The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

I could not believe my eyes when I read on July 24th, "The first lawsuit from the Colorado shooting has been filed by an uninjured man." I struggle to see how anyone could sue over this tragic event, let alone an uninjured man. Folks, please know that the vast majority of attorneys who represent plaintiffs are professionals who would never file such a claim. Please also know that our legal system usually works. I am confident that a judge will dismiss the case.

Torrence Brown is the man suing the movie theater and other defendants. He says he was at the "Dark Knight" premier in Colorado when the lunatic with the orange, Oompa Loompa hairdo (credit my friend, Jay Squires for that line) opened fire inside the movie theater. Mr. Brown was not injured! His best friend was shot in the chest and died. If there is a legitimate cause of action, let the best friend's family bring it.

Instead, Mr. Brown is suing the movie theater, the doctors of the lunatic, and the film studio that produced the "Dark Knight." Here are Mr. Brown's theories. First, the theater was negligent for having an emergency door that was not equipped with an alarm. This allowed the murderer to exit the theater after purchasing a ticket and reenter with his cache of weapons. No rational person can believe that a door alarm would have stopped this killer. He could have reenterd through the front door. Who was going to stop him, the pimply faced kid behnd the popcorn counter? Moreover, movie theater owners don't have a duty to foresee that crazy third parties are going to burst into their establishment with assault weapons. Brown's second theory is that the murderer's doctors were negligent for not carefully monitoring the medicine he was on. How can Mr. Brown's attorney even know at this early stage what, if any, medications the murderer was prescribed? It's obviously rank speculation. Moreover, doctors prescribe medication. They cannot force a patient to be compliant. Finally, Mr. Brown claims that Warner Bros. is negligent because the blueprint for this heinous shooting episode may have been a scene from the last Batman movie where the Joker bursts into a high-society event and terrorizes the patrons. This is rank speculation. Even if it's true, Warner Bros. cannot be held to be responsible for how a mad man reacts to a movie scene.

This case is far more egregious than the lawsuit filed against the New York dry cleaner over the missing pants. In the wake of a national tragedy, this lawsuit is downright disrespectful. I'm pissed that some lawyer is willing to harm the reputation of the profession by filing this case. I welcome your comments, but please don't expect me to justify this lawsuit because I cannot.

4 Comments

  1. Gravatar for Ken Gage

    I knew it was a matter of time before some pathetic loser would file suit. He's sueing Warner for making a violent movie?? Really?? This suit is like a slap in the face to all the real victims involved.

  2. Gravatar for Sean

    I agree. I just saw this lawsuit on CNN. It's so ridiculous. It makes me angry that this person would turn a terrible tragedy into his own personal gain.

  3. I would expect that the judicial system will take care of the parts of the claim that are unsupported. While I don't jump to conclusions on any event that happens, I could see that the real investigation could lead to a number of different questions being answered. I doubt that the tragedy will provide personal gains for anyone.

  4. Gravatar for Mike Phelan

    Thanks for the commments. Mike Bryant, don't you think the lawsuit should not have been filed until a real investigation was conducted?

Comments are closed.

Of Interest