http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mg...g-any-liability/ar-AAAbjsV?ocid=ientp#image=1
Never forget that the house always wins. Douche bags
Never forget that the house always wins. Douche bags
MGM Resorts International sues more than 1,000 victims from Las Vegas mass shooting
- Thread starter Bubbahotep
- Start date
That article seems to be lacking details. Is this a counter-suit against 1000 victims who were part of a class-action suit?
Either way, it's douche-y and if I were a consumer of gaming services and hotels in Las Vegas, I would boycott all MGM properties.
Horrible move.
However, why should the hotel be liable for the actions of the killer? If they are, then logically it would have been incumbent upon the hotel (or any other entity in the future) to monitor and even search all their guests and their belongings to prevent such an occurrence.
However, why should the hotel be liable for the actions of the killer? If they are, then logically it would have been incumbent upon the hotel (or any other entity in the future) to monitor and even search all their guests and their belongings to prevent such an occurrence.
If this was a single murder, then I can see the hotel not being liable, but the amount of weaponry he brought in could and should be considered gross negligence. I mean, surveillance at the casino I work at can tell if an employee sneaks an extra chicken tender in their meal, I'm sure someone had to notice the amount of items he kept bringing in, even if it was over a few days.
its been said that the only thing about to stop the NRA/gun freaks is the insurance industry.
finally insurance would be doing us a favor.
finally insurance would be doing us a favor.
I would assume that they should have noticed, but I suppose the key is whether the act of bringing a lot of stuff in would have been enough for a judge to issue a warrant to search his belongings. If not, there's not much the resort could have done.
Sounds like their way of shopping for a favorable judge by moving it to federal court.
I think you’re right, but I really want to see the filings because I don’t know what they’re suing for. What is their claim, what are their damages?
Also, I hope they know what they’re doing, because this will not be good publicity
That’s a bad PR look but I am confused what they are suing for and what the details are. Right now it looks like a terribly written article with no details and a click bait headline.
This article has some details:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime...s-no-liability-to-las-vegas-shooting-victims/
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime...s-no-liability-to-las-vegas-shooting-victims/
Why do you need a warranty to search your own property? The hotel still owns the room, not the guest.
They do not own the bags of the guest, and have no right to search those bags without a warrant of some sort (I am fairly confident on that).
Found an answer: yes, a warrant would have been required.
http://www.gsblaw.com/duff-on-hospitality-law/guest-room-privacy-and-the-fourth-amendment
"Courts have recognized that the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches and seizures in hotel and motel rooms. Certain exceptions allow for warrantless searches and seizures, including consent. In broad terms, the consent exception means that a party's agreement, actual or implied to a search and/or seizure renders a warrant unnecessary.
In general, during a guest's stay at the hotel, only the guest may consent to a search of his or her room. While hotel staff members may access the room for cleaning and maintenance during the guest's stay, they are not authorized to allow police to enter the room. Thus, during a guest's tenancy at the hotel, employees should not allow police to enter the guest's room without a search warrant."
http://www.gsblaw.com/duff-on-hospitality-law/guest-room-privacy-and-the-fourth-amendment
"Courts have recognized that the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches and seizures in hotel and motel rooms. Certain exceptions allow for warrantless searches and seizures, including consent. In broad terms, the consent exception means that a party's agreement, actual or implied to a search and/or seizure renders a warrant unnecessary.
In general, during a guest's stay at the hotel, only the guest may consent to a search of his or her room. While hotel staff members may access the room for cleaning and maintenance during the guest's stay, they are not authorized to allow police to enter the room. Thus, during a guest's tenancy at the hotel, employees should not allow police to enter the guest's room without a search warrant."
That's to call the police though. I'm pretty sure you can tell somebody to get the **** off your property if they won't consent see what's in their bags.
Basically, there is a 2002 federal law that gives liability protections to companies that use certain methods and devices to prevent mass violence. MGM is "suing" to try and get their case in a federal court, hoping to get their liability dismissed under this federal law. Apparently MGM feels that they have the required procedures/devices in place to meet the requirement of the federal law.
The alternative for MGM is to sit through years of litigation as the victim lawsuits work their way through the Nevada courts, and likely pay millions of dollars in settlements. MGM is probably willing to take a one-time publicity hit now, rather than taking repeated publicity hits for years to come each time one of these cases comes to court.
The alternative for MGM is to sit through years of litigation as the victim lawsuits work their way through the Nevada courts, and likely pay millions of dollars in settlements. MGM is probably willing to take a one-time publicity hit now, rather than taking repeated publicity hits for years to come each time one of these cases comes to court.
So they should, as a matter of policy, kick out any guest that accumulates what they deem to be too many packages? And to enact that policy, they should monitor all guests and keep count?
Yeah, there’s no way I’m blaming MGM for this. I don’t think people would rvee consent to having their bags searched each time they go into a hotel.
Yeah thats not how that works. Same reason your landlord cannot just barge into a unit you are renting without proper notice.
Which raises a good question that I had not considered. If he indeed prepared for a couple days, how did the Hotel staff NOT notice all the weapons or additional bags? Seems like seeing a single weapon would be enough to raise alarms and get a warrant. There is also the time frame and why it took so long to call 911 or help locate the room.
