZs being shot up for this to be considered 'unforeseeable'. Unlikely, yes. Not worth the bother of taking precautions? Evidently, the owners thought so.

 

[Gaius46]

No they aren't liable. And I for one do not want to live in a society where there are armed guards and metal detectors everywhere.

 

[radcen]

I think "foreseeable" is the wrong term*. Any attack anywhere is "foreseeable" in the sense that it could happen, but it's pretty unlikely, and maybe that's the standard we should be going with.

*- Legal relevance, I'm sure, but still...

 

[Skeptic Bob]

By making it a GFZ, the proprietor assumes some level of responsibility for its patrons. If I recall correctly, Aurora was a GFZ, though I'll have to verify that. Almost every mass shooting in the last few years has incurred in one.

I respectfully disagree. To me a GFZ sign is declaring, "Enter at your own risk".

 

[PoS]

victims of the Holmes mass shooting in Aurora Colorado have filed a suit against the movie theater-Cinemark-claiming that their injuries or the deaths of family members could have been prevented if Cinemark had armed guards or a better security system (the killer propped open a rear entry to the theater and used that to retrieve weapons he had stashed outside the theater and attack the patrons).

Cinemark has defended against this tort suit on the grounds that the massacre was unforeseeable

Trial begins in lawsuit against Cinemark in Aurora movie theater shooting - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com

With that kind of victim logic they might as well blame Batman too since it was his movie that was showing and the shooter was a fan.

 

[fredmertzz]

By making it a GFZ, the proprietor assumes some level of responsibility for its patrons. If I recall correctly, Aurora was a GFZ, though I'll have to verify that. Almost every mass shooting in the last few years has incurred in one.

As for being "unforeseeable", that's disingenuous. There were too many incidents of GFZs being shot up for this to be considered 'unforeseeable'. Unlikely, yes. Not worth the bother of taking precautions? Evidently, the owners thought so.

So what you're saying is that if a business makes a rule, which they are legally allowed to make, for the purpose that they believe it will make their location safer and if a customer breaks said rule and injures another patron (either intentionally or unintentionally), that it is the fault of the business for making the rule to begin with?

Don't get me wrong: I believe GFZ's ARE dangerous. But current laws allow businesses to make their business a GFZ. If it was posted as such and you enter the business anyway under their rules, you understand that you are now at risk and assume that risk.

 

[HonestJoe]

I believe that if a public area bans CCW then it has a duty to provide security.

I’d respectfully suggest a population which feels it needs either personal firearms or armed security in all public places has fundamentally failed somewhere down the line. Maybe you need to be asking yourselves higher-level questions than this one.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

So what you're saying is that if a business makes a rule, which they are legally allowed to make, for the purpose that they believe it will make their location safer and if a customer breaks said rule and injures another patron (either intentionally or unintentionally), that it is the fault of the business for making the rule to begin with?

Don't get me wrong: I believe GFZ's ARE dangerous. But current laws allow businesses to make their business a GFZ. If it was posted as such and you enter the business anyway under their rules, you understand that you are now at risk and assume that risk.

Just "making a rule" isn't enough, they have to make a good faith effort to enforce it, or else suffer civil suits for the failure of their rule. That means searches and metal detectors, like you have at airports, courthouses, etc. Currently, hanging a GFZ sign has the effect of disarming only those who don't intend to do harm which has been proven time and time again. It's about time public accommodations take responsibility for their actions.

 

[TurtleDude]

I’d respectfully suggest a population which feels it needs either personal firearms or armed security in all public places has fundamentally failed somewhere down the line. Maybe you need to be asking yourselves higher-level questions than this one.

Nope, specific questions about a specific lawsuit

 

[TurtleDude]

Just "making a rule" isn't enough, they have to make a good faith effort to enforce it, or else suffer civil suits for the failure of their rule. That means searches and metal detectors, like you have at airports, courthouses, etc. Currently, hanging a GFZ sign has the effect of disarming only those who don't intend to do harm which has been proven time and time again. It's about time public accommodations take responsibility for their actions.

exactly, if this theater had NOT posted it was a GFZ, I would have voted no-no liability. ONCE an establishment affirmatively disarms lawful people then it has a duty to provide security since GFZs advertise to killers that their victims will be helpless

 

[radcen]

I believe that if a public area bans CCW then it has a duty to provide security.

I don't. Ok, maybe a Barney Fife security guard to keep kids in line and stuff, but not on the level of expecting a mass shooter. That's still not a common enough expectation.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't. Ok, maybe a Barney Fife security guard to keep kids in line and stuff, but not on the level of expecting a mass shooter. That's still not a common enough expectation.

you understand that if the Movie had not posted GFZ signs I would state that they are not liable?

 

[fredmertzz]

Just "making a rule" isn't enough, they have to make a good faith effort to enforce it, or else suffer civil suits for the failure of their rule. That means searches and metal detectors, like you have at airports, courthouses, etc. Currently, hanging a GFZ sign has the effect of disarming only those who don't intend to do harm which has been proven time and time again. It's about time public accommodations take responsibility for their actions.

Your point is well-taken. Though I'm less apt to say now that the Cinemark shouldn't be held liable, I still stand with my answer. You assume the risk of a GFZ by entering a GFZ. The lack of metal detectors and searches is apparent upon entering. We cannot start legislating that if a business makes a rule, they must make considerable (and often costly) effort to enforce it.

 

[Medusa]

Security has to be provided in crowded public places especially when the number of such shooting cases is increasing in a country

 

[Citizen.Seven]

I don't. Ok, maybe a Barney Fife security guard to keep kids in line and stuff, but not on the level of expecting a mass shooter. That's still not a common enough expectation.

Then maybe they shouldn't hang signs guaranteeing no armed response, orr else suffer the civil liability.

 

[radcen]

you understand that if the Movie had not posted GFZ signs I would state that they are not liable?

I do understand that, but I still disagree. *IF* they are liable for anything, it would be the lax security in allowing an emergency exit door to be propped open, etc. Mass shootings, in and of themselves, still aren't so common that that would have been a reasonable fear for anyone.

 

[radcen]

Then maybe they shouldn't hang signs guaranteeing no armed response, orr else suffer the civil liability.

I don't think it guarantees any such thing.