Should Hollywood pick up the health insurance/burial costs for victims?

[RazorGuns]

Since most victims are young, I'm gonna assume prolly half or more have no health insurance. So who picks up the tab for the ER visit and possible future healthcare? Tragic yes, but someone sooner or later will have to pick up the tab so it has to be discussed.

Would be nice if WB after making hundreds of millions, would offer to pickup tab for all the survivors and burial costs. Do you think they will or let the govt eat it? Or victims who'll probaly be forced to sue theater/wb then to get money.

Hey my first poll on AO - yeah!!! Hercules, Hercules.

[TheGillotine]

Since most victims are young, I'm gonna assume prolly half or more have no health insurance. So who picks up the tab for the ER visit and possible future healthcare? Tragic yes, but someone sooner or later will have to pick up the tab so it has to be discussed.

Would be nice if WB after making hundreds of millions, would offer to pickup tab for all the survivors and burial costs. Do you think they will or let the govt eat it? Or victims who'll probaly be forced to sue theater/wb then to get money.

Hey my first poll on AO - yeah!!! Hercules, Hercules.

Why would WB be responsible for this? Why not Coca-Cola?

[whisper]

So who picks up the tab for the ER visit and possible future healthcare?

How the gunman got into the theater is pretty important question - and it may determine who pays.

[RazorGuns]

Why would WB be responsible for this? Why not Coca-Cola?

Cuz WB is more connected and 99% they'll settle rather than incur negative press by going to trial. Basicaly it's free money ont he table.

Don't forget theater chain & companies that sold the tear gas, armor, gun, bullets, etc. There's what, 300 plaintiffs? This is America and this is how victims get their healthcare costs covered.

Didn't the 9/11 victims have to sue to get reimbursed?

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Certainly, whoever has money should pay those that don't.
Read that in a book recommended to me in another thread.

[Noddy]

Do you think it would be nice if wb donated money to the victims or do you think they should because they are somehow partly responsible?

[erosewater]

Should you stand on a railing, jump as high as you can and then spread your legs as you come down for starting this thread? Yes, yes you should.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

First part is always true.
Second part is false.

[RazorGuns]

Should you stand on a railing, jump as high as you can and then spread your legs as you come down for starting this thread? Yes, yes you should.

No. That hurts man!

The lawsuits coming from this will be insane. Those are some big medical bills.

[Linus]

Not for the dead people.

[Standtall]

I wanted to vote no, but then you went and put in there that the government pays.

[PeppermintPatty]

Do you think it would be nice if wb donated money to the victims or do you think they should because they are somehow partly responsible?Or do you think it would be good publicity for WB to donate some money, and potential bad publicity if they don't?

You don't actually think WB is responsible do you? From time to time people go nuts and shoot a bunch of random strangers. It happens at McDonalds. It happens on the Long Island Railroad. It happens at movie theaters. I'm pretty sure that the same thing happened to the guy in the bible who was possessed by demons until Jesus drove them out. (except he didn't have access to modern firearms, so he probably didn't kill many people.) It just seems to be one of the way people "break".

[IMP]

according to the latest news report i heard this morning, the wacko bought a ticket like everyone else. he left the theatre through an emergency exit, went to his car, got the guns, and came back in through that back door.

[DataDan]

bunch of messy class action suits I suppose. Its not the right thing, but no one will offer up cash like that.

what should happen? theater + WB should pay hospital bills and hospital should reduce cost to allow this to happen. but it wont.

[Harry]

bunch of messy class action suits I suppose. Its not the right thing, but no one will offer up cash like that.

what should happen? theater + WB should pay hospital bills and hospital should reduce cost to allow this to happen. but it wont.
Why the theater and WB? Why not Amazon and whoever sold him the guns and bullets?

[IMP]

Why the theater and WB? Why not Amazon and whoever sold him the guns and bullets?

runaway jury (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0313542/) all over again. stupid guns.

[CantGoogleMe]

Where is the option for "Hell no"?

[Harry]

runaway jury (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0313542/) all over again. stupid guns.
I'm just saying that at least there is SOME connection there. Not so with WB.

[whisper]

Why the theater

Well the theater is about the only one that makes sense - because it has a duty to secure it's premise.

[sixt8 berd]

Well the theater is about the only one that makes sense - because it has a duty to secure it's premise.

to what extent should they have to secure the premise? I can see this as valid argument if on a regular basis there was a threat of a shooting but how can the theater protect in a 1 in X million event? They could have (more?) security guards but how many would they need to stop this from happening? Where do we draw the line?

[whisper]

to what extent should they have to secure the premise? I can see this as valid argument if on a regular basis there was a threat of a shooting but how can the theater protect in a 1 in X million event? They could have (more?) security guards but how many would they need to stop this from happening? Where do we draw the line?

The guy entered (armed) through the fire escape exit.

Ignoring protecting the people from a shooter - the theater has an interest in just preventing people from entering into the theater through the back without paying. There seems to be a failure here in this regard - one that the shooter managed to exploit.

[Linus]

The guy entered (armed) through the fire escape exit.

Ignoring protecting the people from a shooter - the theater has an interest in just preventing people from entering into the theater through the back without paying. There seems to be a failure here in this regard - one that the shooter managed to exploit.

There will be serious questions about the emergency exits and why alarms did not sound when they were opened. Were they somehow disabled or inoperative? I don't see WB having any clear liability here, but the theater owner's insurer will clearly be on the hook for multiple claims. Doubtful that their aggregate prem/ops limit will be high enough to pay all the claims, so expect to hear discussion about what constitutes an occurrence.

[sixt8 berd]

they secured the place from nonpaying customers. The guy actually bought a ticket and then propped open a (presumably) locked door. There is a pretty good chance the shooter can exploit any reasonable amount of security to gain access.

[ADoubleDot]

the entrance used is irrelevant. it would have been just as bad if he shot up the lobby.

[Take 2]

Theater + moviemaker paying the bill is classy and good PR. It should not be their obligation. Much better if they make that choice. :)

[whisper]

the entrance used is irrelevant. it would have been just as bad if he shot up the lobby.

Yes, but it would be harder to argue that the movie theater is responsible.

[sixt8 berd]

so if he walks through the front door guns blazing, the theater would be more or less responsible?

[whisper]

so if he walks through the front door guns blazing, the theater would be more or less responsible?

It would be easier to argue that they're less responsible.

[erosewater]

Just about every large theater I've been in has back doors by the screen that lead directly to the parking lot that are not emergency doors. You could easily go out through there, prop it open, and then come back in. The theater is in no way responsible.

[Tommy Vercetti]

The P&C ins co that writes the theater a GL policy will end up paying it.

1. Does the theater has a duty to keep its customer safe? yes
2. Is the duty been breached? yes
3. Is there an actual damage? Yes
4. Is the damage related to the breach of duty? yes

[sixt8 berd]

The P&C ins co that writes the theater a GL policy will end up paying it.

1. Does the theater has a duty to keep its customer safe? yes
2. Is the duty been breached? yes
3. Is there an actual damage? Yes
4. Is the damage related to the breach of duty? yes

I agree with #1 but where do you draw the line? What if the guy drove up in a tank and blew up the entire building? Should the theater hire enough security to thwart tank attacks?

[erosewater]

No amount of security could prevent me from getting my army of dick punching bears into the theater

[Tommy Vercetti]

I agree with #1 but where do you draw the line? What if the guy drove up in a tank and blew up the entire building? Should the theater hire enough security to thwart tank attacks?

keyword is foreseeable. And gun shoots seems forseeable enough.

[sixt8 berd]

keyword is foreseeable. And gun shoots seems forseeable enough.

What does the theater need to do to reasonably stop shootings? X number of security guards per square foot? If a shooting happens, does the blame fall on them no matter how many precautionary measures they take?

[wolferine]

The guy entered (armed) through the fire escape exit.

Ignoring protecting the people from a shooter - the theater has an interest in just preventing people from entering into the theater through the back without paying. There seems to be a failure here in this regard - one that the shooter managed to exploit.

There should be guys with machine guns to guard the doors from now on, eh.

The door probably locks from the outside, but you need an exit in case of fire. He probably put a block or coin in the door, or maybe tape to stop it from locking. In any event, does how he entered matter? You think someone would have stopped a heavily armed man from entering the front door?

[wolferine]

The P&C ins co that writes the theater a GL policy will end up paying it.

1. Does the theater has a duty to keep its customer safe? yes
2. Is the duty been breached? yes
3. Is there an actual damage? Yes
4. Is the damage related to the breach of duty? yes

If there was a brown banana peel on the ground and someone slipped on it then your answers fit. There is nothing reasonable the theater could do to stop an armed man from killing people unless you think every theater should have a roving swat team.

[Tim><]

Having WB pay for medical bills would be seen as a tacit admission of guilt - and would form the basis of wrongful death and punitive suits. So - no, they should not pay.

[twig93]

The P&C ins co that writes the theater a GL policy will end up paying it.

1. Does the theater has a duty to keep its customer safe? yes
2. Is the duty been breached? yes
3. Is there an actual damage? Yes
4. Is the damage related to the breach of duty? yes
In what way was the theater negligent in its duty to keep customers safe? Should they honestly be expected to protect their customers from any and all harm? If North Korea drops a nuclear bomb on the theater are the owners responsible for paying for all the expenses associated with the nuclear bomb as well???

It seems to me like the theater should take reasonable steps to keep the theater secure and beyond that, stuff happens. If the gunman had walked through the lobby carrying an uzzi and 10 employees saw him and no one even bothered to call 911... then yeah, they'd be liable. But propping open a door that's locked from the outside and sneaking in with a gun is not something the theater should be expected to prevent.

I hate the notion that if person A does something bad on person B's property that it's somehow person B's fault. That kind of thinking sucks!!! (IMNSHO)

[FormLetter]

No amount of security could prevent me from getting my army of dick punching bears into the theater

if you had said dachsie-eating bears you'd be wrong, but you were careful enough to say dick-punching
http://dachshundlove.blogspot.com/2011/08/dachshund-lover-punches-bear-to-save.html

[FormLetter]

To answer the Q in the thread title: No, the theater shouldn't have to purchase health insurance for the victims. But if they did, thank God the evil insurance companies wouldn't pay for any of this shit because it is a pre-existing condition.

[Noddy]

Hey my first poll on AO - yeah!!! Hercules, Hercules.

Congrats on it being the dumbest one yet

Also, see Tim>< post

Also, recommend making polls public

[Fish Actuary]

In what way was the theater negligent in its duty to keep customers safe? Should they honestly be expected to protect their customers from any and all harm? If North Korea drops a nuclear bomb on the theater are the owners responsible for paying for all the expenses associated with the nuclear bomb as well???

It seems to me like the theater should take reasonable steps to keep the theater secure and beyond that, stuff happens. If the gunman had walked through the lobby carrying an uzzi and 10 employees saw him and no one even bothered to call 911... then yeah, they'd be liable. But propping open a door that's locked from the outside and sneaking in with a gun is not something the theater should be expected to prevent.

I hate the notion that if person A does something bad on person B's property that it's somehow person B's fault. That kind of thinking sucks!!! (IMNSHO)


I don't see how WB is responsible for any of the costs. Arguably, the seat manufacturer is just as liable as WB as the seats weren't very bullet resistant.

I can see where the theater has some responsibility on the safety front. That someone could prop open a door for however long it took for the guy to put on all his gear and no one bothered to check the door seems a bit unreasonable (or was he really fast e.g. less than 1 to 2 minutes? then maybe not so much). On the other hand, would they be responsible if someone shot up the crowd with a gun that they brought in legally with a concealed carry permit? In the hypothetical case with the concealed carry, I'm not sure what the theater owners could have done. It seems like if they had any liability for that kind of shooting, then you'd have to go through a metal detector or something to go into a grocery store or a restaurant.

[Tommy Vercetti]

What does the theater need to do to reasonably stop shootings? X number of security guards per square foot? If a shooting happens, does the blame fall on them no matter how many precautionary measures they take?

Again, it depend on if it is reasonable to expect the business owner to foresee the danger. Once it is reasonably foreseeable, the business owner almost always needs to provide the duty of care to its customers.

Here is a article regarding to the Law of Premises Liability. Maybe poeple will find this interesting.
http://www.butlerpappas.com/1411

[sixt8 berd]

Again, it depend on if it is reasonable to expect the business owner to foresee the danger. Once it is reasonably foreseeable, the business owner almost always needs to provide the duty of care to its customers.

Here is a article regarding to the Law of Premises Liability. Maybe poeple will find this interesting.
http://www.butlerpappas.com/1411

That's exactly my point, how can a movie theater reasonably expect a mass shooting? How many movie theaters are there in the nation and how many mass shootings have there been?

If they are expected to secure their premises from a mass shooting than we might have solved the unemployment problem because we are going to need a hell of a lot more security/police across this country.

[ADoubleDot]

can you imagine what the ticket prices would be :shudder:

[Baron Von Raschke]

Arguably the theater owes WB for lost movie income. Granted it's not a very convincing argument.

[Tommy Vercetti]

That's exactly my point, how can a movie theater reasonably expect a mass shooting? How many movie theaters are there in the nation and how many mass shootings have there been?

If they are expected to secure their premises from a mass shooting than we might have solved the unemployment problem because we are going to need a hell of a lot more security/police across this country.

There are shooting/killing/fighting/injuring happen in thearters before. Mass or not is just a issue of severity. I think severity is not a key issue in determine the liability tho.

[sixt8 berd]

There are shooting/killing/fighting/injuring happen in thearters before. Mass or not is just a issue of severity. I think severity is not a key issue in determine the liability tho.

Yes there have been theater shootings before (tangent - if Public Enemies is accurate Dillinger was shot leaving a theater by the FBI) but not enough to consider it reasonable to secure against.

'mass' wasn't supposed to be a critical piece of my most.

[twig93]

I don't see how WB is responsible for any of the costs. Arguably, the seat manufacturer is just as liable as WB as the seats weren't very bullet resistant.

I can see where the theater has some responsibility on the safety front. That someone could prop open a door for however long it took for the guy to put on all his gear and no one bothered to check the door seems a bit unreasonable (or was he really fast e.g. less than 1 to 2 minutes? then maybe not so much). On the other hand, would they be responsible if someone shot up the crowd with a gun that they brought in legally with a concealed carry permit? In the hypothetical case with the concealed carry, I'm not sure what the theater owners could have done. It seems like if they had any liability for that kind of shooting, then you'd have to go through a metal detector or something to go into a grocery store or a restaurant.I don't know how long he was out, but I'm guessing it was only a few minutes. Those doors could easily stay open that long when a movie is letting out, especially if there was a wheelchair going through. So I don't think the theater could have had an automated system reasonably detect that there was a problem.

So about all they could have done was to post a live person guarding every door, and that just seems unreasonable. I don't want that expense baked into my ticket price... I'd rather take my chances.

And this kind of stuff is exactly why everyone should have health insurance. You just never know when something awful is going to happen. If people are dumb enough to not have health insurance, it's not the studio or the theater's fault.

[JUICE]

And this kind of stuff is exactly why everyone should have health insurance. You just never know when something awful is going to happen. If people are dumb enough to not have health insurance, it's not the studio or the theater's fault.

Thank gods the Obama and the SCOTUS put an end to that insanity. How crazy do you have to be to not have health insurance as a young person? :crazy:

[Keef]

WB is donating a "substantial" amount

http://m.rollingstone.com/?redirurl=/movies/news/warner-bros-pledges-substantial-donation-to-colorado-shooting-victims-20120724

I had heard of calls for them to do this and thought it would certainly be classy for them to do but that they were under no obligation. The calls for it bothered me - hate how some people are so "generous" with other people's money.

[twig93]

Thank gods the Obama and the SCOTUS put an end to that insanity. How crazy do you have to be to not have health insurance as a young person? :crazy:You have to be crazy not to have health insurance all right, but I do think that people should have a right to do crazy things... and then suffer the consequences.

[Fish Actuary]

I don't know how long he was out, but I'm guessing it was only a few minutes. Those doors could easily stay open that long when a movie is letting out, especially if there was a wheelchair going through. So I don't think the theater could have had an automated system reasonably detect that there was a problem.

So about all they could have done was to post a live person guarding every door, and that just seems unreasonable. I don't want that expense baked into my ticket price... I'd rather take my chances.

And this kind of stuff is exactly why everyone should have health insurance. You just never know when something awful is going to happen. If people are dumb enough to not have health insurance, it's not the studio or the theater's fault.

I agree with pretty much everything here. I'm mostly pointing out where a lawyer might go after them, but I really don't see how the theater is to blame. I'm assuming that the reason why the theater keeps those doors closed and presumably locked is more about keeping out non-paying customers, than about keeping out crazed gunmen.

I think that the lawyers are going to argue that an employee of the place should have investigated the open door, and closed it, because that door shouldn't have been open at that time in the first place presumably. The movie was just starting, it wasn't ending. However, in the theater's defense, they usually don't have a lot of employees and they can't be everywhere at once, and it may have taken them a few to several minutes to notice that the door was even open in the first place and then they have to find a free employee to go close that door. So quite possibly, the door being open for that long was a normal situation. Additionally, if they have video surveillance, they probably don't have to rush to catch sneak-ins, they just watch to see where they sit and go grab them when they have a moment and maybe have the police handy.

[Super Silver Haze]

Facebook told me the first lawsuit has been filed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/25/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-injured-idUS207229497220120725

This guy was uninjured, but his friend was (allegedly) killed. He's suing the theater, the killer's doctors, and Warner Brothers.

[Harry]

Facebook told me the first lawsuit has been filed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/25/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-injured-idUS207229497220120725

This guy was uninjured, but his friend was (allegedly) killed. He's suing the theater, the killer's doctors, and Warner Brothers.
I didn't click on the link, but my initial reaction is....scumbag.

[Keef]

Facebook told me the first lawsuit has been filed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/25/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-injured-idUS207229497220120725

This guy was uninjured, but his friend was (allegedly) killed. He's suing the theater, the killer's doctors, and Warner Brothers.

Dude should sue Christian Bale for not saving him imo

[RazorGuns]

It's USA. Funny, the first lawsuit is from someone not even injured lol!

and right on cue - WB gets sued for making a violent movie.

[ADoubleDot]

I didn't click on the link, but my initial reaction is....scumbag.
:iatp: