While mass murderer James Holmes carries out year one of his 12 life plus 3,318 years sentence, the first of two civil cases is underway in the Arapahoe County District Court in Colorado. 28 of the survivors or relatives of victims from the July 2012 Aurora, Colorado movie theater massacre are pursuing this civil case at the state level, whereas another group of victims have an initial court date set for July in federal court. Both civil cases are shining the spotlight on the nation’s third largest movie theater chain, Cinemark, and hoping to hold the corporation liable, at least in part, for their losses. But what could a movie theater have done to prevent one of the most horrific acts during a midnight screening of a Batman movie sequel? That is just one of the questions for the courts.
On the surface, there are two obvious questions at stake: If Cinemark knew the Batman movie screening was going to be very popular and crowded, should Cinemark have beefed up their security measures? I say this is an obvious question because it is somewhat of a basic argument…and a long shot. Why would anyone have expected increased security at a popular screening of a movie? Do all popular events now need enhanced security just because of the influx of attendees? Where is the rhyme and reason in that?
The second obvious question, which is where we will begin to see some interesting discussion, will analyze Holmes’ entrance into the building through the theater’s emergency exit. Is the purpose of an emergency exit not to sound an alarm, flash lights, and otherwise trigger some action when the door is opened? Why did the alarm not sound when Holmes opened the emergency exit?
We are going to hear expert witness testimony from a number of people to help answer the question: Did Cinemark have a duty to prevent or protect patrons against a foreseeable danger?
As I thought about these questions, I couldn’t help but think of a few more and how the outcome could potentially infer liability in future cases:
On July 12, 2012 did the Cinemark Century Aurora 16 theater have extra security on hand to account for the influx in movie-goers? Did other Cinemark or other chain movie theaters have security measures in place for the midnight Batman movie screening, and if so, what were they?
If there was no surveillance camera coverage behind the theater where Holmes prepared, should there have been? If Holmes was “both highly motivated and heavily armed” like Cinemark describes in their filings, could security have stopped him?
Could anyone have foreseen the massacre?There were no mass shootings at a movie theater prior to July 12, 2012. At a California McDonald’s restaurant in 1984, the courts ruled that victims of a tragic shootout couldn’t sue the restaurant chain over a “once in a lifetime” massacre.
What steps, if any, could have prevented this tragedy?
In May 2012 (two months before the attack), Cinemark received a memo from the US Department of Homeland Security that movie theaters might be a target for terrorist attacks. However, Cinemark did not distribute the memo to theater managers. Early in this case (May 9, 2016) the plaintiffs submitted the memo as evidence, but Arapahoe County District Court Judge Phillip Douglass did not admit it based on relevance. Douglass agreed with Cinemark, who argued that that the memo didn’t apply to the Aurora attack because Holmes wasn’t a terrorist or motivated by extremism. In addition, Judge Douglass said the memo was too vague and didn’t specify any action for movie theaters to take against potential security concerns, or call out any action that other theaters took because of the memo; therefore, the Aurora theater was not breaking any “industry norms.”
But when it comes to “industry norms,” there are ongoing security measures that may be put into place as a result of these tragic events. In October 2015, Cinemark posted a sign before a screening of the new Star Wars movie that stated: Star Wars costumes are welcome. However, no face coverings, face paint, or simulated weapons (including lightsabers/blasters) will be allowed in the building.
Cinemark seems prejudice against Darth Vader and Maul costumes! pic.twitter.com/z3rtKM2JLJ
— Scott Chitwood (@Red5Aggie) October 23, 2015
And just nine months ago, Regal Cinemas released the nation’s first mandatory bag check initiative by a movie theater chain:
Security issues have become a daily part of our lives in America. Regal Entertainment Group wants our customers and staff to feel comfortable and safe when visiting or working in our theatres. To ensure the safety of our guests and employees, backpacks and bags of any kind are subject to inspection prior to admission. We acknowledge that this procedure can cause some inconvenience and that it is not without flaws, but hope these are minor in comparison to increased safety.
Would movie goers stay home and catch the latest theatrical releases from the comfort of their own home if their other option is to undergo security screening equivalent to entering the airport just to see a movie? How would the increase in security affect ticket and concession prices? These are ancillary inquiries to the main questions of law, which we will be following in the coming months in these civil cases.
Comment (1)
Comments are closed.