Judge gives the OK for victims to sue century theater

[Irving]

Not really, if you own a home and have homeowners insurance, they will pay someone who is soliciting on your property if they slip and fall on some ice, even if it has never happened before.

Not comparable to this situation.

[Irving]

IF that person can prove that their injuries are due to your negligence or direct actions. You're only required to shovel the sidewalk out in front of your property here.

You are NOT liable for shoveling your sidewalk in Colorado. I have an entire packet of citation for that. I wanted to start a thread about it, but never got around to it. Someone remind me when I get home and I will. In Colorado, you have NO liability regarding shoveling your sidewalks.

[XC700116]

In my line of work, everything is possible that does not violate one of the 7 physical laws.

hahaha, you've got a point there.

[XC700116]

Again, people don't seem to understand what is at issue at this stage of the case.

What is at issue in the cases (there's over 20 of them) is if the owner of the theater is liable for damages based on foreseeing and not taking steps to prevent such an event. This judge affirmed that it was foreseeable and therefore there is a possibility of liability, allowing the cases to continue to trial.

That is a positive affirmation by this judge that somehow there's a possibility of liability on the part of the theater owner. That is insane.

[Irving]

To go along with what Markco is saying, the very nature of insurance is to protect against things that are unforseen. You have no realistic way to prevent something that is not foreseeable. Insurance policies are specifically written to exclude events that are foreseeable, as theoretically, those events can be mitigated, if not avoided.

[lex137]

I don't think it's a good idea that they should allow this lawsuit to happen. It's going to open a big can of worms for the future.

[sabot_round]

I wholeheartedly with a lot o people here (and by the same token disagree with some), but I don't think that suing the places of businesses is the way to go. It is their business and their rules. If you don't like they're rules, you are free to go somewhere else. If the business says no guns...GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!

I, for one, will not patronize a business that forbids firearms. If a theater, restaurant, etc, will not allow firearms, i will not even entertain the thought of going there and handing out my hard earn money. People have a choice!!

Messing with business, and adding on regulations to have metal detection devices in a theater or to have armed guards (rental cops) on the premises is not gonna change my mind. I don't care how good their popcorn and tacos are, I don't care how cheap their movie is, and I sure don't care how courteous they act. The outcome is gonna be the same...no money!!!!

[spqrzilla]

What is at issue in the cases (there's over 20 of them) is if the owner of the theater is liable for damages based on foreseeing and not taking steps to prevent such an event. This judge affirmed that it was foreseeable and therefore there is a possibility of liability, allowing the cases to continue to trial.

That is a positive affirmation by this judge that somehow there's a possibility of liability on the part of the theater owner. That is insane.

The plaintiffs still have to actually prove to a jury that the event was foreseeable.

[MarkCO]

To go along with what Markco is saying, the very nature of insurance is to protect against things that are unforseen. You have no realistic way to prevent something that is not foreseeable. Insurance policies are specifically written to exclude events that are foreseeable, as theoretically, those events can be mitigated, if not avoided.

Further, insurance is, by its very nature, based in a socialist and or liberal philosophy. It seeks to compensate people for the unforeseen by "taxing" the collective. While Military, certain natural, and criminal actions are common exclusions (in the US, the .gov pays though), the level to prove that negligence was criminal is a very high threshold. For instance, I was the expert for the Aspen County Sheriff, then the DA and then the plaintiff in the deaths of the Lofgren's by CO poisoning in Aspen several years ago. If you will recall, the plumber and inspectors were criminally indicted, assumably based on my grand jury testimony. While their actions were negligent, proving the intent of harm to a member of the public was going to be a difficult task for the DA. The DA blew a statute and improperly filled out paperwork which resulted in the judge throwing out the criminal case on technicalities. One by one, over 30 defendants (actually, their insurance companies) paid money to be released from the case. Criminal cases have a burden of proof that is "beyond a reasonable doubt", or, you had better be sure. The civil burden is "more likely than not" so that, as an expert, if there are 2 options, and option 1 carries a 51% probability and option 2 carries a 49% probability, I can actually answer "Yes. Option 1 occurred." That is a little simplistic, but not too far off the way many experts, who will say whatever their client needs, respond.

[DireWolf]

The plaintiffs still have to actually prove to a jury that the event was foreseeable.

It was absolutely forseeable, the only question was propability of occurance (pretty low).

It seems to me however that many of the arguments here seem to be based on the premise that posession of a firearm on a no-guns property is automatically a violation of the owners property rights, and in my opinion that would only be the case for open carry or accidental exposure, and failure to leave when requested.

No one has the right to deprive anyone else of their natural rights, but they can and should be able to choose who to do business with. Walk in with a rifle or open carry sidearm, and just like with "no shirt/shoes - no service", if the property owner isn't confortable with that, they have every right to ask you to leave.

On the other hand, if that property owner allows me on his premises for any reason (business or otherwise), that still doesnt give them the right to search my pockets/property without violating yet more rights (and that pesky old constitution thingy that keeps getting in the way for some), and just like the contents of my wallet or pockets, as long as it stays there, and there's no xray/detector or law being violated, its none of their damn business what I have on my person.....