Survivors of the Aurora shooting have to pay at least $700,000 to theater chain

[linuxman]

http://theweek.com/speedreads/646024/survivors-aurora-shooting-have-pay-least-700000-theater-chain

After a settlement deal fell apart, four survivors of the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting are left having to pay the Cinemark chain at least $700,000.

The failed settlement and financial repercussions were laid out Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times, which pieced together the story through interviews with people involved in the talks between the owners of the Century Aurora 16 mutliplex and 41 plaintiffs, including survivors and relatives of victims. A federal judge overseeing their case had advised the plaintiffs that they should settle with Cinemark within 24 hours. Another group of survivors had filed a state lawsuit, and a jury decided Cinemark could not have foreseen the shooting, which left 12 dead and more than 70 injured during a showing of The Dark Knight Rises. Because of that ruling, the judge said, he would most likely also find the chain not liable for the shooting.

[Travis_0004]

1. It was a friviolus lawsuit

I'm not sure how cinemark was responsible. Does any business in America have security measures in place that would have prevented this.

[yeoman6987]

2. Always risky when you sue especially when you break away

and go on your own like some families did. I think I would have been part of the group that settled.

[FLPanhandle]

3. They were looking for quick cash

This suit was ridiculous and they wasted everyone's time and money by pursuing it.

They should pay.

[marybourg]

4. I don't like to click

on unknown sites. I did get the part of the ruling that says defendants (movie theater) don't have to pay the plaintiffs (victims and survivors). Could you briefly explain why plaintiffs have to pay defendants in this case?

[bluesbassman]

5. Under Colorado law, the losing plaintiffs are responsible for the defendants court fees. n/t

[marybourg]

7. Wow. That's sure a disincentive

to sue a malfeasor, if you're not wealthy. Oh, I guess that's the idea!

Thanks for the info.

[bluesbassman]

8. YW. Another way to look at it is that it's a deterrent to frivolous lawsuits. Cuts both ways. n/t

[Hortensis]

9. Yes. Absolutely. Marybourg, ethical attorneys will tell

would-be plaintiffs know how good a case they think they have. Most will decline to take the case if the odds are bad, some out of ethics alone if the plaintiff will pay all fees, but most because most to all of their fees would be a portion of any awards.

[Duckhunter935]

6. Looking for deep pockets

I am sure their lawyers told them of that possibility if they lost.