The first issue is whether the movie theater owners are negligent in tolerating a condition where half of the emergency exits can be blocked by falling parapets and marquees in an area of known seismic risk. So long as there is a sufficiently foreseeable earthquake risk, it appears that the conditions described would justify further analysis by a jury on the basis of the appropriate evidence, for example, standards and customs in the trade and expert testimony.

The defendant's compliance with the local fire codes is not evidence of non-negligence. The code is not designed to address the hazards giving rise to the injuries described. The design, location, and number of emergency exits are intended to lessen the hazards associated with a fire and a panicked group of people, but not necessarily those associated with the blockage of the passages by an earthquake.

Assuming that the failure to mitigate the possibility of the parapets, windows, and marquees blocking emergency exits constitutes negligence on the part of the theater owners, the final critical concern is whether such negligence caused the actual injuries. Arguably, actions of the panicked fellow theatergoers caused the injury or the victim's own panicked behavior absolves the theater owners from liability.

The second issue is that of the theatergoers' possible negligence. Under California law, the standard of care that a reasonable person must take in an emergency situation is significantly less stringent than that imposed in nonemergency situations. If, even under this less stringent standard, a particular individual is found to have been negligent during the emergency, that person may still recover for injuries to himself or herself in those jurisdictions where the absolute defense of contributory negligence has been abrogated. However, in such jurisdictions, the size of the damages to be awarded will be lowered by the comparative negligence rule.

If the panicked behavior of a theatergoer injures someone other than himself or herself, and the conduct would not have occurred but for the original negligence of the theater owner, the negligence of the theater owner still can be said to have caused (in the legal sense) the injuries complained of and the owner would be liable. Even in the instance where the actions of the panicked theatergoers are found to be negligent, that only imposes joint liability for the injuries on the fellow theatergoers and the theater owner. It does not absolve the theater owner of liability altogether. In cases of joint liability, one of the negligent parties may be required to pay damages but is then legally permitted to seek partial compensation from the other negligent parties.