Skip to comments.James Holmes Massacre First Lawsuit (Man Sues Over "Dark Knight" Shooting)
Posted on 07/25/2012 9:56:27 PM PDT by Houmatt
One of the victims in the James Holmes mass murder spree has lawyered up and plans to file a lawsuit ... because he feels the theater dropped the ball in a very fatal way.
Torrence Brown, Jr. was in Century 16 Theater when Holmes let loose. One of Brown's best friends, A.J. Boik, was shot in the chest and died. Brown, who was not physically injured, claims to now suffer from extreme trauma.
(Excerpt) Read more at tmz.com ...
How did Holmes get through the emergency door?
Early reports were that someone answered a cell phone, then headed to the exit. After he sat down, the shooter came in the exit.
Sharks testing the waters. I very much doubt the actual plaintiff came up with this on his own. This is shark #1 of what will prove to be a large group. Warner will walk, it is a solid 1st amendment case and the film no more encourages a nut to shoot than any other in the land. The theatre for not having an alarmed emergency exit, unlikely. The doctor, maybe a little more likely. Only question is, why not also sue the shooter? He is notably absent from the list.
Comments are priceless!
Of course this is all ridiculous, but this guy could win the lawsuit.
Free money. Come and get it. Paging John Edwards...
“Only question is, why not also sue the shooter? He is notably absent from the list.”
And the answer is $$$, no money in it. As you already know.
If the door was not secure from the outside, they will lose. They might anyway.
The shooter has no money.
The failure to do that, however, means a likely failure of the lawsuit as a whole. All the other defendants will blame the shooter and it is virtually certain to be an open and shut case.
And Brown will probably claim that the only "medication" that will soothe his trauma is several million dollars.
It was probably secure but not alarmed.
As someone said it was probably breached from the inside.
Somebody apparently let the shooter in through it.
If one were to design a theater the emergency exits would be alarmed and turn on the theater lights. That would work in the event of fire or other problems.
Then you allow CC in the theater..and someone who uses the exit becomes a visible target.
I think suing the theater is a great idea if it is being done because it had a no firearms policy. Management put everyone at risk by depriving them of their 2nd amendment rights.
If all he’s bitching about is being traumatized, he can stick that up his ass.
I don’t consider it a farce. If the theatre is preventing people from protecting themselves, then it is the obligation of the theatre to assume the responsibility of protecting its patrons.
That is not a miscellaneous issue.
I once owned the largest physical film distribution center in the US (think warehouse of film between the studios and theaters - there's always a middle man). Such lawsuits are going to destroy the small mom/pop operations, if they still exist. I've been out of the industry since 1997 when bought out, so I could be wrong.
Still, the multitude of lawsuits that are coming will hurt many of the large cinema chains, which many theaters are franchisees of those chains. Again, I could be wrong. Just going by past experience and shipping the film cans all around SoCal, Arizona, and Hawaii for my district. If nothing else, the theaters will now start to look at security with associated costs. Don't be surprised if your ticket price increases.
I should probably do some homework to make a more informed statement, but I think little has changed. I'll get back on this.
If it can be proven that cine-mark had policys that made people sheep, while THEY themselves weren’t sheepdogs, there could be a case.
The Catholic Church has been sucked dry, as have been manufacturers of various banned products like asbestos, let’s find us new suckers, fellow law school graduates!
However we are living in Bizarro World these days when it comes to courts , so anything is possible
I like your logic.
He faked receiving an urgent phone call, exited via the emergency door (propping it open) ostensibly to take the call without disturbing the movie, then ran to his car, suited up, retrieved his arsenal and reentered.
That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it until evidence proves the contrary.
As a theater distributor of film, the doors were never locked from the outside as far back as I can remember. That has always been considered a fire hazard. They open from the inside and close with a spring system and no re-entry.
Theaters long ago changed their emergency exit doors. Go to any theater today and you see the exit signs. They open with the basic bar handle and shut behind them.
This nutcase obviously put something in the way of the door shutting so he could come back in. It will be proven so. Or he had an accomplice, but I doubt it. As a kid, I remember other kids opening the emergency exits so others could sneak in.
My question is: Did those emergency exists not have some kind of alarm that are used in many other buildings? If not, they could be liable.
That would be the singular fact that costs this movie chain zillions of $$$. What theatre chain doesn't alarm the emergency exits? Never mind the liability risk in an event such as this...what about potential lost revenue in the form of sneak-ins?
Was it an “emergency” door or just an exit door?
The Theaters around here have exits to the Lobby and to the left and right of the Screen.
You are probably correct.
It was to the outside of the building.
Just an early report I’d heard, so you know how wrong they can be, but it was said the he knocked on the door and someone in the audience let him in. I hadn’t heard the part about him already being in the theater.
In the theaters I go to in Texas, they aren’t emergency exits. They’re just exits. One is free to leave the movie through them, and that is often the shorter path to one’s car. What’s to stop someone from letting their friends in free, I don’t know.
The first report I read about was he opened the exit door and propped it to stay open and then came back through it with his ‘stuff’. There really should be alarms on those exit doors as they are for emergency use anyway. And anyone opening it who know blaring alarms would go off.
There are no outside handles, so he either taped the latch / deadbolt or someone let him in from the inside of the Theater.
He just have well could have opened the door, thrown in a few Molotov Cocktails (Inglorious Bastards comes to mind) and he would have killed dozens without firing a shot or spending Thousands of Taxpayer(?) Dollars.
If he did that, I'm sure the Lawyers would be going after Big Oil for providing the gasoline.
I'm surprised the insurance co don't demand alarms on exit doors, how else do the theaters expect to protect their patrons? And who pays? I've never been in a theater that doesn't have the doors alarmed. I believe the fire marshall comes around to check on that, also, and the exit door are lit and working properly. And when renewing ins - they ask for a copy of the certificate from the fire marshall/dept.
It MOST certainly did! He couldn't come through the front door with that dress and gear!
Any theater I’ve been to is all enter through the front and leave through the front and do have exit doors in case of fire or some such emergency. Only open from inside but are alarmed, also!
Really? Who would stop him? The 16y/o cashier?
That's how it should work. (Why does TX get all the simple stuff right?)
The court should find for the defendants and require the plaintiff (or his miserable lawyer) to reimburse the defendants for all of the costs his groundless suit imposed upon them. In the case of Warner Brothers, worthless though they may be, that might be a significant sum! (Hate to help California, but that's the break.)
The 16 yo cashier opens the place and makes sure everything is in running order? I think not. There is a manager in the theater.
As I recall, the exhibitor (the cinema) had the forethought to have extra police on hand for this midnight showing. They said they expected big crowds, so they planned for it.
Those were the cops who managed to collar the guy so quickly, likely saving many more lives.
It’ll be tough to convince a jury that they somehow fell down on their duty to protect their patrons.
May I may humbly suggest that the murderer was the person at fault for the murders?
Of course he is. However he is broke and not likely to make any money...
So.. The sharks.. er Lawyers have to go where the money is..
They've got it bad Robin ... Us, not so much ;o)
I believe that the courts have ruled that it is your obligation to ensure the guests well being when they are in your house, e.g. drinking.
A private business would be as responsible for the customers within their premises.
Building and fire codes mandate the exits.
It isn’t in the best interest of the theater to allow the exits to be operable from the outside. They lose ticket sales to kids entering in the theater from the rear. Many theaters used to patrol the exits to catch re-entrant squatters.
Theater isn’t in the wrong.
I think you might have mentioned this in your fist post, but this type of logic really does leave just about any small business in the lurch.
If the theater is liable, then every other business would be liable if some nut-job walked in the front door and started shooting the place and employees up.
What small business can afford to put an armed guard on every entry/exit point at their business?
Arming the employees would also be a liability, because any fellow employee shot by an armed employee that went postal, would then suit the business owner for that as well.
At some point, we have to allow for the fact that litigation is not the cure for everything that takes place.
At times life sucks, and you can’t be made whole in the aftermath.
But small business owners don’t routinely disarm their customers, leaving them defenseless.
Cinemark did exactly that.