USA: MGM Resorts claims co. cannot be held liable for Las Vegas mass shooting; asks court to dismiss lawsuits brought on behalf of victims
All components of this story
Author: Joshua Barajas, PBS News Hour (USA)
MGM Resorts International filed a lawsuit...saying the company has “no liability of any kind” to the victims of the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas. More than 2,500 people...are looking to hold MGM responsible for the “deaths, injuries, and emotional distress resulting” from the attack. MGM’s lawsuit...said these claims “must be dismissed” because the security services it procured...were provided by Contemporary Services Corporation, who has been certified by the Department of Homeland Security...The SAFETY ACT, enacted in 2002,...limits a company’s liability in claims that follow a terror attack, so long as that company used services certified by Homeland Security...Las Vegas authorities have yet to declare Paddock’s attack an act of terrorism...[P]olice have not determined a clear motive...Companies who have certification of the SAFETY Act cannot use liability protections “unless or until the secretary of Homeland Security has declared that the underlying event — in this case, Steven Paddock’s murderous rampage — an act of terrorism,” said Finch, a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. MGM is also asserting that all of its liability is erased because Contemporary Services Corporation has SAFETY Act protections. That is also incorrect, Finch said...[I]t remains to be seen if a judge agrees with MGM on the SAFETY Act grants the company protection from liability.
Author: Rachel Crosby, Las Vegas Review-Journal (USA)
MGM Resorts International has filed federal lawsuits against more than 1,000 Las Vegas mass shooting victims in an effort to avoid liability. The company, which owns Mandalay Bay and the Route 91 Harvest festival venue, argues that it cannot be held liable for Oct. 1 deaths, injuries or other damages, adding that any claims against MGM parties “must be dismissed,” according to complaints filed Friday in Nevada and California...The company cites a 2002 federal act that extends liability protection to any company that uses “anti-terrorism” technology or services that can “help prevent and respond to mass violence.”...[T]he 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. They...ask that a judge decide if the 2002 act is applicable, and if so, determine that future civil lawsuits against the company are not viable...
Author: David Ferrara Las Vegas Review-Journal (USA)
More than 450 victims of the Oct. 1 massacre in Las Vegas have filed a lawsuit in California against MGM Resorts International and other defendants...The lawsuit includes two wrongful death claims, while lawyers involved in the litigation also have filed other complaints in Los Angeles...Among five complaints filed...in Los Angeles Superior Court, one names hundreds of victims from Nevada, California and 19 other states, along with victims from Canada. Alleging negligence, the suit claims that MGM...failed to properly monitor the people entering and leaving the Mandalay Bay suite from which shooter Stephen Paddock fired upon a crowd of thousands at the Route 91 Harvest festival, killing 58 and leaving more than 500 injured. Along with the hotel-casino giant and Paddock’s estate, defendants include MGM Resorts Festival Grounds LLC, Live Nation Entertainment Inc. and Contemporary Services Corp., a security company...According to the suit, MGM acted negligently in several ways: failing to monitor the hotel premises..., failing to respond to the shooting of security officer Jesus Campos, failing to notice or take precautions against Paddock’s delivery of guns and ammunition to his hotel room, failing to adequately prevent or discover broken windows; failing to train employees on suspicious activity, and ignoring the “do not disturb” sign...