Claiming that they are not responsible for the deaths for 58 and the injuring of hundreds more in Las Vegas last year, MGM has filed a counter suit against victims of the Mandalay Bay massacre.
MGM believes that a law passed after 9/11 (SAFETY Act) absolves the firm of any liability in the shooting and the company takes the position that the suits filed against the firm have hurt the hotel / casino’s business. More
NBC tries to do some much needed narrative control for MGM by claiming that the victims aren’t really the target of MGM’s suit. Here
“NBC tries to do some much needed narrative control for MGM by claiming that the victims aren’t really the target of MGM’s suit.”
Then who is?
They’ll drop this by end of week.
If MGM thinks the suits filed by the victims have hurt their business just wait till this is widely known. I can’t imagine a dumber move.
Ordinarily I would say never bet against the house.
But there is so much unknown about this case, the lengthy stay of the alleged assailant, the lack of video provided by Mandalay Bay that it looks like a major coverup.
I don’t see that MGM bears any responsibility for some guy using a room he rented to fire into a crowd.
Just like I don’t see Buick responsible for gang banger drive bys in their cars, McDonalds responsible for customer obesity, or Appleby’s for a drunk driver that kills a family.
But they get sued, because that’s where the money is.
“So far our quarterly board meeting is going great, now lets hear from Todd in Legal.”
“Thanks Mr. MGM, listen to this. In order to protect ourselves from future lawsuits we’re gonna’ sue everyone who filed a claim….but then dropped it…. and anyone who even said they were gonna file.”
“Bold strategy Todd, let’s see how it plays out. Just wish Tammy from from marketing was here to alert us to any potential image problems this move might cause.”
MGM”s security “provisIon” was way below adequate for the event. The families of the deceased being provided free tickets to the next event could not be considered adequate compensation for the trauma endured for inadequate security on behalf of MGM.
Mgm employed an anti terrorist security company that was licensed by homeland security in both the hotel and the venue this is less a law suit them them absolving themself of liability which should have been as soon as they had to pay certain security outfits
Hey MGM, it’s a fine line between covering your ass and becoming one. Thinks you crossed that line.
From Extirpates: “MGM”s security “provision” was way below adequate for the event.”
Bullshit.
Tell me how you would have prevented an attack like this one. Lay your plan out for me, but do so carefully, because I’m going to dissect it, based on real world actualities.
ETA: Do not confuse this with a personal attack. This is how I discourse with my friends. You make a declarative statement, be prepared to defend it. We have marvelous discussions and learn much from each others experiences and knowledge doing this.
Beats the fuck out of watching the evening sitcoms.
Don’t know all the facts, other than those given by the media, but I have to agree with Lowell on this.
I think a counter suit might be a bit much, but the point remains. Is the US Navy responsible for Pearl Harbor? Can they be sued? How about 9/11? Sue the airlines?
I think it spits on the graves of their loved ones to try to profit from their deaths in this way. Lawsuits have their place. Bad products that cause unnecessary deaths, etc. But what do these lawsuits change? What’s the goal, other than financial gain?