Wait, what? Aurora massacre survivors end up owing theater $700K after suing

[churchmouse]

There's no pain associated with the deaths from Takata airbags? *Someone* (or perhaps several) at Takata allowed that design to go forth; why do we hold the corporation liable if we can prove it was the action of a single person (or a few)? We could jail that person and be done with it, but then I doubt the families would be happy with that.

I'm *thinking* that a problem (unsecured exits) existed - AND STILL EXISTS. All those white-knighting Cinemark haven't addressed this fact.

OK......You are completely skewing my post and its intentions.
I am not the only one that sees this.
Make your point. I get it. I really do. Every theater in every town has loose exits and not enough staff on hand to cover them. I can not afford to go see a movie now with ticket/refreshment prices. If they put on more staff who pays for that. We do. 1 Psychotic nut bag caused all of this. 1 guy. Not a series of managers. 1 whacked out psycho.
Not a white knight for the Cinema. I was not referencing any other entity.
I was (again) pointing out that money would not get her loved ones back. It was heart felt my friend. Not put up as a spring board into your point.
Simple as that.

 

[foszoe]

I see the point on the emergency exits. Most I see say alarm will sound.

 

[jamil]

It's not a matter of lost revenue; it's the fact that someone propped open a safety door (my time in the Navy as the Damage Control Petty Officer is kicking in; I took that job *very* seriously, and old habits die hard). What if the movie had been a Disney matinee and some pedophile used that door to snatch a kid from a darkened, noisy theatre? Think there would be a lawsuit then?

I brought that up as the reason to change it. Why do people start businesses? To make money. The pursuit of revenue generally drives business decisions. And that's okay. If people are sneaking into movie theaters to see the movies, that probably doesn't impact revenue all that much. I can see why they might not care to spend too much in trying to stop that. And if there aren't any specific threats of people exploiting that for nefarious purposes, I just don't see the liability that you see.

That is the same "failure of imagination" that resulted in 9/11. The Israelis had secure cockpits on all El Al flights; why not on US carriers?

It's often not an immediate threat until it's an experienced threat. Living under the conditions that the Israelis do, I can see why their security was tighter than ours. Certainly you don't see the threat Israel faces as a logical equivalence. With all the threats that we can imagine, which ones do we prepare for? And how much should we spend on trying to prevent it? Until it became apparent that the threat was worth securing cockpit doors on our airlines, we didn't do it.

I'm not arguing for protection against *every conceivable action*; that's not possible. But as I stated, how many reading this have sneaked into a theater using an emergency exit? How much would it cost to have an alarm on each exit? We're getting to that scene in "Fight Club" where the protagonist says, "Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one." Now that we *know* someone can shoot up a theater via the emergency exit, will that result in alarms on the doors, or are the next victims simply expendable?

I suspect some theaters will put alarms on the doors, because now that it's happened, it's more likely that future law suits like this one would be successful. I also suspect that more and more communities will change their building codes and ordinances to require it.

What price would you put on the lives of two of your kids and your own mobility? $10K? $5K? After all, $5K is *something*, but that doesn't begin to cover the cost the victims have had and will experience for the rest of their lives.

Yes, the blame belongs *primarily* with Holmes, but not *exclusively*. That is the issue.

Well the point wasn't that there's any price that could be placed on any of that. The point was, the judge informed them that they were going to lose. I think it was more than fair that he advised them to reach a settlement first. What that means is that it doesn't matter if any value can be assigned to the victim's loses. The judgement of the court was that Cinemark was liable for zero. The tragedy, as I said, above the loss of life and abilities, is they came away owing money, because they wouldn't have lost that money if they'd have accepted that Cinemark was not liable for their losses, and took the judge up on the opportunity he gave them. The 4 that remained in the lawsuit made an emotional decision that was senseless.

And this is probably a fundamental area of disagreement between us. You seem to believe that someone must equalize the outcome. I agree that would be best if the responsible party could do that. But he can't. He's in prison. He has no resources to pay back his debt. Unless you can show me that Cinemark knew that such a thing were any kind of likelihood, I won't believe that debt falls upon Cinemark. The guy who did the shooting owns all of this one. Except I probably could be convinced that some of the faculty may share some responsibility for not following up on his weird behavior. But even if you could, they ain't got no money either.

 

[jamil]

There's no pain associated with the deaths from Takata airbags? *Someone* (or perhaps several) at Takata allowed that design to go forth; why do we hold the corporation liable if we can prove it was the action of a single person (or a few)? We could jail that person and be done with it, but then I doubt the families would be happy with that.

I'm *thinking* that a problem (unsecured exits) existed - AND STILL EXISTS. All those white-knighting Cinemark haven't addressed this fact.

I think you're saying he's saying something he's not saying.

Honeslty, who's "white-knighting" Cinemark? So now saying Cinemark is the equivalence of white knighthood? The standards seem to have slipped.

 

[david890]

Unless you can show me that Cinemark knew that such a thing were any kind of likelihood, I won't believe that debt falls upon Cinemark.

Here ya go: "Protective Measures Guide for the U.S. Outdoor Venues Industry" (2011). Specifically:

"Some protective measures are designed to be implemented on a permanent basis to serve as routineprotection for a facility. Such measures are sometimes referred to as baseline countermeasures. Others are
implemented or are increased in their application only during times of heightened alert."

Those permanent measures should have included alarms on the doors, as well as plans to have such alarms investigated in a timely manner.

Three other issues here: first, the security measures for indoor venues are fundamentally identical as those for outdoor venues, though differences do exist for each. I'm sure the head of security for Cinemark knew of this report, as well as any previous security recommendations made after 9/11, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. Second, this report is dated 2011, and Aurora was 2012. There was time to upgrade exit security. Finally, and as I noted previously, there was extra security at the theater that night due to the time of showing (midnight) and the size of the crowd (large). They failed to monitor exits, as their focus was on the entrance. Surprisingly, Holmes managed to find the flaw in the security plans.

If their plans failed to recognize emergency exits as possible entrances for a bad actor, that's negligent. If there were no security plans, that's reckless. Either way, Cinemark bears some responsibility.

 

[Woobie]

Here ya go: "Protective Measures Guide for the U.S. Outdoor Venues Industry" (2011). Specifically:

"Some protective measures are designed to be implemented on a permanent basis to serve as routineprotection for a facility. Such measures are sometimes referred to as baseline countermeasures. Others are
implemented or are increased in their application only during times of heightened alert."

Those permanent measures should have included alarms on the doors, as well as plans to have such alarms investigated in a timely manner.

Three other issues here: first, the security measures for indoor venues are fundamentally identical as those for outdoor venues, though differences do exist for each. I'm sure the head of security for Cinemark knew of this report, as well as any previous security recommendations made after 9/11, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. Second, this report is dated 2011, and Aurora was 2012. There was time to upgrade exit security. Finally, and as I noted previously, there was extra security at the theater that night due to the time of showing (midnight) and the size of the crowd (large). They failed to monitor exits, as their focus was on the entrance. Surprisingly, Holmes managed to find the flaw in the security plans.

If their plans failed to recognize emergency exits as possible entrances for a bad actor, that's negligent. If there were no security plans, that's reckless. Either way, Cinemark bears some responsibility.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion. Obviously the judge did as well.

I know you take locking doors on ships very seriously, buuuut the rest of us aren't in the Navy, and we're not trying to keep a theatre from sinking. Seriously, if they were to alarm the exits at theatres, it would be a constant commotion. People use those as a shortcut to the parking lot. The dang things would be going off every 20 minutes. Talk about a bunch of pissed off customers. The reality is bad people do bad things, and you can't prevent everything. Systems fail. If they didn't, I wouldn't bother carrying a gun or wearing a seat belt.

 

[david890]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion. Obviously the judge did as well.

Of course, a judge is infallible!! I'm sure you're more than pleased with all the recent decisions out of the 9th Circuit...

I know you take locking doors on ships very seriously, buuuut the rest of us aren't in the Navy, and we're not trying to keep a theatre from sinking.

You think that was my only responsibility as DCPO? Fire is - by far - the greatest threat to a ship, and I was on an oiler. Think of fire on a ship carrying 6.5 MILLION gallons of diesel fuel and 2,500 TONS of high-explosive ordnance. I had to ensure all the fire-fighting gear (hoses, connectors, OBAs, etc.) was operational and maintained, including the Emergency Diesel Fire Pump (Detroit Diesel 471). Daily visual inspections were the norm, in addition to my other duties. If I missed something, it meant time in the brig, not just a loss of stripes.

Seriously, if they were to alarm the exits at theatres, it would be a constant commotion. People use those as a shortcut to the parking lot. The dang things would be going off every 20 minutes. Talk about a bunch of pissed off customers.

Engineers are pretty smart folks. I'm sure they could come up with something.

The reality is bad people do bad things, and you can't prevent everything. Systems fail. If they didn't, I wouldn't bother carrying a gun or wearing a seat belt.

Yes, bad people do bad things. Bad corporations also do bad things, such as take shortcuts on safety measures (Takata, for example). Yes, we can't prevent *everything*, but there are things we can fix. Has Cinemark addressed the issue of emergency exits being propped open? They've had 4 years to come up with a fix...

 

[jamil]

Here ya go: "Protective Measures Guide for the U.S. Outdoor Venues Industry" (2011). Specifically:

"Some protective measures are designed to be implemented on a permanent basis to serve as routineprotection for a facility. Such measures are sometimes referred to as baseline countermeasures. Others are
implemented or are increased in their application only during times of heightened alert."

Those permanent measures should have included alarms on the doors, as well as plans to have such alarms investigated in a timely manner.

Three other issues here: first, the security measures for indoor venues are fundamentally identical as those for outdoor venues, though differences do exist for each. I'm sure the head of security for Cinemark knew of this report, as well as any previous security recommendations made after 9/11, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. Second, this report is dated 2011, and Aurora was 2012. There was time to upgrade exit security. Finally, and as I noted previously, there was extra security at the theater that night due to the time of showing (midnight) and the size of the crowd (large). They failed to monitor exits, as their focus was on the entrance. Surprisingly, Holmes managed to find the flaw in the security plans.

If their plans failed to recognize emergency exits as possible entrances for a bad actor, that's negligent. If there were no security plans, that's reckless. Either way, Cinemark bears some responsibility.

There seems to be a large disconnect here between what actually happened and what you think should have happened. And especially that you think Cinemark should have picked up a document that says on every page "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY", that outlined some general things, and applied those things in such a way that it should have been more obvious to them that they should have considered that nutballs would use the exit doors to come in and shoot people.

Again, you show me that Cinemark knew of the dangers and ignored them, and I'll agree that they shared some responsibility. So, if you want your DHS document to serve as that, given that it is "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY", show me that they ignored specific advice from DHS, to protect themselves from a realistic threat to such entry from an emergency exit.

I get that you want to find a way for the big guys to be at fault here. I just don't see it that way. You just can't always get an equal outcome. It's not always the big guy's fault. But, I'll tell you how you can get this prevented in the future. Since we're all about using the power of government to force our way, how about lobbying your local government to pass ordinances requiring theaters to monitor and alarm opening of all emergency exit doors. Then when the big guys don't follow the law, you'll have a reason to sue them.

Of course, a judge is infallible!! I'm sure you're more than pleased with all the recent decisions out of the 9th Circuit...



You think that was my only responsibility as DCPO? Fire is - by far - the greatest threat to a ship, and I was on an oiler. Think of fire on a ship carrying 6.5 MILLION gallons of diesel fuel and 2,500 TONS of high-explosive ordnance. I had to ensure all the fire-fighting gear (hoses, connectors, OBAs, etc.) was operational and maintained, including the Emergency Diesel Fire Pump (Detroit Diesel 471). Daily visual inspections were the norm, in addition to my other duties. If I missed something, it meant time in the brig, not just a loss of stripes.



Engineers are pretty smart folks. I'm sure they could come up with something.



Yes, bad people do bad things. Bad corporations also do bad things, such as take shortcuts on safety measures (Takata, for example). Yes, we can't prevent *everything*, but there are things we can fix. Has Cinemark addressed the issue of emergency exits being propped open? They've had 4 years to come up with a fix...

No, judges aren't infallible. And I imagine this one was privy to more information than you had. And it's obvious he was very sympathetic to the victims--he encouraged them to seek a settlement before he ruled so that they could at least wouldn't have to pay out court costs. But couldn't you concede that perhaps he ruled the way he did because there was no real evidence that Cinemark was liable for the victims' losses? The big guys aren't automatically responsible just because they're big guys.

 

[jamil]

One other point I'd like to make. If you're going to use the "they should have known" argument, doesn't that go both ways? Why should movie goers assume that they can't be victims in a movie theater? If Cinemark should have known, shouldn't movie goers have known? If they know the exit door can open without alarming, shouldn't they have been alarmed about that? Don't people have at least some responsibility for their own safety? When I go to a movie, I don't expect the theater to protect me. I'm on my own there, just like I am throughout life. My own decisions and actions are a bigger determiner of my safety than just about anything else. I can drive safely or not. I can lock my doors or not. I can arm myself against people who would do me harm or not. I am truly sorry for the loss those victims suffered. But I will not accept blame -- some of them blamed gun owners and the NRA. And I won't support them getting compensation from someone whose fault it wasn't.

 

[rugertoter]

Moral to the story? Don't go to a theater, that has a gun buster sign in place....I wouldn't.

 

[Woobie]

Of course, a judge is infallible!! I'm sure you're more than pleased with all the recent decisions out of the 9th Circuit..

Of course not, but he had access to more information than you, and saw no liability on Cinemark's part. It's an important fact.


You think that was my only responsibility as DCPO? Fire is - by far - the greatest threat to a ship, and I was on an oiler. Think of fire on a ship carrying 6.5 MILLION gallons of diesel fuel and 2,500 TONS of high-explosive ordnance. I had to ensure all the fire-fighting gear (hoses, connectors, OBAs, etc.) was operational and maintained, including the Emergency Diesel Fire Pump (Detroit Diesel 471). Daily visual inspections were the norm, in addition to my other duties. If I missed something, it meant time in the brig, not just a loss of stripes.

Yes, I realize all this. I also realize this has nothing to do with movie theatres. Terrestrial building are geared toward egress and slowing fires down. Much different than a ship. Just like security aboard a military vessel or installation is markedly different from a private business.


Engineers are pretty smart folks. I'm sure they could come up with something.

Show me an example of the technology, and I'll show you a teenager that can defeat it.


Yes, bad people do bad things. Bad corporations also do bad things, such as take shortcuts on safety measures (Takata, for example). Yes, we can't prevent *everything*, but there are things we can fix. Has Cinemark addressed the issue of emergency exits being propped open? They've had 4 years to come up with a fix...

You are really riding this airbag horse hard. It bears no similarity to the movie theatre at all. Nice try. There is a worlds worth of difference in building a safety device designed to do one thing, that fails to do that one thing, realizing it fails, covering up the failure on the one hand, and on the other not preventing one aspect of a buildings security from being defeated while using currently accepted technology for that security measure. If you want to pay for armed security at all exits, then good on you. But that is not a generally accepted industry standard for risk mitigation. And because it is not, how will you hold a company liable for negligence?

 

[jamil]

You are really riding this airbag horse hard. It bears no similarity to the movie theatre at all. Nice try. There is a worlds worth of difference in building a safety device designed to do one thing, that fails to do that one thing, realizing it fails, covering up the failure on the one hand, and on the other not preventing one aspect of a buildings security from being defeated while using currently accepted technology for that security measure. If you want to pay for armed security at all exits, then good on you. But that is not a generally accepted industry standard for risk mitigation. And because it is not, how will you hold a company liable for negligence?

OMG! That blue is very hard to read. Not enough contrast.

 

[foszoe]

OMG! That blue is very hard to read. Not enough contrast.

You use a color monitor?

 

[jamil]

You use a color monitor?

Sorry. Should have used a trigger warning.

 

[david890]

One other point I'd like to make. If you're going to use the "they should have known" argument, doesn't that go both ways? Why should movie goers assume that they can't be victims in a movie theater? If Cinemark should have known, shouldn't movie goers have known? If they know the exit door can open without alarming, shouldn't they have been alarmed about that? Don't people have at least some responsibility for their own safety?

Cinemark knew, or should have known, that the exits could be propped open. That's the language one typically hears in a negligence case. Cinemark has 522 theaters with 5,888 screens, so I have no doubt they employ a corporate security officer whose job is to make sure things like this don't happen, or, at the very least, to try and mitigate the harm. It doesn't look like that person did their job, as a certified whack-job was able to defeat their security.

As for the movie-goers, what more could they have done to protect themselves? They weren't allowed to carry (per Cinemark's own rules), so Cinemark assumes a higher standard of care in that case. Perhaps the victims should have been wearing some Level 4 body armor, if they truly wanted to feel safe. Yeah, let's put the onus on the victims...

BTW, I was mistaken about the security on hand that night. There was none. Other Cinemark complexes did have guards, but not at Aurora.

 

[Woobie]

OMG! That blue is very hard to read. Not enough contrast.

Sorry about that, it looked ok on my end. I changed it for you.

 

[marmion]

The reasoning of the morons who sued the theater go like this:
I open a lemonade stand.
Psychopath drives by and shoots it up and kills some of my customers.
I'm responsible for the actions of said psychopath and should give my customers millions of dollars.

WTF you say? Yes, wtf is the correct response.

 

[david890]

If you want to pay for armed security at all exits, then good on you. But that is not a generally accepted industry standard for risk mitigation. And because it is not, how will you hold a company liable for negligence?

I never said armed guards at every exit, did I? However, alarms on doors ARE generally accepted safety measures, and it's not an expensive proposition. The doors are already one-way locking; a simple switch connected to an alarm is just a few dollars. Using a CCD camera to monitor the doors wouldn't be very expensive either.

I'm sure Cinemark could get a bulk deal on such items if they wished. With 522 locations and almost 5,900 screens, that's a lot of emergency exits. Let's assume 4 exits per screen, or about 24,000 switches and CCD cameras. At $250 per door (which is probably a high estimate, but let's run with it), that comes to $4 million. Cinemark did $2.85 BILLION in revenue in 2015; that comes to 0.14% of their revenue for the ONE-TIME install, assuming they did it now.

Heck, let's double their cost to $8 million (installation, etc.). How much do you think they pay for insurance each year? You think their insurance would go up or down with increased security? How large a drop in revenue did they experience after Aurora? I'd wager they lost far more in revenue after Aurora than the security upgrade would have cost them. And again, have they improved security since the shooting? If not, why the hell not?

Would alarms and cameras have stopped Holmes? We'll never know...

 

[david890]

The reasoning of the morons who sued the theater go like this:
I open a lemonade stand.
Psychopath drives by and shoots it up and kills some of my customers.
I'm responsible for the actions of said psychopath and should give my customers millions of dollars.

WTF you say? Yes, wtf is the correct response.

WTF???

A woman with 2 dead kids and paralyzed is now a "moron"???

A lemonade stand is not a multi-screen cinema complex. Did you ban CC at your stand? Sorry, try again.

 

[jamil]

Sorry about that, it looked ok on my end. I changed it for you.

Hey, thanks. Sorry to complain, but I guess I'm handicapped.