Earlier this week it was reported that the owner of the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas filed a lawsuit against more than 1,000 victims of a mass shooting that killed 58 people in 2017. The MGM Resorts International’s lawsuit does not seek money and appears to be a judicial bid to avoid liability and dismiss claims against it. On October 1st of last year, 64 year old.
Stephen Paddock opened fire at festival attendees before committing suicide. Paddock had set up a firing point with 23 weapons in the Mandalay Bay overlooking the Route 91 Harvest festival, also owned by MGM.
Trial lawyer Christopher Marlowe of The Haggard Law Firm, which has litigated hundreds of negligent security cases many of which were against hotels/motels, says MGM Resorts International overwhelming failed to pick up the shooter’s behavior that day and had security issues that lead to the tragedy in the weeks and months before it occurred.
“MGM Resorts and Mandalay Bay, in addition to facilitating mass murder at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas, are now attempting to use the court system to bastardize federal law and revictimize the families of those injured and killed on its property” says Marlowe.
He adds that the Federal SAFETY Act does not provide blanket immunity to landowners and operators who simply write a check to a security consulting firm which happens to be certified by the Department of Homeland Security. The premise of this lawsuit against all of these victims is that, by hiring a certified firm, MGM had no further obligations whatsoever to its guests.
Marlowe says that the introduction to this absurd lawsuit states, “[Stephen] Paddock intended to inflict mass injury, death and destruction… The post-attack investigation revealed that Paddock brought in his van, which he parked in the hotel garage, 90 pounds of explosives, consisting of 20 two-pound containers of exploding targets, 10 one-pound containers of exploding targets and 2 twenty-pound bags of explosive precursors.”
click here to review notable Haggard Law Negligent Security Cases
The Haggard Law Firm partner adds “The “Seller” of the Qualified Anti–Terrorism Technology used at the festival, Contemporary Services Corporation, was presumably not in control over the security protocols and procedures relative to guests’ stockpiling of weapons at Mandalay Bay in the days leading up to this attack. The shooter, in addition to the explosives he collected over a prolonged period of time, had twenty-three firearms in his hotel room at the time of the massacre. ”
The overwhelming failure by Mandalay Bay and MGM to appreciate the buildup of an entire militia’s worth of weaponry in a hotel room, by itself, is an independent and direct proximate cause of what ultimately transpired. The hotel’s effort to immunize itself from negligence spanning not hours, but rather, days, weeks or months of security neglect, cannot be pawned off under a federal statute designed to protect purveyors of security technology for mass terrorism crimes that unfold in a matter of seconds. This particular act of terrorism required the kind of neglect that brings in boardroom level failures across every spectrum of hotel management – not just a few discreet minutes during a single music festival. – Christopher Marlowe