By voluntarily disarming (if necessary) and entering the theater, you waived any right you have to sue for being unable to defend yourself. They set the rules and you accepted them.
Believe me, I'd like it if people could sue, but they can't, period.
O2
Howdy Pard!
I will disagree with your analysis here. There is under law the concept of "Implied Warrantability" or "Warranty of Merchantability".
To give an example, we all assume that the theater (as in this case) has fire abatement systems in place to keep movie goers safe in case of fire.
It falls under "reasonable care" and is part of a concept referred to as reasonable expectation of a customer that a product or service will perform as expected.
Now if that fire abatement system does not exist, and a fire ends up killing people, suits are indeed likely, even probable, and winnable.
Reasonable care was not upheld, and the customer's reasonable expectation of performance by the theater failed to prove true.
In this instance, I think a good attorney worth his bar card could make a solid case that reasonable care was not taken to ensure safety and security of movie patrons who reasonably expected a safe environment. That would be covered under implied warrantability.
The case can be made that the exit used by the shooter should have been set with an alarm to notify if someone opened that door.
An alarm going off at such an exit, especially during the movie, would be reasonable grounds to suspect something amiss.
When management detected an alarm because of an unexpected exit door opening, they could at least investigate.
Perhaps a patron was about to suffer a seizure and ducked out the nearest exit. He could be out there suffering a grand mal seizure.
Nobody checks because nobody is the wiser. The guy could die out there unattended and untreated.
Or the alarm going off at those exit doors, especially during a movie, could indicate a fire had broken out and people were fleeing.
How do you know if the darn door ain't set with an alarm?
If no other compelling reason can be given to have alarms on that door, how about the interest of the business itself?
How do they prevent somebody from paying for his own admission, then opening the exit door to let in a bunch of his buddies?
In addition to an alarm capable of notifying management of an opened exit door, why did they not have security cameras to see what's going on at those exit doors?
They aren't that expensive any longer, and represent a very cheap alternative to what happened in Aurora.
Somebody goes out the exit door during a movie. Grounds for suspicion something's up.
Check the security camera, see the guy arming up out back. Call the cops.
In this scenario, he might have been taken down by the cops before having a chance to shoot anybody inside.
Reasonable care. Due diligence. Not in this case. Not by a long shot.
The point being, reasonable care (due diligence) would suggest that the expectation of patrons entering the premisis was they'd be safe inside.
They weren't.
They felt the theater had sufficient security to ensure their safety so they could leave their sidearm in the car or at home.
It didn't.
Now I wonder if they actually do have a fire supression system!
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
