IMHO, suing MGM makes no sense. They were made victims as well.
With that said, I sure would like to see an avenue for those killed & wounded to receive some compensation.
A $25 tax (or whatever) on every gun sale devoted to a federal firearm victim fund to do so could sure help. And the responsible people (sellers & manufacturers) would fund it.
It's time for them to pay the piper.
6
Wow, gutsy move.
If I was going to pull a questionable defense, I might sue the NRA for writing America’s pathetic gun laws.
4
The Las Vegas shootings were not acts of terrorism, however you define that term. They were acts of insanity. Paddock had no known political or religious motive.
Anyway, I think 'terrorism' should be dropped as a legal concept. No one has ever come up with a satisfactory definition of it. Let's just call acts such as the Las Vegas shooting 'murder', and prosecute them as such.
MGM's legal maneuver here is shocking, but on the other hand, it's wrong for the shooting victims to hold MGM responsible for Paddock's act. It was not reasonably foreseeable. If the courts do hold MGM responsible, then we must all accept that lodging establishments, including private airbnb-type rentals, will have to search our luggage when we check in.
1
The article, like the others I've read, doesn't make clear what MGM has done. Reading between the lines, it appears MGM filed more than 1,000 separate suits in federal district courts, suing individuals identified as plaintiffs, or potential plaintiffs, with claims against MGM for damages due to MGM not taking reasonable steps to prevent Paddock from carrying out the mass murder. It appears the suits would require that any such claims be filed in federal court, which, unlike state courts, have jurisdiction under the Safety Act. This would allow MGM to assert the Safety Act defense. Am I right?
The article, like the others I've read, doesn't make clear what MGM has done. Reading between the lines, it appears MGM filed more than 1,000 separate suits in federal district courts, suing individuals identified as plaintiffs, or potential plaintiffs, with claims against MGM for damages due to MGM not taking reasonable steps to prevent Paddock from carrying out the mass murder. It appears the suits would require that any such claims be filed in federal court, which, unlike state courts, have jurisdiction under the Safety Act. This would allow MGM to assert the Safety Act defense. Am I right?
2
They're not really suing "victims" -- they're suing people who have filed suit against them.
3
Why didn't the alleged-victims wear body armor to this mass gathering - always a terror target around the world offering tight grouping of targets!
___________________________________________________
In fact one has to wonder if these alleged victims came knowingly to this mass gathering out of doors in an unprotected venue seeking both fame and money -- and willing to risk life and limb as do so many daredevils.
___________________________________________________
I notice so far only three of the dead victims estates have filed lawsuits...the rest are all alive, ready, willing and able to spend the hotels money. Give'em all a coupon for a free weekend visit.
2
Will the NYT report on (or at least look into) the fact that three women were found in Paddock's room?
http://baltimorepostexaminer.com/stephen-paddocks-hotel-records-show-thr...
Or the fact that the FBI is blocking lawyers' access to documents related to Paddock's estate?
https://www.casino.org/news/lawyers-claim-stephen-paddock-asset-distribu...
http://www.azfamily.com/story/38428750/fbi-banks-stall-paddock-assets-se...
"MGM Resorts Sues 1,000 Victims of Las Vegas Shooting, Seeking to Avoid Liability"
https://media.giphy.com/media/65os7odbIW6pa/giphy.gif
Oh — YES! Let’s have The Department of Homeland Security declare this act of violence by a white American male citizen with guns that current lax, NRA-written laws allows declared a Domestic Terrorist. Doing so would hit closer to the truth than any of this administrations laws around “domestic terrorists.”
5
Welcome to America , a corporation now run and owned by the 1% and all that they own. MGM would never have attempted using this Strategy without knowing the Supreme Court will soon be completely under the control of Trump and friends.
We now live in a Dictatorship, people stop pretending you have any Civil Rights in the USA.
Only a Dictator gets away with what he has done and will do once he owns the Supreme Court.
Time to leave if you can.......
3
As with so much else happening on the watch of this maladministration, we are witnessing a performance,
another distraction. The DHS is the Department of Homeland Security Theater. Move along, there's nothing to see here.
Everyone involved should sue the NRA and the manufacturers of the assault weapons used, and the state legislators and Congressmen who have voted against laws meant to reduce gun violence. Hit them in their wallets where it may hurt.. They are the true perpetrators of this mass killing.
9
If you hire a security firm certified by the Department of Homeland Security, your liability should stop there. Simple as that. I don't think any of us want to go to the degree where entering a hotel is the same scrutiny as going through airport security. That hotels should be permitted warrant-less searches of our belongings.
Liability here rests with one person, the shooter. The rest is simply money grabs by lawyers unless the security company was grossly negligent and did not follow their certified process for some reason.
2
@Marvin if they believe they hired 'adequate' security then how in the name of the NRA did this guy actually get ALL THOSE FIREARMS into his room. We're not talking about a golf bag heading into that room... I can't go to a concert with a camera or a vial of alcohol much less a pistol. This guy brought in enough munitions to serve a small battalion. Sorry, this claim of 'adequate' security doesn't seem to cover their bases in this instance. If that doesn't work, the soiled name of MGM fighting victims should do it to them anyway.
3
Maybe this makes sense to lawyers but it's laughable to anyone else. There's no jury in America that would award a nickel to MGM.
2
There is a silver lining here - per the article excerpt below, mass shootings - including the one typically committed by white males - while have to be called terrorism if this case sets the SAFE Act precedent.
"MGM’s legal maneuver is likely to have consequences for other lawsuits over mass-casualty attacks. It is based on a federal law passed after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, which is known as the Support Antiterrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies, or Safety, Act."
2
They, MGM, deserves every bit of bad press that they get.
Their major fault is that they allowed this man to lug dozens of cases to his suite and never once going into the room.
I don't usually allow housekeeping into my hotel rooms if I am only there a day or two, but a week without clean sheets? NO. The hotel policy of allowing that for that long is a problem for them in court.
5
And BTW, this headline is why claims of "fake news" get traction and the public distrust of the media grows each day. When you say "suing the victims" that conjures up a whole different meaning that what is really happening. The victims names being there is more a technicality than anything else.
A better, less misleading headline would be on the order of "MGM sues under federal statute to limit liability in mass shooting lawsuits" or similar.
This is a good example of how you can label a headline as "fake news" even with it being factually correct. Factually correct and totally misleading headlines and stories are a disservice to true journalism.
6
@Marvin It would be "fake news" to say that MGM is suing, without saying who they are suing (massacre victims). Leaving out that detail would seem like a plain act of dishonesty, to me.
1
I can understand how a retained legal firm needs to develop an approach to reduce liability for their client. This approach has a high probability of backfiring for MGM Resorts. No matter how practical this approach may be from a legal perspective, the public relations price could be material. A number of my friends and family have already told that they will never go to the Mandalay Bay resort given MGM's decision to sue the victims of this shooting.
11
Bravo MGM. It's absurd to think that MGM has any liability because a psychopath brought a stockpile of weapons into a hotel and went on a shooting spree. What reasonable steps could Mandalay Bay have taken to prevent that? As another commenter mentioned, TSA-style scanners at every entrance for every patron, including those only going to a restaurant, etc., are the only possible solution.
1
@John
what steps? how about questioning the dozens of cases he brought through the lobby? how about NOT allowing guests to use the same sheets for a week, which is both nasty it can damage the mattress and that could give the next guest health concerns.
2
Did no member of the hotel staff think it odd that the shooter brought in new suitcases time after time? Why did they not investigate this before the shootings, when they might have protected innocent lives?
I have little sympathy for a big business over ordinary people who paid for entertainment, not murder.
9
Despicable.
3
Regardless of what it is trying to do, this is public relations stupidity. Unlike large airlines, MGM is in a highly competitive market. There are plenty of other options that customers should and will patronize.
9
It is amazing that one of the parties responsible for this massacre, through their gross negligence, has the audacity to state categorically that they know what is best for the victims.
I suppose it is the times we live in, and the kind of amoral representation we have leading the country, where MGM feels emboldened to treat their victims so callously.
But maybe this kind of legal action will be what it takes to wake up the public to the idea of finally starting to hold people in the food chain of gun ownership accountable with civil and criminal penalties.
Even those who run corporate entities that look the other way at guns being stockpiled on their property should be held to account for their roles in these massacres.
2
While the federal government repeatedly ignores these terrible events, the other stakeholders are left to fight it out amongst themselves.
3
It's not MGM's fault it's the GOP's.
3
Let's stop going to any Hotels owned by MGM
3
In the US, every tragedy is a jackpot for a lawyer and indirectly for those who sell the insurance required because of the high prevalence of lawsuits. A large number of lawsuits blaming the hotel have been filed, in states other than Nevada. Why the hotel? Because the country music fans who were shot are largely, you can't make this up, pro-NRA, and won't agree to sue gun or even bump stock manufacturers. The estate of the shooter is obviously a target for civil liability but is small. The only insured, deep-pocketed entity which can be targeted is the hotel. Why not Nevada? Nevada juries may be biased in favor of large Nevada employers and hesitant to impose a billion dollar finding that will subsequently force all hotels to search all luggage.
1
Once it reaches the Supreme Kangaroo Court, no worries for MGM. This is what they're banking on, and they're right. Welcome to the era of no responsibility.
7
How dare those victims get in front of those bullets?
9
@Jerry
Right. In the book Saudi, a vehicle knocked a wall down in a house beside a road. The authorities charged the homeowner; if the house had not been there, the car wouldn't have hit it!
1
If the 2001 law (which sounds like a plot by evil people) does not include class action suits, can the families and survivors of the MGM file a class action suit and thereby include more than 1000 individuals in the suit?
@Yunkele
Considering how the Feds want to restrict the ability to file class action lawsuits, I'm not sure it would make any difference. More profit over people PR disasters are sure to follow.
2
@Yunkele
notice that the shooting is not classified as a Terrorist attack and that MGM is vigorously lobbying Home Land Security to say it is.
Their claim to being covered by that law is based on that one word. If the government does not give them that backup they will lose in court and they know it.
2
If MGM is at fault then Chicago is at fault for the reoccurring violence.
1
I wonder how those commenters who are castigating the MGM will feel when they are subject to TSA-like searches each and every time they check into a hotel. That's what awaits if the hotel is held accountable for this shooting. Hotels won't have any other option - it will be required in order to get liability insurance.
Protecting against every possible attack scenario simply isn't possible unless each of us gives up our right to privacy, the expectation that we will be seen as honest and most seriously, the protection against unlawful search. Those things already hang by a thread.
Bad stuff happens. There's only so much that can be done to stop it.
9
@B Dawson
Hotels already have to have liability insurance so your post is wrong on that count too.
The hotel failed to notice a guest who brought in dozens of cases and refused to allow a sheet change for over a week which is both nasty and damaging to the mattress.
2
@B Dawson
So it's ok to victimize the victims yet again in order to protect a corporation? Because bad stuff happens, nobody is accountable to even try to improve things?
5
MGM should not be held liable for something that is the fault of the republican party. The victims should be suing the republican party.
14
Has anyone who commented read either the SAFE Act or MGM's complaint? I doubt it. The SAFE Act was designed to limit civil litigation for Acts of Terrorism and that's what MGM is using it for. The primary issue in this case is whether the shooting qualifies as an "Act of Terrorism" and it doesn't strike me as unfair that MGM is seeking to have that decided in a single proceeding in federal court, rather than hundreds, if not thousands, of individual cases in state court.
2
Certified or not, the security company at Mandalay Bay didn't do their jobs. How could they have missed so much weaponry?
If the way the security company did its job is Homeland's idea of excellence, their certificates aren't worth the paper they're written on.
That the shooter was a terrorist doesn't need Homeland's stamp of approval...it's clear he was, just like all the other white men in America, age 16 to 60+, who have engaged in mass shootings this year.
They believe in some misguided notion, do know the difference between right and wrong, except for the extremely rare psychopaths among them, and shoot anyway.
And MGM -- what heart, not. Perhaps boycotting their hotels would hit them in their pinch-penny hearts far better than a lawsuit, or do both. That's a lot of money to lose per day, greedy MGM.
2
Shouldn’t the NRA be defending MGM? If the shooter was legally allowed to purchase and possess all these weapons and ammunition, how can a hotel be legally responsible for allowing him to do so? I don’t see any negligence or liability on the part of the hotel. Why should the hotel be expected to enforce gun laws that don’t even exist? I can imagine that had MGM stopped the man from leasing the hotel room or tossed him out because he legally possessed the weapons, the NR A would be supporting him in a suit against MGM, and Faux News and conservative social media would be all over MGM.
12
“It’s all about immunizing themselves from liability and staying out of state courts,” said Craig Eiland, a lawyer in Austin, Tex., who represents hundreds of shooting victims. “They want to say that it does not matter how negligent MGM was” in allowing Mr. Paddock to stockpile an arsenal in his Mandalay Bay hotel room.
Eiland clearly has a large financial incentive to (inappropriately) draw MGM into a suit. Paddock was, demonstrably, a psychopath, but MGM had no specific information to that effect. Prior to the shooting, Paddock may simply have been a properly licensed gun dealer transporting weapons for a transaction. In that case, MGM would have no duty to report any of his activities.
Eiland is just a guy who sees $$$$ signs... MGM inflicted no injury to the victims. Trial lawyers like this damage our court system. I doubt you'd see this kind of ambulance chasing in Australia or Canada, because people there (generally) have more integrity.
6
@Joey Australia and Canada also have sane gun laws.
3
Why hasn't the City of New York, The State of New York, and The United States Of America sued Saudi Arabia for the 9/11/2001 attacks?
2
The victims should be suing the gun lobby and their political enablers, for fostering a gun culture in the U.S. that fights any effort to stop the sale of high-powered military-grade weapons.
14
Can't see that any boycott is going to hurt MGM, just look at all of the temporary anger over the United airlines physically removing a passenger in Chicago, UAL just released ahead of predicted earnings. Why should MGM and by proxy, the rest of us, be held accountable for the craziness of the shooter? Greedy lawyers who want their 1/3rd contingency will claim otherwise. Just keep in mind the greedy plaintiff's lawyers when you receive a notice of settlement of a class action lawsuit and you are scheduled to receive $3.89 or a coupon for half-off and the plaintiff's lawyers get paid millions for bringing that $3.89 settlement to you. It just drives up the cost of doing business for all of us.
2
@MadRepublican
You may believe it is just greedy lawyers but the real reason defendants don't want to go to court is because a court could enter orders that prevent them from continuing the same behavior that caused the harm in the first place. This is why corporations want to push everyone into arbitration where there exists no equitable power that can limit what they can do. And of course, the Roberts court thinks that is just fine.
1
Dear MGM,
Please pay the victims the necessary compensations. I wouldn't visit your Springfield MGM casino.
3
Let's see how MGM recovers from this PR fiasco.
12
It's a clever way to get all of the lawsuits into one consolidated case in federal court, but it won't get MGM off the hook by itself. The lawsuit gives that impression only because the lawyers misquote the statute.
Here is the quote in the lawsuit: "Under the SAFETY Act, there “shall exist only one cause of action for loss of property, personal injury, or death. 6 C.F.R. 25.7 (d)." But the actual law says this: "There shall exist only one cause of action for loss of property, personal injury, or death for performance or non-performance of the Seller's Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology in relation to an Act of Terrorism. Such cause of action may be brought only against the Seller of the Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology and may not be brought against the buyers."
So the limitation in the law applies only to claims that are directed at the actual performance of the registered anti-terrorism "technology" - in this case, the security services vendor at the concert site. It won't have any application to the separate claim for independent negligence against MGM. (Which is not to say that claim is valid either; only that the statute won't make it go away.)
For MGM, though, getting all the claims consolidated in federal court is worthwhile, regardless of whether there is any substantive benefit to the Act.
2
Heartless move by MGM. The party that bears the most responsibility in the tragedy is the gun manufacturers, but of course they are protected from liability. Going after the hotel really seems like a stretch to me. What are they supposed to do, search the luggage of guests?
2
It looks to me as if MGM's spokesperson Debra DeShong may be auditioning for Sarah Huckabee Sanders' job at the White House in case even she becomes fed up with constantly having to fib with a straight face.
5
Boycott MGM Resorts.
6
Lawyers.
@Michael Jay - Yes, lawyers like Craig Eiland.
It's one thing debating about whether a hotel can be held responsible for its security, and/or the independent action of a patron; it's quite another to think it's OK for a corporation to (pre-emptively) sue VICTIMS.
1
What a rotten move
3
If it were an act of terrorism it would have been declared one within the first 72 hours of it having occurred.
Any declaration of it being terrorism subsequent to the CSC seeking the designation is going have the appearance of fraudulence.
You have the right to defend yourself you do not have the right to pretend that reality is not real and then try to enforce that false POV on the rest of us with legal rulings. If I were the judge I would listen to the argument, then rule against them and fine them $100K per defendant in the case.
Let's face reality, MGM and Vegas in general make their money by catering to people who gamble. That catering involves making fulfilling their desires without making them feel like they are being judged. This is a recipe for exactly what happened. There was nothing in what the public knows that makes what MGM did for Paddock wrong on its face but you are still liable because teh very premise of hwo Vegas operates especially catering to whales makes what Paddock did so easy to do.
If you are legitimately interested in the "best interests" of the victims. the community, and those still healing make a settlement with them that does not involve you inflicting more injury upon them than you already have. You want to mitigate your liability MGM? Then seek to spread the cost for it over your city and fellow gambling institutions whom have all worked together to create the model you followed that let Paddock do what he did.
3
Despicable.
4
At least somebody agrees this is a (white male christian) terrorist attack.
14
Wow! What were you thinking?? What mush head talked you into this and who approved it? Do you have any idea how much this is going to hurt your business? If a boycott hasn't started yet, it will by the end of the day. This is the kind of thing that gets discussed in B School for decades under the heading of "Put brain in gear before opening mouth." You guys went to the same schools as Trump, didn't you?
9
How the MGM CEO is not seeing the PR impact of this stupid idea?
Our company already banned hotel reservation at MGM faster than light, this is pure insanity here, shame on you MGM...
8
Boycott MGM!!!
3
Wait a minute! He can't be a terrorist! He's white!
7
A lawyers field day. The shooter wasn’t at the concert, he was in the hotel. Not sure how the certified security company hired for the show could be held liable. Suck it up MGM, open your deep pockets.
4
While I personally don’t see liability on the part of MGM, it seems the connection between the concert promoter’s security company and MGM is insufficient to entitle MGM to immunity under this statute. And you know the NRA and Sessions’s DOJ will fight tooth and nail to prevent this act of a “bad guy with a gun” to be legally deemed an act of terrorism under this statute as well. While the suit is a normal legal tactic, it is ultimately bad optics for MGM in pursuit of a very thin legal argument. You’d think they could have figured out a better way to pursue such a defense.
4
@Midwest Josh Just what should MGM have done differently? Are you prepared to have your luggage searched whenever you check into a hotel? Are you willing to allow randoms searches of your hotel room? Do you want 24/7 monitoring of security cameras in your room?
This is a tragedy beyond a doubt. However, neither the hotel, the concert organizers, nor the manufacturers of the firearms or the ammunition should be held responsible for the actions of a deranged individual.
Yes, it sounds heartless for MGM to use such a tactic.
Not being a gambler or Las Vegas traveler I have no sympathy for anyone in that business. They'll just pass their losses on this to their customers.
But we all need to reflect on what has become an automatic reflex in America:
When something horrific occurs, we immediately look to see who or what, with "deep pockets", can give us a financial payout to "mend" our grief.
We deride lawyers regularly but can't wait to get a good one when it's time to cash in on the plaintiff injury lottery.
10
@Kevin O'Reilly There are victims who have had to file for bankruptcy due to medical costs they could never hope to cover, or crowdfunding, and just going without care because they can't afford it.....
2
MGM allowed this man to take enough weapons and ammunition into one of their rooms without blinking an eye. They have gun shows and allow this as policy.
Now that I know that Las Vegas Hotels routinely have gun shows and allow this kind of fire power in their hotels I simply won't go. If I have to go on business I will ask about their policy of allowing guns in their rooms. If they allow them I'm not staying at their property.
If you stay at an MGM property in the state of Nevada, you're gambling with your life.
5
I don't follow the legal theory with one reading, but the effect of this would seem to be that a victim who does not have the resources to defend him or herself from this suit would lose his or her ability to sue.
1
This is so wrong but not unexpected. Corporations continue to deny responsibility for the actions of their executives and boards of directors and instead blame the victims of their actions. It's indicative of the alternate reality the U.S. is living in today.
6
Wow. Well, now I know. If my husband and I decide to visit Las Vegas, we won't be staying at the Mandalay Bay hotel.
4
Does MGM realize this is really bad PR? Do they plan on being viable in the future?
5
Hope there are a lot of empty rooms at the Mandalay
7
No matter the final ruling in this overtly malicious lawsuit. People everywhere should totally boycott all of MGM. This will include their motion picture business. Do not pay to view any movie produced by MGM: past, present, and future. Impact this corporation where it will hurt them the most.
5
What a heartless act! Im very disappointed in MGM Resorts! I visit Vega several times a year and I will assure MGM I will not stay at any of their properties.
Clearly the individuals who have decided to make this case- didn't have any families effected by this senseless act.
Haven't these families lost enough?
3
Wait! I thought it was only terrorism when the foreign born did it, Especially if they happen to be Muslim. Or Mexican.
Native-born white people don't commit terrorism, do they? They're just bad guys with guns, no?
If all the good guys were armed, terrorism wouldn't happen. Problem solved. Heads back in sand.
7
Why isn’t MGM suing the gun shop that sold the killer the guns? Or sue the gun manufacturer?
NYT - with the anniversary of this tragedy coming up, can we get an article on the country music industry’s silence on gun violence.
7
Terrorism is motivated by political ideology. This was not terrorism.
1
@RC
What WAS the ideology?
Never to be known since the shooter is dead.
1
This is just another shameless corporate act of profits over people.
5
Corporations are people? Any person who dared to sue a victim in a criminal case would be viewed with the massive contempt that everyone now feels for MGM and it's affiliates. I'm sure once the empty rooms and canceled conventions start hitting where it hurts, they will backpedal quickly but will find that like most egregious errors, this one can't be taken back with all forgiven.
9
We can look forward to the Supreme Court in the future to uphold Republican-made laws which will shield corporations from being sued for damages by anyone.
21
Very classless.
But this is to be expected from a company that makes its money by preying on irrepressible, addicted, degenerate gamblers
8
Nah, it’s all Obama’s fault. Sue him, Hilary and the dead ambassador of Libya. The fox crowd would flood back to Vegas for another trump rally. This country really is deranged.
6
Those Vegas revelers don't even have a case! They entered gun-country on their free will. This stuff just happens in the land of the free. That's what a majority of them voted for.
5
Even thou when I first read the headline 'MGM sues victims' I went "what" but after reading the article the victims are suing the wrong entity. They should be suing the State of Nevada for lax gun laws. This wouldn't have happened in any other country but our own because of lax or non existent gun laws.
20
This is jaw-dropping in its heartlessness and typical of a now more-emboldened class of people: the corporate thug.
It's also another brick in the wall of why most Americans don't like lawyers.
This kind of cruelty is a mind-boggling example of our rights being eroded under an unserious President who winks at bad behavior, jokes about malfeasance, and kowtows to dictators.
I looked up what MGM owned. I will never spend a penny on anything associated with that tarnished brand.
34
But given the political climate lately, wherein apparently only Muslims can commit terrorist acts, Paddock's massacre shouldn't meet the requirement for the hotel's exemption from liability. The hotel should bear some responsibility, as should the security firm it hired, whether credentialed or not by the DHS.
9
Nobody knows why this guy decided to “fire” away at group of people at a Rock concert. MGM has nothing to do with the “shooter”. The shooter was a high roller slot player, well known in the casino. I am an ex casino worker and have seen all sorts of semi angry casino players. Nobody really knows why this guy did this. All of you right wing gun owners can still kill anybody as long as gun ownership is legal. Terrorism I think not. No guns for civilians.
Only in America. Making America Morally Obscene
6
The victims families get to sue the hotel which had nothing to do with the shootings while the gun and ammunition makers, the NRA and the gun lobby, which all continue to profit from the massacre business are immune. What a country.
24
Does Giuliani have a new client?
10
This is everything that is disgusting about the United States of America put in nice little box with a red, white, and blue bow on it.
12
Yes, this sounds bad, but on the other hand, it will be interesting for a court to decide whether or not an act of mass violence by a white, non-Muslim person is considered "terrorism." The president (and many others) seem to think it's terrorism only if it's committed by Muslims.
11
The hardest part will be getting the government to say that this was a terrorist attack considering it appears only brown people can be terrorists.
18
A pity the victims can't go after the gun manufacturers...
38
Why go after the gun manufacturers? I'm not aware that there were any malfunctions.
@MS They might have a chance if they went against the manufacturer of the bump stock. I think the shooter used a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock, which resulted in a much greater rate of fire.
1
Such a horrific event, even in today's times, is not foreseeable and therefore there is not negligence or gross negligence. People look to the deepest pockets for liability exposure guided by legal counsel direction. Attorneys desire a lower court jury trial for empathetic ears and awards, overturned on appeal. Yes Medicare travels and most job insurance and individual insurance goes not, without battles provided plan summaries do have a path for out of network care in emergencies not related to job travel. But people voted for Trump in 2016, didn't they? People voted for Republican Governors in 2014 and 2016, didn't they? People were voted into office who affiliate with a party that does not support the Affordable Care Act, or future implementations such as a public option and CMS approval to negotiate down drug costs. Nevada Senator Reid led on healthcare reform, Senator Cortez Masto was then elected. Governor Sandoval pushed back on Trump's ill advised, politically driven efforts to roll back the Affordable Care Act. The Murrens worked hard for a sutainable Cancer Clinic in Clark County. Mayor Goodman worked hard to try to bring the Pittsburgh Clinic to Clark County. Larry Ruvo worked hard to bring the Neurology Clinic to Clark County. Clark County voted for Clinton in the 2016 popular vote. Don't blame Nevada for one man's evil. And don't expect judicial help from Trump judicial appointments on matters of healthcare or employer liability.
2
I have no idea if this suit has merit, but I am quite certain that its optics will do MGM significant damage.
12
Very provocative approach. It will backfire and Mandalay, in the end, will eventually close because of it. Occupancy rates are already down and as word of this tactic spreads, customers will avoid this place like the plague.
16
basically, the victims are responsible for the shooting just by being there.
3
Well hey, gun manufacturers aren't liable and businesses aren't liable for security, and Congress isn't liable for making us less safe daily, so maybe we should just cut to the chase and have the state sue the victims for getting themselves shot and costing all that money in law enforcement and emergency services.
Really, such bad manners to go and get yourself killed or maimed because no one is responsible for averting gun violence.
Kudos, MGM for taking tragedy, skipping right over farce and going straight to satire.
11
Hard to get a much sicker response than preemptively suing the victims
8
Wow. I guess MGM isn't interested in staying in business. This has terrible optics for them. A good and much deserved social media shaming campaign might make them see some sense.
After all, other than the victims, the world has moved on - we've had plenty of mass shootings since MGM to divert our attention. Now, MGM is back in the news with some epic empathy-free ways to handle those pesky victims.
This dubious legal strategy takes "blaming the victim" to a whole new level. And "corporate-legal-pr speak" to a whole new level as well.
7
This does not surprise me. Here in Las Vegas MGM is known for playing hardball with its employees and vendors. I predict that this case will be thrown out of federal court and go back into state court where it belongs. We were in the Mandalay Bay recently as locals and the place in not busy at all.
4
The MGM spokesperson explained that filing these lawsuits was in the best interests of the victims, because it provides them "the opportunity for a timely resolution." What generosity of spirit!
In order to be nice to MGM, sparing it the affliction of years of litigation, the victims can offer to settle really quick. And because they are going out of their way to make it easy for MGM, it is only right that they settle for a big amount!
4
I'm seeing so much misplaced contempt for MGM and I think people are simply having a knee-jerk reaction to the word "sue".
Of course giant corporations are often despicable, however the situation would be no different if this were a smaller privately owned hotel. If you find yourself in a country in which it's the responsibility of a hotel to ensure that guests are not shot at then something is wrong with the country, not the hotel.
Do you want airport style metal detectors? Bag checks? Background checks (that would have been clean in this instance) for hotel guests? Armed reception staff? How else does a hotel prevent this?
I have the deepest sympathy for those affected but I simply don't see how this is the hotel's cross to bare.
17
@Michael exactly. Maybe airport-style security, along with restriction of movement. Once you're in, you're in, and you can't get back in once you leave.
Who in their right mind wants that at a resort hotel?
@Michael Major hotels in India have been running airport luggage scanners for years now. It doesn't seem to be hurting their business.
I've reluctantly had to stay at the Mandalay Bay for a conference. They seem to have no problem nickel and diming their guests, they could just tack on a $20/bag "security fee".
People who are angry at this should probably be angry at the law. It seems like the clause indemnifying security services from liability in the result of a terrorist attack was written specifically for this type of situation. Not at all surprising that MGM it trying to save itself from 1,000+ lawsuits by invoking a law designed to protect businesses like itself.
12
If Every citizen, Every business, Every performer declined to do business with MGM parent company and its subsidiaries based on this "blame the victim" legal attack, then these actions would properly reward MGM for its legal approach to avoid responsibility for its ctions in this mass murder.
4
Imagine the anxiety this would cause
1
What exactly is the suit?
As many others have I've stayed at the Mandalay Bay for business conferences. Like many I couldn't believe a place I knew so well was the scene of this tragedy. I saw the Mandalay Bay as another victim of the shooting. I was thinking of when I would be back with my M life card.
However with this news my sympathy for Mandalay Bay has evaporated like water in the desert air.
28
I see nothing wrong with trying to consolidate all suits in one place with one judge. MGM is only citing those who have sued or have signified their intention to sue. The attorney, Mr Eiland is well known for seeking out these kinds of lawsuits with multiple clients. He is more than capable of going from court to court in multiple suits
I can't say I blame MGM.
What were they supposed to do? i don't want my luggage searched when I check into a hotel, or for room cleaners to monitor and report on my activities. Do you?
The plight of the victims is awful but raiding MGM's deep pockets isn't really a moral solution to their woes.
11
I strongly disagree with the comments stating “the country is broken”. While I think MGM made a grave public relations mistake with this lawsuit, it may clarify the term “terrorist” and finally give us a concrete definition stating that domestic attacks are terrorism as well.
The country is in a difficult place, but let’s be frank: Dems didn’t change any gun laws from 2009-11 when they could have easily done so. I strongly wish the republicans would curtail guns, however Liberals have little ground to stand on when they did absolutely nothing during their relatively recent time in complete power
At first glance, this seems despicable. But I took some time to think about it and aside from the first jarring reaction to this news, I can also see MGM's side of things. The Vegas shooting was a horrific act of one out-of-his mind person and aside from checking every guest's luggage thoroughly, I'm not sure what they could have done to prevent this or to prevent this in the future. I agree that this was an act of terrorism and it's not like the hotel knew he brought guns and let him in anyway--that would be negligence.
14
MGM isn't directly responsible, as in, they didn't pull the trigger... Unfortunately this pre-emptive legal challenge demonstrates that they feel no sense of culpability at all. Meanwhile they clearly pandered to a high-roller... They let him set up a formidable assault position on their grounds, undiscovered because they wanted to respect his privacy.
If we convict a bartender for serving a drunk who later commits vehicular homicide in a DWI, then a hotel allowing the construction of a sniper's nest (over several days!) seems no less criminal.. "Profits Trump Public Safety" .. That's the prevailing ethos in our government now, from the chief executive on down. We're NOT powerless.. VOTE, people... with your wallet and with your ballot. There will always be more consumers (and voters) than high-powered lawyers...
7
Your comparison is like apples and oranges. A DUI is a dangerous crime and facilitating that subjects the bar to civil liability; owning a high powered rifle and ammunition, even a great amount, is not a crime, and the hotel did not facilitate the man in doing so.
1
Welcome to Las Vegas!
Have a nice day!
7
Where is the definition of "act of terrorism" in our law? If the act of one deranged individual, with no clear connection to enemies of our nation and its people, is a terrorist attack, then why wouldn't the shooting spree among a bunch of teenage gangsters also be labeled terrorism?
Who is a "terrorist?" What is "terrorism?" Without knowing who and what and when, it's all nonsense.
4
The definition that counts here is in 6 CFR § 25.2:
Act of Terrorism - The term “Act of Terrorism” means any act determined to have met the following requirements or such other requirements as defined and specified by the Secretary:
(1) Is unlawful;
(2) Causes harm, including financial harm, to a person, property, or entity, in the United States, or in the case of a domestic United States air carrier or a United States-flag vessel (or a vessel based principally in the United States on which United States income tax is paid and whose insurance coverage is subject to regulation in the United States), in or outside the United States; and
(3) Uses or attempts to use instrumentalities, weapons or other methods designed or intended to cause mass destruction, injury or other loss to citizens or institutions of the United States.
@SRM Well, then, what is the definition of "mass destruction?" And "injury?" And "loss?"
Then there's that "unlawful" requirement that might need further defining. What is unlawful in Utah isn't necessarily so in New York.
Let's assume, for the moment, that MGM's argument is valid: that this was an act of terrorism.
You're now suing terrorism victims. Think about that.
Now, I don't necessarily agree that MGM should be held financially liable, but still. How much money would settlements have cost, compared to the bad press this will generate?
7
Why stop with MGM? Why not sue the company that made the windows for not making them ten inches thick? Or the ranchers who raised the cattle that ended up as steaks on the killer's plate? Or all the corporations that failed to build skyscrapers between the Mandalay and the concert grounds? These lawyers need to think big. There's gotta be at least as much money in this as there is in baby powder.
6
This is lawyers playing games.
MGM is not protected from law suits like this because this wasn't a terrorist act, this was the work of a deranged man who was allowed to bring in a small arsenal into the hotel.
Now if MGM asked him why he had so many bags, they might be protected but that will be up to the courts.
3
At some point what should all these facilities do? Should they equip all their windows with two inch thick glass that can't be opened from the inside? Should all the rooms be equipped with video cameras and glass break sensors? Should every hotel guess be screened with metal detectors, patted down with airline style security?
Should all concerts be held in facilities which are completely away from overhead sniper positions? Should every public event held in the United States have Presidential style security?
At some point should every person who is in the United States have a mico-chip embedded in the gluteus maximus so that the government can track their every move?
Now, the MGM grand had no way of anticipating that a sniper would rent one of their rooms and commit murder.
And, last but not least, given our current gun-happy environment, does the individual person have the responsibility to take care of their own safety by not attending one of these concerts in the first place.
The average American still believes they are living in the 1950's. They feel they should be able to go anywhere and do anything they want without any fear whatsoever for their physical safety. So, does this naive viewpoint play into these massacres?
I don't pretend to have the answers to any of these questions, but given our modern day violent society, it's better to be safe than sorry. Rightly or wrongly, a lawsuit doesn't bring a person back to life after the fact.
5
Another reason not to visit Las Vegas.
6
Another reason to avoid MGM and their affiliates!
3
You can be sure we'll be hearing from Jeff Sessions soon, assuring, not families of those killed or injured, but MGM that the Justice Department fully stands behind the liability shield. Companies first, people last, that's what America has become under this president.
6
Even though purely a legal manoeuvre to protect the casino owners from future legal costs, for the victims it must be deeply insulting. One wonders about alternatives - e.g. MGM suing the makers and/or sellers of the guns used in this assault? Or suing the state of Nevada for lax gun laws? Or suing the federal government for the same? What will be the legal costs for the defendants? The feeling of disgust is hard to shake off.
6
This is a shameful act on the part of MGM. So what MGM's legal team is basically saying is that the victims shouldn't have been in the shooters sights and what happened to them is basically tough luck.
Didn't the MGM cleaning people see anything unusual in his room? It's not like the shooter had a single concealed weapon. He had a massive arsenal in his room.
17
MGM will be opening a casino next month in Springfield, Massachusetts. About ten miles from my residence. I was very curious to see the results of the company's efforts over the last eight years to bring gambling to the city.
After reading this, I've concluded driving down to the Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods establishments in Connecticut isn't such a long drive after all. I'll be encouraging my friends to do the same.
"New Coke" pales in comparison to this fiasco.
17
It's an interesting strategy and makes sense from MGM's point of view given that the alternative is defending 2,000 plus separate claims for liability and damages in various state and federal courts. The federal Declaratory Judgment Act and federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit such actions.
6
Well, I don't actually know that MGM was negligent, because the success of a mass shooter depends on his access to these guns in the first place, not merely the opportunity to use them. As long as we tolerate the easy supply of guns that have no purpose other than killing the maximum number of people as fast as possible, we can't prevent these incidents.
However, it's impossible not to react to MGM's legal maneuver as despicable, because it targets the victims all over again and seems aimed at preventing the determination of whether MGM bears responsibility.
Emblematic of how sick our country is.
94
@Rebecca B
The SHOT show, an arms convention, is held in Vegas every year. There are others. You cannot go ten feet in Vegas without seeing an advertisement encouraging you to try out firing a machine gun at a gun ranch. These are very popular with tourists from countries and states where automatic weapons are banned.
Negligent? Hardly. He could have been a salesman for one of the shooting ranches. A conventioneer at one of those shows. A musician. A computer guy. Someone traveling from here to there. It takes all types.
Or are you arguing for the installation of cameras in the guest rooms?
10
You don't know whether MGM was negligent? With cameras everywhere, they'll bust somebody for counting cards at the blackjack tables in a heartbeat, but somehow they didn't see this guy stockpiling guns and ammo in his hotel room in preparation for the attack.
Sounds negligent to me.
9
SCOTUS for sure will defend this inane theory of law. CU made corporations citizens so it is only reasonable that a republican would extend the same theory to MGM.
America will not wake up to the atrocities Corp America has fought for and won.
27
This will wreck the MGM brand. You have to wonder what the CEO was thinking signing off on this strategy.
66
@John
It won't wreck it for me. I don't want the hotel industry to start inspecting & monitoring my belongings and activiteis when I'm renting a room. What would you have had the hotel do in this case?
I value privacy and liberty more than security. (And for the record I am a gun-hating, NRA-hating, non-firearms owner who advocates for much stricter control of gun sales, and for every gun owner to carry a huge, mandatory insurance policy for each arm they own.)
7
Curious to know if the board of directors voted for adopting this legal strategy, and if so, who. Identifying those particular board members may serve to bring about a re-think of this dubious legal strategy.
49
After this, why would anyone want to stay in a MGM owned hotel? They have made their contempt for their guests clear.
127
@msd
Agree. As for myself I will never stay at an MGM owned hotel in the future.
@msd And why would anyone want to be a spokesperson for such a business?
Yes indeed. I was a bit shocked to see the headline here.
"MGM sues the victims 1st "? Sorry MGM - we are done with you forever.
3
If we had guaranteed and comprehensive medical care in this country, this would be a moot issue.
That victims of terrorism, such as these, must file a suit to be able to cover their medical expenses, is a complete disgrace.
129
@Ellen I'm sure these victims will be seeking more than compensation for their medical expenses. Generous donations and free medical care from the regional hospitals have made that issue moot.
The victims will be seeking compensation for pain and suffering and punitive damages which will likely run into the millions for each person. Their lawyers will reap a significant windfall as well.
8
Perhaps MGM Resorts International and the thousand or so victims of this White Male Christian terrorist should sue the Republican Congress, Republican President and NRA-GOP industrial-complex that passed the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products and which prevents "victims of gun violence from pursuing well-established legal claims against irresponsible gun manufacturers and sellers—without presenting an alternative means for the victims to be compensated."
Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association thanked President Bush for signing the Act, for which it had heavily lobbied, bribed and threatened Congressmen with, and described it as "... the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law."
Abandoning its citizens and public safety in deference to insane gun laws, Greed Over People, campaign finance bribery, 'thoughts and prayers' and early burials, the Republican Party would very much like Americans to drop dead without legal recourse.
At a minimum, every gun sale should go into a state/federal database and require significant liability insurance to compensate any and all potential victims....but Republicans just don't care.
Guns Over People 2018
Nice GOPeople
November 6 2018
Vote for public safety...not for an unregulated national shooting gallery.
163
@Socrates
It's hard to follow your logic. The sole purpose of guns is to kill. The two guns used at MGM did exactly what they were designed for. They did not fail, and there is no manufacturer negligence involved. They were legally purchased, according to a vast pantheon of laws which already makes guns one of the most heavily regulated consumer items in existence.
The notion of opening the floodgates to opportunistic lawyers trying to sideload punitive actions against the manufacturers due to ideological bias is exactly why they need protective legislation.
We have severe laws against murder. We do not need more.
If you don't like guns, that's fine, but don't sit around trying to dream up indirect ways to enforce your prejudices. Demanding "liability insurance" has no analogue anywhere, since, again, no other device is exclusively designed to kill others. Liability is designed for MISUSE, not INTENTIONAL use.
I fear the Pandora's box that will open if mentalities such as this gain traction.
Lawyers--not guns--are the problem here.
2
@Socrates...He was white and male but not a Christian.
I'm sure that most people can see their point of view....
...while viewing them from another hotel.
86
Corporate America has no shame.
And it is backed by the corrupt Supreme Court in it's exploitation of America and Americans.
For an example of how to protect citizens, look to Europe and officials in the EU, which today fined Google $5.1 Billion in an antitrust ruling.
We have become a joke, a sick joke.
114
Not quite...it is the GOP that is the joke.
Looks like I'm never going to an MGM Resorts hotel or facility for either pleasure or for a business event.
104
In no way do I think it's right for MGM to sue the victims - but their strategy makes sense given what they are up against. I 100% do not think MGM should be liable for a crazed gunman's act of terror. This was an unprecedented event (specifically firing from a high rise hotel into a large crowd with these type of weapons). No reasonable foresight into this tragedy was seen by anyone. Hotels have never had daily room searches and it was following industry standard like every other hotel in America. Hotels cater to the elite and the gunman was paying a pretty penny to rent those suites for an extended period of time with an expectation of privacy. I understand the anger and wanting to blame from the victims but I do not think holding MGM responsible is reasonable.
51
@Christine Well, if that is right, why are they suing victims first ? Just wait for anyone to sue and defend in court.
@Christine Yes, but this is still a punch in the face to the victims. If MGM thought this one through, it would've offered to help the victims' medical care in some way, to save face and the brand.
MGM has already been sued by many victims and notified that more will file. This is an affirmative defense asserted by MGM, who is seeking declaratory judgment on a legal issue, so it’s in the form of a countersuit. This is normal legal maneuvering. The bad optics are just the result of spin by the victims’ attorneys and the ignorant press.
Where does the liability of MGM or ANY business end if victims are allowed to sue for the intentional acts of a deranged mind? Why do we always look to deep pockets to insure us from any possible eventually that might occur? Do we want our hotels to start searching our luggage and rooms on a daily basis when we go on vacation to relax, recreate, have a good time and forget about all the cares of our usual workaday world?
Is that the kind of society we want to live in? Not me!
Chevy
South Hadley, MA
33
@Chevy Lawsuits are the best way to inflict pain on the system. You'd think a butcher's bill of hundreds would be enough, but no, it turns out that money is the truest measure of our collective morality, and loss of money is the surest incentive to action. If a corporation feels monetary pain, then the politicians owned by that corporation will feel pain as well. Then those politicians will have to decide between supporting gun restrictions or supporting invasive searches. And then we move on to the next crisis.
2
I hope MGM wins.
Necessarily, all of the victims' lawsuits are banking on something approaching 20/20 hindsight vision in the wake of the shooting. OF COURSE, MGM should have stopped this one totally unassuming middle-aged white guy, approximately 80% of Las Vegas visitors (I'm guessing), from shuffling multiple bags of luggage to and fro.
This is Las Vegas, the bags of luggage could contain anything: clothes, money, costumes, convention pieces, etc. It's a crazy place. Plus there's no "warning sign" on luggage at all. Guests aren't required to limit their luggage or to have them inspected.
I know people want their money not necessarily because they're greedy but to feel like their family member didn't die pointlessly and randomly in an attack by a totally nihilistic gunman. But MGM, shouldn't be held responsible for an event that has become a regular feature of American life.
32
The guy had been there a while and had engaged in all types of suspicious behavior. I'm not saying the hotel should be liable, but seems like enough to get a jury to decide.
3
This may appear despicable and possibly is. However, have any of the people condemning this action actually stayed in a hotel? No one examines your luggage or your comings and goings. Unlike in airports where you're confronted, scanned and Xrayed constantly. If the victims succeed in their lawsuits, think about what will be in our future. Apparently sports stadiums and concert venues already examine everything you bring in. Hotels will start doing it too - unbearable!
12
@Linda S.
what you conveniently misunderstand is that he brought in dozens of cases, right through the lobby. You also don't understand that he was there for over a week and did not allow housekeeping into his room.
A day or two with one set of sheets is one thing, but a hotel allowing more than a week without a housekeeping visit is asking for damage to the mattress and other room amenities. That type of uncleanliness besides being nasty can damage the mattress to the point it is too nasty for the next guest to sleep on.
2
@mike You're kidding, right? Do you change your sheets at home every day? I change mine once a week at most and I assure you my mattress is in fine shape! And bringing in dozens of cases to a hotel room could just be a salesman with sample cases. I repeat, I don't want to live in a world where I can't stay in a hotel without my belongings being scrutinized.
Tired of the constant hand out mentality. This was a tragedy of epic proportions. Could it have been handled better? Probably. But when an extreme act of terror occurs, who is responsible? The lunatic that causes that terror. MGM is no more responsible for this lunatic than the people that were shot. Shame on social media for painting this nonsense. I've stayed at this hotel in the past, not sure if I'll go back or not, but the decision won't be based on this tragedy.
13
@Ma I'm thinking your "hand out mentality " would be way different if it was your loved one blown away in the shooting.
The fact of the matter remains, this clown was only able to kill as many people as he did because MGM and Mandalay Bay completely dropped the ball by allowing him to stockpile a world-class arsenal in his hotel room, literally in a matter of days. And this lawsuit is both a sham and desperate attempt by MGM to head off what is rightly headed their way: liability judgments that will soar into hundreds of millions of dollars.
6
I agree with your general point, but I don't see how this has anything to do with handouts. It's only natural that victims of a terror act would want to be compensated in some way by someone for the unlucky, life-altering damage inflicted upon them. At the same time, it's only natural that MGM would not and should not feel liable for what happened given the context.
Yes, it may be "wrong" for victims of the shooting to seek litigation against MGM, but equating this to seeking handouts seems a bit off-base to me. Misguided or unfair, I think, would be better choices.
2