330 Alhambra Circle

Coral Gables, FL 33134

633 S. Andrews Avenue Suite 400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

(305) 446-5700

(954) 323-4400

Speak with an Attorney

Reaction to Las Vegas Hotel Suing Mass Shooting Victims

 

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

Continue reading “Reaction to Las Vegas Hotel Suing Mass Shooting Victims”

Summer Swimming Safety Tips

 

By Christopher Marlowe, trial lawyer, The Haggard Law Firm

Deep into the summer months, swimming pools offer a well-earned respite from the sauna intensity of the sun, and the steambath that follows a warm summer rain.  We eagerly jump into swimming pools at hotels, resorts, friends’ houses and on cruise ships.  Those who own pools usually don’t think about pool safety all that much, apart from supervising any children who may be using it.  We assume, subconsciously, that other peoples’ pools, and especially those operated by businesses, are at least as safe as the one we have at our own house, and that the rules at home will be followed as strictly in a public pool as they would be anywhere else.

 

These are dangerous assumptions. If you think that checking the safety of a swimming pool before using it is unnecessary or smacks of paranoia, consider this: drowning is the leading cause of injury death among children ages 1–4 in Florida.  Too many children (of all ages) have drowned without a capable supervisor watching the area, and others have drowned while those nearby confused horseplay with a deadly drowning underway. Our team at Haggard Law Firm has litigated cases time and time again of drownings or near drownings that could have been prevented by those responsible for a pool taking the proper measures to make it the safest environment possible. And yes, many of these cases have been again apartment complexes and hotels.

Here are easy steps to take to ensure safety around pools during your summer vacation:

Continue reading “Summer Swimming Safety Tips”

The Nuts And Bolts of Negligent Security Cases

The Nuts And Bolts of Negligent Security Cases

By: Michael Haggard  (Bio) and Christopher Marlowe (Bio), The Haggard Law Firm

Negligent security cases are time consuming, very costly, require a hyper attention to detail, a team effort and knowledge of foreseeability, and in many cases criminal law and a ‘typical’ negligent security case does not and will not ever exist. Our firm has handled hundreds of these cases over the years and have obtained more than $400 million in results for our clients. We can most affirmatively say the immense challenges of these cases are outweighed by the results that can help bring justice to a victim or family that the criminal justice system may never be able to provide, while also changing the way a business or entire industry operates.

In a wrongful death car accident case, we all know to preserve evidence, request the relevant reports, statements and traffic homicide reports.  We contact the witnesses tied to this particular moment in time, hound law enforcement and medical examiners to make sure we have all evidence tied to the incident, and begin working these pieces into the theory we hope will increase the probability of success at the end of the case.  While this basic and incomplete framework is an important part of a negligent security case as well, it does not account for the historical analysis necessary to place the subject incident in the perspective necessary to appreciate which theory is best, and why. 

Power of Foreseeability: $100 million verdict

Like any of the most complicated areas of practice there are multiple layers to consider when litigating a negligent security case.  Foreseeability of the act in question, most often a crime, is the first element of the case to consider. For example, it is good to know whether a particular shooting or sexual assault occurred in the common area of an apartment complex, over which the owner or manager had exclusive control.  It is important to know whether there is a history of any such activity upon the Premises, and in the areas adjacent or related thereto. There is a history of cases where the Plaintiff counsel assumes that because the crime does not appear to be a “hit” and because the crime on the property is “bad” that their case is a winner.  Some of the most common arguments by defense council are tied to the character of the victim or because the area may have a high crime rate there isn’t much the property owner could have done to stop the incident that caused the death or harm of your client. In most states, neither argument has much merit because of the statutes that lay out the responsibility of the property owner to take reasonable measures to protect all guests, residents or customers on a commercial property from harm. In November 2007, we successfully obtained a $102.7 million verdict in a negligent security shooting case thought to be the largest verdict of its kind in the country. We represented a patron of an exotic dance club.  Our client sat waiting in his car for his friend to return from retrieving his wallet when he was approached by an unknown person who attempted to rob him at gunpoint. The assailant shot our young client. The bullets rendered him a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic.  The jury found that the strip mall where the club was located did not have sufficient security, as there was only one guard on duty. The strip mall’s ownership admitted they had never spent one dollar on security or safety despite the fact there were 26 violent crimes on the same property during the seven years prior to the shooting of our client.  Video on Case

 

Injured or lost a love one on the property of a business, apartment complex or hotel? We want to hear your story, click here or call 305.446.5700

 

Full Speed Investigation

Continue reading “The Nuts And Bolts of Negligent Security Cases”