Quote Originally Posted by XC700116 View Post
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.
It's the same thought process that led ex-Senator ex-Senator Morse to include the language in his assault weapon liability bill regarding "the extreme likelihood that an assault weapon would be used to kill or harm someone". It's a complete failure to understand probability for political aims.