No. Knowing what you're talking about before making blanket condemnations is the issue. One you've failed to grasp.

my life would be ever so much easier if that were true.

Cinemark has a liability carrier that is calling the shots. There is no way they would walk into this PR beartrap of their own volition. And as an attorney, I can promise you that I have plenty of corporate clients that ignore my advice and send me off to do their stupid bidding all the time. I guess the fact that…

I'm familiar with the distinction. I don't think Hoat was referring to taxable costs, and Dog's pedantic distinction has only confused the issue.

Overg gets it. Marceline does not.

Their lobbyists have made sure they aren't liable under strict liability or products liability. You think those murdered people's families wanted to sue a theater instead of the gun makers? You are pretty dense.

that's not what 'punitive damages' means.

If it was 'spurious' it wouldn't have survived summary judgement.

Shhhhhhh. we're circle jerking about evil lawyers. quit fucking it up.

… and that decision was probably based on the bet that the theater wouldn't risk the bad press. Little did they know, the theaters insurer don't give a fuck.

there's a great Amy Schumer sketch that didn't go to air on this. I think AVClub may actually have linked it earlier this week. It's got real life Archer, and is great.

ding ding ding! Cinemark didn't have anything to do with this, I'd wager. And I'd also wager they are already shopping new liability carriers as we speak.

but it's so much easier to just blame the lawyers!

You're probably right, guy who admits he doesn't know what he's talking about. Or not. One of the two.

'costs of litigating' are 'legal fees.' those are the same thing.

… the PR damage has already been done … by the AVClub and every other outlet that jumps on the salacious without regard to nuance or merit. Way to go.

other than the officiating for game 6 and the Dramon suspension, yeah.

There are lots of actual measurables here, and the data is available. I don't think most states' laws allow for long enough sentences for rape. I think that is an argument that can be made, and won, without throwing in a bunch of political buzzwords and making enemies out of potential allies by making it all about…

Have you got a source for that?

Emotion cuts both ways, though. If you're okay with the judge relying on emotion, you have to accept that his emotion may direct his sympathies toward the accused instead of the victim, as it did here.