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
That article seems to be lacking details. Is this a counter-suit against 1000 victims who were part of a class-action suit?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
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.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.
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.
Sounds like their way of shopping for a favorable judge by moving it to federal court.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.
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?Sounds like their way of shopping for a favorable judge by moving it to federal court.
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.
Why do you need a warranty to search your own property? The hotel still owns the room, not the guest.
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."
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.
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?
Why do you need a warranty to search your own property? The hotel still owns the room, not the guest.
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."