Las Vegas

Las Vegas Hotel Sues Victims of 2017 Mass Shooting

Citing a post-9/11 terror law, MGM Resorts International argues that it isn't liable for the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.

|

|||Francis Dean /Deanpictures/Newscom
Francis Dean /Deanpictures/Newscom

MGM Resorts International is filing a federal lawsuit against more than 1,000 victims of the October 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. The company aims to exploit a legal loophole protecting companies that use "anti-terrorism" tools.

Last year, gunman Stephen Paddock opened fire on the Route 91 Harvest country music festival just before killing himself. Nearly 60 died and more than 500 were taken to the hospital. Paddock's vantage point in his room at the Mandalay Bay hotel contributed to his ability to harm so many.

Hundreds of victims filed lawsuits against MGM Resorts, which owns both the Mandalay Bay and the Route 91 Harvest venue. The suits accused the company of not doing enough to prevent the deadly events. In one suit filed on behalf of 450 victims, the plaintiffs argue that MGM had a "duty of reasonable care" to monitor hotel guests.

Earlier this week, MGM Resorts filed its suit, hoping to absolve itself of liability. The lawsuit is not asking for money; it wants the court to consider the applicability of the 2002 SAFETY Act. As the Las Vegas Journal-Review explains, the law

extends liability protection to any company that uses "anti-terrorism" technology or services that can "help prevent and respond to mass violence."

In this case, the company argues, the security vendor MGM hired for Route 91, Contemporary Services Corp., was protected from liability because its services had been certified by the Department of Homeland Security for "protecting against and responding to acts of mass injury and destruction.

The lawsuits argue that this protection also extends to MGM, since MGM hired the security company.

If the suit is won, it would render inviable any future civil suits against MGM over the massacre.

Attorney Robert Eglet, who is representing a number of the victims, calls the lawsuit "outrageous," telling the Journal-Review that MGM is engaged in a "blatant display of judge shopping."

MGM Resorts spokesperson Debra DeShong released a statement, as reported:

The Federal Court is an appropriate venue for these cases and provides those affected with the opportunity for a timely resolution. Years of drawn out litigation and hearings are not in the best interest of victims, the community and those still healing.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

65 responses to “Las Vegas Hotel Sues Victims of 2017 Mass Shooting

  1. Man, this title makes it sound like MGM is doing something way more fucked up then they are actually doing.

    1. Bring back Ed, god damn it.

    2. The headline makes it sound like MGM is suing the victims of the 2017 mass shooting. The article, on the other hand, makes it sound more like MGM is suing the victims of the 2017 mass shooting. If you follow the links in the article, it makes it sound like MGM is suing the victims of the 2017 mass shooting.

      1. Yes, but for no money, in order to avoid being sued themselves. That’s quite a bit different from the image the title brought to my head. Perhaps that was the conclusion you came to at first, but I can only speak of my own situation.

        1. Hugh believes only one side gets to engage in lawfare.

      2. No, the article makes it clear that they are not suing anyone.

    3. I’ve been given a $8755 due to the fact i’m jobless i want to preserve our have a have a examine consequently,
      i labored difficult final week and earned $19500 i offer my friends and friends to do that artwork you want to recognize
      that how many bucks earned in very last week plz test this internet website online to take extra facts..
      home MEDIA TECH thank you ..top right fortune. >>>>> https://1kdaily.us

  2. So they used their legally provided protection against frivolous lawsuits. No outrage here.

  3. What the fuck are people suing MGM for anyway? (OK, I know the answer is “because they have money”.) Because they built a hotel and let people rent rooms in it and… didn’t search all of their luggage thoroughly?

    How in the ever loving fuck was MGM supposed to prevent this?

    And even if they had searched the dude’s luggage, he didn’t have anything illegal.

    1. Bingo. Because they have money.

      Had they searched everyone’s bags thoroughly, they’d likely be getting sued for that.

  4. So…MGM wants to protect itself from lawsuits.

    That is not the same as suing somebody. Asking a court to say that a lawsuit has no standing is not the same thing as filing a lawsuit against somebody else.

    I hereby dub this story CLICKBAIT, and suggest that this comments section be dedicated to insulting whomever wrote the headline.

      1. BRING BACK ED

      2. Erectile Dysfunction? No Thank You!

    1. MGM literally filed federal lawsuits against the victims who sued them first. That is the same as suing somebody.

      1. So they countersued against. frivolous lawsuits.

        Oh so sorry, the way I worded it doesn’t let you paint MGM as monsters.

        1. No, they did not countersue, nor did they file suit against anyone. They’re asking for a ruling on their status

      2. They also filed 500 or so lawsuits against people who had not sued them, suits to terminate their ability to sue for their losses. Also why should the government pick winners and losers by indemnifying well connected firms and individuals and thus channeling lawsuits to other less well connected parties?

    2. i thought that was the legal claim but it appears to be the claim of the intern who wrote this article.

      That kind of claim needs some citations.

      1. “Zuri Davis is assistant editor at Reason.

        After graduating from Florida Atlantic University

        Ha! No wonder she doesn’t know how to cite anything.

        1. I forwarded this to MGM’S legal department so she can explain her behavior to them.

        2. That is the current policy for journalism; never cite anything other than anonymous sources and the internet trolls.

        3. But does she know how to make a diversity bridge?

  5. GUNS?! KKKORPORATIONS?!?!

    *sputters incoherently*

  6. There was some kind of shooting in Las Vegas last year?

    1. Yes, a few junkies were shooting heroin, is what I heard… Or more accurately, “getting shot by heroin”.

      They need to sure the Ragheads of Ragonia, I mean the Afghan Government Almighty, for not doing enough to stop their heroin from coming over here and forcibly shooting itself into our veins, dammit!!!!

      1. Oooops, I mean SUE the Ragheads of Ragonia… Damned squirrels are intercepting and bollixing my keystrokes!

        1. The squirrels all just got back from a vacation in Russia – – – – – – – –

    2. There was some kind of shooting in Las Vegas last year?

      I don’t recall the exact day of the week. However, I do remember that in Chicago it was all of them.

  7. What does an assistant editor do if you allow stupid ass headlines like this one through?

  8. Paddock’s vantage point in his room at the Mandalay Bay hotel contributed to his ability to harm so many.

    Assault hotel, thing that goes up, more than 10 rooms, etc., etc.

    1. No one NEEDS and assault hotel with more than 10 floors!!!

      1. If we’d banned magazines above 10 rounds and elevators, he’d have had to make ~110 trips up 32 flights of stairs. The way the Founding Fathers envisioned it.

        1. The founding fathers did not envision stairs. Back in their day they had to pull themselves up floors in a dumbwaiter.

  9. Still got to say, very strange how little came out about Paddock.

  10. At this point, we still have no proof that Paddock shot anyone. Or that anyone was shot, period. Where are the autopsy results? It’s been ten months.

    1. Maybe it’s because Paddock’s body’s genetic analysis revealed that he’s one of Trump’s many “love children” by porn stars, and they do NOT want that news to be revealed!!!

      1. Cute, but I was referring to the autopsy results of the alleged victims.

        1. The Clark County Coroner’s Office released the autopsy results for the victims. Plenty of media sources summarizing the findings are available. If you want copies of the original documents themselves, you can contact the Coroner’s Office. Or you could just do the usual conspiracy theorist/truther bullshit and not bother to put in even the slightest amount of effort.

  11. loophole

    FFS, loophole? Oh, you mean a law specifically crafted to shield liability?

    Is it a loophole because this isn’t really terrorism? Maybe. But if you wanted to argue that…MAKE THAT FUCKING ARGUMENT.

    For a magazine called Reason … (drinks…so what if it’s Tuesday?)

    1. Well, a lot of people were terrorized.
      But then, that happened November 2016 as well.

  12. “the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. ”

    What’s the point of doing this if your qualifiers basically admit that there have been worse shootings when it was far harder to shoot people?

    1. gettysburg comes to mind.

      1. Thats it! I’m suing Pennsylvanian farmers! They could have done more to prevent that tragedy.

    2. And the three worst U.S. mass murders in recent history weren’t shootings.

      Happy Land Night Club;
      Murrah Federal Building;
      9-11.

  13. the plaintiffs argue that MGM had a “duty of reasonable care” to monitor hotel guests.

    The plaintiffs know that suing the *government* for that is a non-starter.

  14. Attorney Robert Eglet, who is representing a number of the victims, calls the lawsuit “outrageous,” telling the Journal-Review that MGM is engaged in a “blatant display of judge shopping.”

    If you can’t trust a plaintiff’s attorney to give you a fair and unbiased opinion on the merits of the case, who can you trust? I can see the poor guy now, weeping bitter tears over the most blatant miscarriage of justice since the dismissal of his lawsuit against the movie The Neverending Story.

  15. The suits accused the company of not doing enough to prevent the deadly events. In one suit filed on behalf of 450 victims, the plaintiffs argue that MGM had a “duty of reasonable care” to monitor hotel guests.

    What, exactly, do they think MGM should have done? Compulsory searches of guest rooms? A limit on the number of bags/ luggage that guests are allowed to bring into the hotel*? I’m at a loss as to how the actions of a deranged lunatic are somehow the hotel’s fault.

    *That may not have done much good either, my understanding is that the gunman was seen on security cameras (after the fact, natch) taking multiple trips back and forth to his car. I don’t think it would be reasonable to expect hotel staff to remember the faces of every single guest at a very large hotel like MGM.

    1. *That may not have done much good either, my understanding is that the gunman was seen on security cameras (after the fact, natch) taking multiple trips back and forth to his car. I don’t think it would be reasonable to expect hotel staff to remember the faces of every single guest at a very large hotel like MGM.

      He had a bolt action rifle and at least one bullet in his room and they found something like 50 lbs. of tannerite and ‘several’ lbs. of ANFO in his car after he was dead.

      At most, they would’ve politely offered to lock up his guns for him or insist he keep them in his car or whatever and he would have (apparently) been forced to fall back to Plan B: blow up a bunch of people.


  16. Hundreds of victims filed lawsuits against MGM Resorts, which owns both the Mandalay Bay and the Route 91 Harvest venue.

    *facepalm*

    So the Hotel is the bad guy here because…the ‘victims’ are sympathetic?

    How about they just go ahead and sue the sun for providing the light that allowed him to target people, and the air for providing oxygen to his lungs?

    I know, I know, I’m an unfeeling asshole. Oh well.

    1. Slightly off-topic, but still within shouting distance:

      Donald Trump claimed that he lost all respect for Elliot Spitzer because the latter failed to sue Roger Stone after Spitzer had learned that Stone had called Spitzer’s father, using an alias, and threatening to sue Spitzer’s father if the father did not “confirm” allegations of Spitzer’s whoring.

      I read this recently in a New Yorker piece from 2008, penned by Jeff Tooban. I don’t much care for Tooban and I loathe Spitzer, but I kinda like Stone. So, whether its true or not, I don’t know, but the Trump part I believe.

    2. The sun and the atmosphere give away their stuff for free, they have no assets to claim.

      “Deep Pockets” litigation is absolutely dependent on sympathetic plaintiffs and a well-heeled soulless defendant, who may only be marginally involved. Mass shooting victims against a massive hotel/casino? You might as well print money for those attorneys.

      1. Joint and several liability. You can sue anybody, any time, for anything if they’ve got cash.

  17. I dont blame MGM. They are trying to get ahead of a bullshit blame game. Holding the Hotel responsible is bullshit. If it were the case that they could be held responsible for preventing the shooting then it would have entailed that they prognostic the future action that would be taken by a party who actions are taken in active effort to thwart any measures you have taken – its a no win game. You cannot hold them to account for the actions of a mad-man.

  18. Ignoring the law for a second, how do y’all feel about “venue owner is responsible for harm that comes to attendees” in general? This would include everything from “I got shot at your concert” to “idiot kid broke his leg while swimming in my pool”.

    Because that liability seems to be at the heart of the question. Is the venue liable to start with?

    If you’re not okay with such location-based liability, then your problem is far larger then this particular case.

    If you’re okay (ethically/morally) with the idea of location-based liability, then the question becomes can a venue become non-liable by purchasing a government-approved product?

    1. You’re kind of an idiot, since the venue owner isn’t responsible if someone at the venue punches you in the face. It wasn’t the venue that shot a lot of people from a completely separate building.

      1. And, notably, in what universe did the casino act negligently against a predictable harm.

      2. So you’re against location-based liability on general, putting you at odds with American jurisprudence on the topic in general.

        While I can understand that position, it does mean that your disagreement goes well beyond the cases in question.

  19. So, obviously, it is ridiculous to hold the hotel responsible for the attack.
    No one who is both truly honest and sane would blame them for that guy’s actions.
    But I have realized, more than ever, that we do not live in a sane and honest society.

    I just learned a couple days ago that the families of the victims of the Columbine school shooting sued the parents of the shooters.
    And won.
    That made me so angry and discouraged about the state of our nation.
    And that shooting was a long time ago.
    It hasn’t and isn’t going to get better, it seems.

  20. I wouldn’t hold the hotel responsible for the shooting, but this is messed up. I think this means that people who took a bullet or have a relative who died, even if they haven’t sued the hotel, are now being sued by the hotel. That should put them over the edge and make them file their own suits.

  21. This should turn to a public relations disaster in no time. MGM has been screwing things up in Vegas for years. It is time for them to go bye bye.

  22. The clickbaiting actually started with HuffPo and was picked up by the Leftosphere.

    The Reason editor isn’t being sloppy, she’s just plagiarizing.

  23. I heard President Trump played golf last week and shot 94! Very nice, Mr. President, but Paddock’s score was higher.

  24. Ain’t lawyers swell?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.