1. The first element of negligence in the Cinemark case is the duty they had to their customers. Cinemark has a duty to provide a safe environment to their customers. The second element of negligence, conduct in breach of that duty, was due to the lack of security provided by the theater. The lack of security is what led to the third element of negligence, causation. The plaintiffs, in this case, that attended the late night showing of The Dark Knight, were injured because of the lack of security provided by Cinemark: there was no security personnel on duty, there were no alarms on the doors to the theater, and during the event there were no staff members present to aid the injured and evacuating crowed. James Homes, the shooter, was able …show more content…
The first defense to negligence, contributory, would not apply in this case. There was really no way of the people being able to for see the events that accrued. Shootings are not usually foreseeable; otherwise more of them would be stopped. The plaintiffs would not have been able to avoid their injuries because they couldn’t have known that such a tragic event was going to happen. I really can’t see how comparative negligence, which is when a certain percent of fault lies with the plaintiff, can be possible in this case because the people had already made arrangements to see the movie, and it’s unreasonable to argue that once they noticed there was no security present, that they had the option to leave. Of course the option was there, but they had already waited, and arrived to the late night showing. In this case assumption of risk doesn’t apply; a movie is not normally dangerous. Assumption of risk is when people, knowingly, participate in something that is usually dangerous; for example bungee jumping. Often time’s companies that can assume risk make their customers sign a document. When people attend movies, there are generally no assumed risks, and signing a document is unnecessary. Cinemark’s defense against the negligence claims (or immunity) is that they believe the event was a random act, and there for they cannot be held responsible. The fault is entirely the shooters, according to …show more content…
If I was the Judge in this case, I would not find Cinemark guilty of negligence. The event was a random act. Cinemark could have more security, but even if they did what would the security have done? The guy had a gun and usually security doesn’t carry guns. Also, the shooter came through the door in the theater; he didn’t walk through the front door. The staff didn’t go in to help people because they were just average people, who were probably trying to get the heck out of there. These types of events happen anywhere, and there for I believe Cinemark couldn’t have prevented it, and should not be held responsible (their deep pockets doesn’t mean that the shooting was their fault). None of the defenses really fit in this situation, with the exception of immunity. The plaintiff really can’t be held responsible because there is no way they could have seen it coming, and there is no assumption of risk when you enter a movie theater. There are no documents that are signed because seeing a movie is commonly dangerous. Lastly, immunity fits a little because that is Cinemark’s defense. They believe this was a random act, and they can’t legally be held responsible. That being said, immunity is rarely used now a day, and it’s is usually used by the
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
Without clarifying the instruction, it was suggested that if the behavior is not what a reasonable person would consider to be a “normal consequence” of the situation created by defendant's conduct, then said intervening act is a superseding cause. Consequently, it does not convey the relevant standard—whether the probability of harm is “sufficiently serious that a reasonable and prudent person would take precautions to avoid it.” (Iturralde, 2013)
Billy Wilder’s film Double Indemnity uses a considerable amount of German Expressionism techniques. A crystal clear example of this is at the end of the film when Walter goes to meet Phyllis at her house, when he opens the door a long and sharp shadow appears across the wall. This is a technique used in one of the most famous german expressionism films Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. In order to get this effect, Wilder is using low-key lighting so the shadow is obvious to the audience. In this film, long and sharp shadows as well as inky blackness often appear on the screen, this is a major characteristic of german expressionist films. The mise en scene reinforces the darkness in the style and tone. These films emphasize
A dentist fits several children with braces. The children are regular patients of the dentist. The results for some of the patients turn out to be unacceptable and damaging. There are children who have developed gum infections due to improperly tightened braces. Some mistakenly had their permanent teeth removed, while others have misaligned bites. A local attorney becomes aware of these incidences, looks further into it, and realizes the dentist has not been properly trained and holds no legal license to practice dentistry or orthodontics. The attorney decides to act on behalf of the displeased patients and files a class action lawsuit. The attorney plans to prove the dentist negligent and guilty of dental malpractice by providing proof using the four D’s of negligence. The four D’s of negligence are duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages.
A series of events unfolded when George, running late for class, parked his car on a steep section on Arbutus drive and failed to remember to set the parking brake. The outcome of not remembering to set the parking brake caused many issues resulting in scrapping a Prius, breaking through fencing, people on the train sustaining injuries, and finally a truck that jack-knifed and caused a 42-car pileup. Could the parties that were injured, from George’s actions, be recovered from under the negligence theory? To understand if George is negligent, it is best to look at the legal issue, the required elements of negligence, the definition and explanation of each element of the case, and finally to draw a conclusion to determine if George is negligent.
After a regular customer mixed up the cellar door to be the gentlemen’s toilets and after opening it fell down the concrete steps to his death.The man stayed undiscovered to anyone as the owner was away to attend a programme on wellbeing and security. The prosecution contended that the owner of the pub was culpable, notwithstanding him not being available at the time of the occurrence, as he had not put enough cautioning signs nor he did lock the cellar door. The court held that the defendant could have made obliged measures to diminish the crossing of customers through the basement door, which was just a step from the ladies’ restrooms. This was a fair instance of gross negligence manslaughter as there had been few incidents of clients being confused between the cellar door and the toilet door. Moreover, when the defendant had begun the business in 2009, he was mindful that the cellar door could be risky for customers coming to the
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
At the Century Aurora 16 complex in Aurora, Colorado, witnesses said that within minutes of a midnight premiere screening of the film “The Dark Knight Rises”, James Holmes slipped through an emergency exit door of the sold-out movie theater, propped it open, and returned armed with three guns and wearing a ballistic helmet, body shields, and a gas mask obscuring his face. He tossed two hissing gas or smoke canisters and calmly walked up the aisles open firing at moviegoers. (Crummy,
The movie “A Civil Action” released on January 8, 1999 provides viewers with an extraordinary story of the nightmare that occurred in Woburn Massachusetts in the late 1970’s. The people of this small town at the time had no idea what was going on until there were various cases of Leukemia in small children that ultimately resulted in the early passing of them. The people eventually had gone to find out that the drinking water in this small town was contaminated and there were many women that stepped in to get answers. This movie is a tremendously jaw dropping, eye opening account of a heartbreaking true story incident. There are various elements of negligence in this movie including, duty, legal cause, proximate cause and damages.
This horrible incident took place in a theater where the audience was cast of 2000 women and children. School had been out for Christmas and that gave incentive to many of them to show up to the Wednesday matinee performance of Mr. Blue beard. Later during half way of the show, a spark from a spotlight fell down onto the curtains which caused the fire to start, having the curtain fall down onto those on the stage. The crowd bolted out in chaos, even though there were 27 exits, only a few were open for the audience and actors to storm out of there. This is because that the doors were locked, and the idea of having exits specifically for this type of situation had only originated after the terrible incident. The flame on the curtain grew due to the excessive amount of fuel it had (the stage). Nearly 600 (above 25%) had died inside the theater because of this faulty emergency escape structuring. Many then later died to severe burn injuries in the hospitals. Apparently, there were no fire detection nor suppression systems installed in the theater; the curtains didn’t close properly, the heat vents weren’t working well, the doors were either locked or didn’t open in the proper direction, and nor did they have any type of indication for those who were further away from the theater to easily look for the door. All these violations have placed the manager’s under indictment. But none of them were ever punished. And because of the mass amount in causalities, doors were then rigged so that they can open from the inside no matter what the situation was, and signs were placed on top of them indicating that doors were this direction ( as law would mandate it).
In order for Cineworld to expand their brand and greater health in the industry by indulging in different markets I believe certain recommendation should be implemented. Cineworld can expand their market share against indirect competition from the likes of Netflix by introducing an online movie streaming service. Not only would this recommendation help Cineworld reach a wider, more global audience but it will also help tackle issues they face in terms of managing demand and capacity. Cineworld could provide a site where customers can pay for the 24 hour rental of a film that has just been released in cinemas and allow consumers to watch them in the comfort of their own homes. This would reduce the risk of overcrowding during movie release days
However, the defense had countered the claim of negligence by stating that there is no way the conductor could have known the danger of his action.
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
He raised red flags based off his recent purchases of large quantities of ammunition and the ingredients to make an IED. Though this was the fault of law enforcement lacking the communication to identify these flags and share the information with fusion centers across the nation. For a movie theater today, it is important to raise questions about security of your own venue. Identifying what you are trying to do and how are you trying to protect it. Identify what are you willing to lose and how much are you willing to spend securing it. The purposes to be able to critical think to identify desired outcomes and assessing failures of similar shootings. These problems mentioned are but a few that needs to be anticipated and factored into a proper plan of prevention, response and recovery.
did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to...