Dark Knight Massacre patrons suing cinema

[fireheart17]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/w...-1226468458113

And better yet, they're using 9/11 lawyers.

Seriously?!

[siead_lietrathua]

i understand the victims are hurting and suing is a grief-action (probably spurred on by the lawyers). but c'mon, this was a random and tragic incident that no one could have predicted or was expecting! the theater acted perfectly fine for what was, to them, a normal night of commerce.
those lawyers are latching on to grief and tragedy to make a nice chunk of money for themselves (i'd like to see their percentage of fee) and deserve to have some common sense slapped into them.
as an outsider, this "sue your grief away" mentality around tragedy's i've seen in american media is disgusting. if i was a victim or kin of a victim and saw someone trying to profit off the death/injury of my kin becuase of a random, senseless act of violence, i would be freaking livid.
wanna sue someone? sue the fucking murderer! suing the theater is as dumb as suing the other patrons that didn't happen to get shot because they were lucky enough to survive.

[Gravekeeper]

Suing them for what? Seriously, for what? Don't you need at least some reason to sue someone?

''I believe that the primary responsibility at this point rests with Cinemark.''

Partnering with a local law firm, Mr Bern said they're currently investigating whether there were any past incidents at the theatre and whether they should have had more security on the night of the July 20 shooting.

This fucking parasite doesn't even know himself.

Security would have done jack shit. He didn't come through the front door, asshole and even if he did is theatre security suppose to pack body armour and assault weapons just in case?

[Lace Neil Singer]

I feel for these people but honestly, in this case, I'm hoping that the case gets thrown out and they are forced to pay costs. The cinema is not to blame for the actions of some random shooter; you might as well sue the studio that made the film.

[Greenday]

Suing them for what? Seriously, for what? Don't you need at least some reason to sue someone?

The catchall charge for when you don't really have any causation: negligence, probably.

[HYHYBT]

How is suing supposed to fix grief, anyway?

[Hyena Dandy]

To get closure, to have someone to blame.

It's the same reason that I can't convince some of my friends that it wasn't a federal False-Flag operation.

Because "Sometimes something like this just happens" is not a sufficient answer. You need to find SOMEONE to blame. Something like this can't have just HAPPENED because someone was randomly violent. They need a REASON.

[the_std]

Talk about squandering any sympathy or good will they received due to this situation... Blaming the wrong person will waste that so quickly. Very sad.

[Lace Neil Singer]

To get closure, to have someone to blame.

It's the same reason that I can't convince some of my friends that it wasn't a federal False-Flag operation.

Because "Sometimes something like this just happens" is not a sufficient answer. You need to find SOMEONE to blame. Something like this can't have just HAPPENED because someone was randomly violent. They need a REASON.

That attitude really pisses me off. Know why? Cuz a very good friend of me and Fiance was killed in a motorbike accident a few years ago... and it really wasn't anyone's fault. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. We didn't blame the driver of the truck that hit him; the road is a notorious place for that kind of accident cuz it's so narrow and has many blind corners.

What helped our grief was certainly not suing that truck driver, or the council who looked after the road. It was remembering our friend and the good times we shared. These people disgust me, and I sincerely hope that their case gets thrown out and they end up hundreds of dollars out of pocket as a result.

[Andara Bledin]

Because "Sometimes something like this just happens" is not a sufficient answer. You need to find SOMEONE to blame. Something like this can't have just HAPPENED because someone was randomly violent. They need a REASON.

This.

The thought that the world is a random place where good people have bad things happen for no reason at all is too hard for many (probably most) people to face.

So they have to go looking for some reason why the bad thing happened to them instead of the good people in the next theater over. They want some illusion that there is some sort of thing that can be done or avoided so that they can have the false safety of the lie that as long as they know what that thing is it can't possibly happen to them ever again.

^-.-^

[Seifer]

The only blame I could possibly see sticking for the Cinema would be the fact that the emergency exit door didn't have an alarm. Other than that, there was nothing they could do to prevent what happened (in my opinion, anyway).

[draco664]

The catchall charge for when you don't really have any causation: negligence, probably.

Yeah, maybe. It's still a long bow to draw. I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV, but I'm pretty sure in order to be negligent, you need to be in the business of providing something to be negligent in.

And if the movie was playing, and the food was edible, then there isn't a great deal left. The cinema has to provide a safe environment for its patrons, but a safe environment is defined in terms of fire exits, numbers of patrons at a time, enough seats, wheelchair access, that sort of thing. Cinemas are not in the business of preventing people from being shot, so it's hard to see the angle the lawyers are going with this.

For some reason, the link doesn't work for me at present, so it could just be an amublance-chasing scumbag who's filed a class action suit on behalf of the patrons, and is hoping enough will sign up to force the cinema's insurance company to insist on settling out of court.

[Canarr]

For some reason, the link doesn't work for me at present, so it could just be an amublance-chasing scumbag who's filed a class action suit on behalf of the patrons, and is hoping enough will sign up to force the cinema's insurance company to insist on settling out of court.

That's my guess, too. While I don't know how that stands in the US, here in Germany a theatre would only be required to provide safety for their patrons against events that could be reasonably expected to occurr: drunk teenagers, but not armed shooters; fire, but not earthquakes or meteor hits; etc.

While I feel for the families, I can't condone suing a company just because it has the deepest pockets in the mix. It's not the theatre's fault this happened, they shouldn't be held responsible.

[daleduke17]

The only blame I could possibly see sticking for the Cinema would be the fact that the emergency exit door didn't have an alarm. Other than that, there was nothing they could do to prevent what happened (in my opinion, anyway).

That's what I see possibly happening. If so, then the cinema better ante up. If it is for anything else, then it is a frivolous lawsuit.

[bainsidhe]

Hmm, I'd like to learn more about this "potential" lawsuit before rushing to judgement. Mostly because I'm curious if this is being done for insurance purposes versus straight out gotta-blame-someone-gimme-gimme mentality.

From what I understand, the wounded are facing outrageous medical bills, not all of which are being covered by their insurance. The fund set up to help the victims is currently a joke, so what is someone which huge expenses to do?

I know this wasn't the theater's fault, however this did happen on their property. There's a reason business owners have insurance. And chances are the insurance company is going to take their sweet time "investigating" and ultimately find a reason to pay a pittance if anything at all. Thus a lawsuit may be necessary. I suspect this is more to force a settlement out of the insurance company than it is throw blame.

Like I said, I'll continue to reserve judgement until I learn more.