Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Aurora theater attorneys want victims to pay $700 thousand

  1. #11
    orange-be-gone MLA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    In the land of barbecue
    Rep Power
    Quote Originally Posted by villanelle View Post
    Sometimes I think civil verdicts should be three major categories instead of two. Liable, not liable but reasonable question, and not liable and frivolous question. Let the jury not only decide if there is liability, but whether it was at least a reasonable question on the part of the plaintiffs. If it was reasonable, no attorney fees are due, and if it wasn't, then automatically the plaintiff has to pay for the defendants' costs.

    And perhaps lawyers and the bar could have a point system. Accrue too many "frivolous" points in a specified time period, and your license is suspended for a while.
    But that still hardly seems fair. That's like saying the theater is a bit guilty. If the theater was found not liable, then it's not liable and shouldn't be forced to pay legal fees. Suing someone is a gamble. You have to be willing to part with your legal costs if you bring a law suit. I understand people feeling sad for these families, but the theater wasn't at fault and shouldn't have to pay legal fees on top of the losses it probably already accrued due to this horrific incident.

  2. #12
    HI! Wise Old Goat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    within a mile of home
    Rep Power
    Quote Originally Posted by Truffles View Post
    That's how it's normally done here. If you sue and lose, you pay the court costs of who you tried to sue.
    Came to say this. In Canada - the loser pays the court fees which is why Canada has less of those "nuisance suits" you hear so much about. Not saying this particular case was a nuisance suit - but I think you know the type I mean.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts