As an attorney who does plaintiff work, this is some serious face-palm stuff right here. I hate what happened to these people as much as the next person, but you can't honestly try to come up with a theory of liability wherein you claim a movie theater should have done more to protect you from a terrorist. Did you expect the pimple faced kid popping Orville Redenbacher and selling you that $15.00 box of Mike & Ike's to be packing heat in case someone showed up with an assault rifle? Fuck sake! Not sure about the losing side paying actual legal fees. Maybe the costs in the case. Alabama has a similar rule for the costs to be repaid but not attorney fees. If the defense makes an "Offer of Judgment", meaning they put something on the table to settle the case, and the plaintiff winds up getting shut out or awarded less in trial, the plaintiff has to pay the defense costs. But the most disturbing thing in this piece from the foxynewsdot I am a gay twerker that has no balls!!!! I also have no idea how to use the quote function to post stories, so I annoy the piss out of others. I like male genatalia in and around my mouth. is the bolded line at the end.
Attorneys for Cinemark want victims of a 2012 shooting at a Colorado movie theater to pay nearly $700,000 in legal fees after they unsuccessfully sued the theater chain.
The company's lawyers told a judge they need the money to cover the costs of preserving evidence, retrieving and copying records, travel and other expenses, according to court documents filed this month.
A judge didn't immediately rule on the request. But Colorado courts allow the winning side of a court case to recover legal fees.
Jurors in May ruled in Cinemark's favor over 28 victims and their families who argued the nation's third-largest theater chain should have done more to prevent the attack that killed 12 people and left more than 70 others injured. They sued in state court, saying security lapses allowed for the July 20, 2012 attack at a midnight premiere of a Batman film.
A judge last week dismissed a similar lawsuit in federal court, saying Cinemark's lack of security was not a substantial factor in the deaths.
In both lawsuits, victims cited a lack of guards and no alarm on an emergency exit door that would have sounded when James Holmes slipped into the crowded theater and started shooting.
Cinemark argued it could not have foreseen the attack, and nothing could have stopped the heavily armed Holmes. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the state case have said they are considering appealing the verdict.
Holmes is serving a life sentence after a different group of jurors could not unanimously agree on whether he deserved to die.
3 Replies
1747 Views