[ShopVac]

Wait...what? I swear I'm not on drugs here. My confusion level is at an all time high. I don't know where to start...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mg...jsV?li=BBnb7Kz

Any rational judge - 10 second decision on this, right? Gotta love sue happy 'Murica.

[420Coupe]

Now that's what i call creative thinking for getting in front of the class action.

[JohnnyCanuck]

I'm actually going to defend MGM here. They are using the suit to seek a declaration that they are not liable for the actions of the shooter. Given the many lawsuits that have been filed against them, they are severing the issue of their liability from any other other collateral defendants (eg. gun makers, bump stock manufacturer, etc) and issues. It also allows the argument to be determined once instead of having to argue it dozens of times with potentially variable results leading to endless appeals.

It's a sound legal strategy and is not anti-victim. It is, however, tremendously poor optics and they should have had a much better PR strategy.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck

I'm actually going to defend MGM here. They are using the suit to seek a declaration that they are not liable for the actions of the shooter. Given the many lawsuits that have been filed against them, they are severing the issue of their liability from any other other collateral defendants (eg. gun makers, bump stock manufacturer, etc) and issues. It also allows the argument to be determined once instead of having to argue it dozens of times with potentially variable results leading to endless appeals.

It's a sound legal strategy and is not anti-victim. It is, however, tremendously poor optics and they should have had a much better PR strategy.

Bingo. Exactly what they are doing. Their next step should be firing their current PR strategist.

[xander_g]

MGM is trying to shed any liability which makes sense.

Admittedly, I don't know a lot of the details but from what I read, the shooter was a known client who frequented the casino and spent considerable amounts of money which would make him "credible" in the eyes of MGM management/security.

I know the law is different south of the border but the general principles remain the same, and there are questions that need to be answered:

Has MGM taken reasonable steps to ensure that their guests/patrons are safe from harm? Also, since MGM did not commit a crime, the standard of proof should be on the balance of probabilities.

Despite being a known/credible client, should MGM's management/security have taken additional steps/precautions to investigate the unusual amount of luggage the client has taken to his room? (is having that many firearms in a hotel room legal in the first place?)

This could be a simple as a legal test such as: i) did the property owner have a system/procedures in place to ensure that no harm comes to their patrons ii) was the system/procedures operating as designed at the time of the shooting

Or it could be a lot more complicated.

In the end, it is a terrible tragedy but all emotions and goodwill aside, is it reasonable to hold MGM responsible for something that could not have been anticipated by a reasonable person?

[420Coupe]

The law gives immunity to companies that use "anti-terrorism" technology or services that can "help prevent and respond to mass violence," the Review-Journal reports.

As a result, claims against the MGM parties "must be dismissed," it said.

The company argues that the federal law protecting it from being liable should apply in this case because the vendor MGM hired for Route 91, Contemporary Services Corp., had been certified by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for "protecting against and responding to acts of mass injury and destruction."

It also argues that this extends to MGM, since MGM is the one that hired the security company.

This is taken from this article below; which in my opinion shows that MGM outsourced the security aspect in order to place liability on someone else for the event. Seems like they took the precautions in my book.


http://thehill.com/homenews/397379-c...egal-liability

[xander_g]

Originally Posted by 420Coupe

This is taken from this article below; which in my opinion shows that MGM outsourced the security aspect in order to place liability on someone else for the event. Seems like they took the precautions in my book.


http://thehill.com/homenews/397379-c...egal-liability

Just like property owners hire property management companies to clear ice/snow in the winter thus shifting liability for anyone wanting to claim as a result of sustaining an injury due to ice/snow.

[420Coupe]

Originally Posted by xander_g

Just like property owners hire property management companies to clear ice/snow in the winter thus shifting liability for anyone wanting to claim as a result of sustaining an injury due to ice/snow.

Correct! IMHO they did their due diligence and hired a company that had been cleared by Homeland Security. Sounds like either Homeland security needs to do better qualifying/testing or that company let something fall through the cracks and is liable for damages.

[bd307]

Media at its best again. MGM is actually not filing a suit but rather a complaint to shed themselves from the liabilities.

I feel sorry for all the victims, but their families are just being greedy and lawyers are using them to sue anyone from this tragic event.

[JohnnyCanuck]

Originally Posted by bd307

Media at its best again. MGM is actually not filing a suit but rather a complaint to shed themselves from the liabilities.

I feel sorry for all the victims, but their families are just being greedy and lawyers are using them to sue anyone from this tragic event.

I'm going to take issue with that. There were 851 injuries, about half gunshot wounds, and some pretty serious. Some of those people have medical bills, lost wages, potentially permanent health issues that make them less marketable in the employment market, require treatment and care. Trying to be compensated for that is not greedy and lawyers are not using them.

Setting aside who might be liable, the victims have incurred real losses and real costs and should not be criticized for trying to seek compensation for those. Same is true for the families of those who were killed ... in many cases the financial loss of losing an income earner, a caregiver, and/or a parent is real and significant.

[obert]

I am on MGM side. It’s horrible what happened to all those people but it’s not the hotels fault some crazy ass hat did what he did.

[blockdoc]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck

I'm going to take issue with that. There were 851 injuries, about half gunshot wounds, and some pretty serious. Some of those people have medical bills, lost wages, potentially permanent health issues that make them less marketable in the employment market, require treatment and care. Trying to be compensated for that is not greedy and lawyers are not using them.

Setting aside who might be liable, the victims have incurred real losses and real costs and should not be criticized for trying to seek compensation for those. Same is true for the families of those who were killed ... in many cases the financial loss of losing an income earner, a caregiver, and/or a parent is real and significant.

Alas,
I am one of those victims. Spent over two months in the hospital and 6 months off of work.

Liability is a nebulous thing. We would be stupid not to become involved since it is happening anyways.

Cheers

[JohnnyCanuck]

Originally Posted by blockdoc

Alas,
I am one of those victims. Spent over two months in the hospital and 6 months off of work.

Liability is a nebulous thing. We would be stupid not to become involved since it is happening anyways.

Cheers

My sympathies for what you went through and likely are going through still. I hope you're doing OK!

I don't know whether anyone will be found liable, but you should pursue whatever compensation you might be eligible for ... if there are liable parties, they should be held accountable.

[UncleWede]

This seems to hinge on relating the actions of the shooter to an Act of Terror. No legal agency has made that distinction.