[Alberta's Child]

Amusement parks don't budget for those payouts because they believe they're on the wrong side of the law in a civil case. They do that because it's cheaper to pay the claim than to fight the claim.

My post is based entirely on the legal principle related to mitigating risk to a plaintiff, not on the practical application of defendants making payments under civil lawsuits. What I have described here is called the "doctrine of avoidable consequences" in tort law. Yes, the owner of the establishment might be liable for damages. But if the plaintiff in a case related to a shooting like this already knows what he's getting into, any damages might be reduced -- or even eliminated entirely -- in a civil trial.

[tschatski]

Iagree. However, states can change the law and should.