Las Vegas massacre.

dudeman said:

Wait a minute, I thought the shooter, the NRA and all of the gun owners were responsible, not the hotel.

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

tbergs said:

Stay classy MGM resorts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/us/mgm-resorts-sues-victims.html

The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!

But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.

I disagree. We don't know all of the details on if any policies weren't followed by the hotel and can't assume there wasn't some negligence. I don't feel bad for Mandalay Bay and think it's ridiculous how they're responding. As someone else already stated, they would never have to try every case if they were able to establish their grounds for dismissal in the first few. The cases would never make it to court unless they could identify some extenuating circumstance that made it different from the rest. From what I've heard, they already made some changes to certain policies to improve security moving forward, which lawyers often like to use as an indicator that they failed to properly protect the public and other patrons from harm in the first place.

I understand disagreeing with it, but I don't think it qualifies as ridiculous, considering the circumstances. It's just too bad that what seems to be their only real option to fight the law suits against them comes as what looks like retaliation against victims of a horrible attack (under the assumption that they genuinely feel they aren't at fault, and I have no reason to assume they don't). That really gets the emotions going against MGM. To be clear, I do not "feel bad" for MGM at all, although I do feel bad for Mandalay Bay staff in general.

It isn’t their only option, it’s the option they chose to use. Their lawyer admits he had to dig hard to try to find a law that would allow them to try to get the suits banned, and that they are not at all sure that this law applies. 

Their other option is to fight the suits in court, presenting their evidence as to why they are not responsible or negligent. If they are successful in the first few suits the others will likely be dropped, because if a party persists in a civil suit when there is little to no chance of success and they were offered the chance to drop the suit, they can be found liable for the other party’s legal fees. 

I meant it is their only option to keep the law suits from going forward. I'm really just not too sure why people expect them to not make that attempt. If their lawyers can possibly find a way to avoid going to court, then why wouldn't they? Wouldn't the lawyers not be doing their jobs to the best of their abilities if they didn't at least try to prevent that?? Why in the world would corporate lawyers want to fight law suits in court and present evidence if they could find a way to avoid doing any of that via a legal loophole? I'm just looking at it objectively.

Well, yeah, but that doesn’t shield them from public censure for doing it. 

 

No... I just also happen to be of the opinion that those suing the hotel are in the wrong in the first place, all things considered. But I figure that has no impact on the fact that MGM's lawyers are just doing their jobs properly. And I still think the new media is presenting the story in a really biased way.

Then let a judge or jury tell them they are wrong...

Meltdown99 said:

That's not really what's happening.  They want to stop legal action before these victims lawyer can sift through the evidence...

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

I agree with PJ’s comments, being completely misrepresented by the media. When I first saw the title I was shocked, then I read it and it seems totally reasonable.
Of they in fact were negligent, then in theory they’d lose this suit and the rest will follow. I don’t see how this is anything that big of a deal.

Except that is not what the suit is about. The issue in this suit isn’t whether they are negligent or not, it’s whether the suits to determine negligence can go ahead or not. They don’t have to prove they are not, they just have to argue that this law shields them from having to show any proof at all. They could be flagrantly negligent but if they win this case it won’t matter. 

That’s not how I understood it to be.
i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

I agree with PJ’s comments, being completely misrepresented by the media. When I first saw the title I was shocked, then I read it and it seems totally reasonable.
Of they in fact were negligent, then in theory they’d lose this suit and the rest will follow. I don’t see how this is anything that big of a deal.

Except that is not what the suit is about. The issue in this suit isn’t whether they are negligent or not, it’s whether the suits to determine negligence can go ahead or not. They don’t have to prove they are not, they just have to argue that this law shields them from having to show any proof at all. They could be flagrantly negligent but if they win this case it won’t matter. 

That’s not how I understood it to be.
i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?

You're both basically saying the same thing in different ways, haha, and you're both right. I definitely do not take this move to be some kind of admission of negligence btw.

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

I agree with PJ’s comments, being completely misrepresented by the media. When I first saw the title I was shocked, then I read it and it seems totally reasonable.
Of they in fact were negligent, then in theory they’d lose this suit and the rest will follow. I don’t see how this is anything that big of a deal.

Except that is not what the suit is about. The issue in this suit isn’t whether they are negligent or not, it’s whether the suits to determine negligence can go ahead or not. They don’t have to prove they are not, they just have to argue that this law shields them from having to show any proof at all. They could be flagrantly negligent but if they win this case it won’t matter. 

That’s not how I understood it to be.
i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?

You're both basically saying the same thing in different ways, haha, and you're both right. I definitely do not take this move to be some kind of admission of negligence btw.

No, we’re not. 

Seems that way. The suit is indeed about them arguing that the terrorism law shields them from the lawsuits against them. That is what mace is saying too from what I can tell - the lawsuit is meant to show that they are not liable because of that law and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

I agree with PJ’s comments, being completely misrepresented by the media. When I first saw the title I was shocked, then I read it and it seems totally reasonable.
Of they in fact were negligent, then in theory they’d lose this suit and the rest will follow. I don’t see how this is anything that big of a deal.

Except that is not what the suit is about. The issue in this suit isn’t whether they are negligent or not, it’s whether the suits to determine negligence can go ahead or not. They don’t have to prove they are not, they just have to argue that this law shields them from having to show any proof at all. They could be flagrantly negligent but if they win this case it won’t matter. 

That’s not how I understood it to be.
i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?

 No. Whether or not they win this suit has no bearing on whether the suits against them have any merit. It is two completely separate legal questions. That’s why your statement “if they win, then I’m assuming that all those individual cases would not have won” is wrong. They might win and still have been negligent; it just means it never even gets to that stage.