Did the door open from the outside, or did this guy blast his way in?  I thought it was the latter. 

I have a friend who practices in this area of the law (premises liability cases brought by crime victims).  I may be wrong, but I think the plaintiff's case requires a showing of foreseeability before liability can be imposed.  For example, you own a supermarket and several people get robbed on your parking lot, you may have a duty to provide a guard for the parking lot.  In that case, the first robbery victim probably wouldn't have a case, but the 7th person probably would.

I would think it would be difficult to make a case of foreseeability in this case.  But there may be other theories (inadequate emergency exit access) that someone could use.

One story I saw today could present an interesting angle.  Supposedly the killer sent a notebook detailing his intent to kill people to a University of Colorado psychiatrist sometime last week, but the notebook sat in the University mailroom for a week.  Assuming those facts are accurate (I'm somewhat skeptical), might there be a cause of action against the University that its negligence in failing to deliver the notebook in a timely manner prevented an opportunity for the killer to have been identified and stopped before the shooting?  FWIW, lawsuits against the State have a higher standard of liability than do lawsuits against private parties, so simple negligence might not be enough.


Here's a story from the Denver Post addressing the issue.  Maybe I'm not as dumb as I sometimes feel

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21150830/legal-experts-say-liability-lawsuits-stand-little-chance?source=rss

Last edited by forsberg_us (7/25/2012 4:17 pm)

APIAD wrote:

When something this bad happens it is pretty easy to blame someone for something or just simply play the what if game.  There is no way of knowing what, if anything would have stopped this event.

I'd love to see some of the victims sue the NRA, the gun manufacturers, the two stores that sold guns to this lunatic and the chickenshit legislators who let the ban on assault weapons expire eight years ago, but that's got about as much chance of succeeding as I do of winning a lawsuit against Billy Joel for damaging my ear drums with his shitty music in the '80s.
How many of these massacres have to happen before we stop buying the NRA's nonsense about irresponsible gun owners being the only variable? The NRA has this country's balls in a death grip. Almost literally.

APIAD wrote:

I dont think you and I are going to agree on that topic Artie.

LOL. I don't think there's anyone here who will agree with me.

I'm pretty anti-gun control myself. I understand the frustration for people in favor of gun-control however. Specifically trying to justify why citizens should be allowed to arm with assault weapons.

With the original intent in mind of keeping the citizens armed so the government could not morph into something that would forcibly oppress the people... With that guideline it's hard to justify the governmental censorship of any weapon....

My personal feeling is that while I may never carry an gun around, I don't want the guy lurking around the corner thinking about robbing me to know that I can't legally have something on me.

forsberg_us wrote:

Did the door open from the outside, or did this guy blast his way in?  I thought it was the latter.

Wikipedia states that he bought a ticket, sat in theater and left through an emergency exit door.  When he did he wedged the door open and re-enter thought it with his aresenal.  How many emergency exit doors have gaurds standing at them?

APIAD wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Did the door open from the outside, or did this guy blast his way in?  I thought it was the latter.

Wikipedia states that he bought a ticket, sat in theater and left through an emergency exit door.  When he did he wedged the door open and re-enter thought it with his aresenal.  How many emergency exit doors have gaurds standing at them?

Is it one of those doors with the sign that says "Alarm Will Sound"? Might a lawyer argue that it should have been?