Kentucky Injury Lawyers

MGM Resorts International Denies Liability for October Shooting

Published on Jul 17, 2018 at 1:16 pm in News.

Last October, a mass shooting took place at a concert in Las Vegas. Stephen Paddock, the shooter, killed 58 people and injured more than 850. MGM Resorts International owns the property where the shooting happened: Mandalay Bay and the Route 91 Harvest festival venue. Several lawsuits were filed against the company after the shooting stating that MGM Resorts could have and should have done more to protect its victims from the assault.

Now, MGM Resorts International has responded by filing a lawsuit claiming that the company isn’t liable for the injuries and deaths that occurred. “No MGM Party attempted to commit, knowingly participated in, aided, abetted, committed, or participated in any conspiracy to commit any act of terrorism,” the lawsuit states. MGM maintains that they followed all the necessary safety precautions for the event. It was approved by the Department of Homeland Security.

MGM sued over 1000 victims of the shooting—more than 800 defendants in California and 200 in Nevada. The lawsuit states that the security company on the premises of the time of the shooting provided a “variety of services” designed to prevent mass violence and that those services were certified by the Department of Homeland Security as appropriate. The use of such a company makes it difficult to pin liability down on MGM.

The lawsuit cites a federal law that was put into place in 2002 to encourage companies to utilize anti-terrorism “security technologies” without having to be held liable for damages that occur if an attack of mass violence happens regardless of the efforts in place. This law has made cases against venues and establishments where mass violence occurs difficult, but the law alone may not be enough to stop catastrophic events of this nature from happening in the first place.

Legal representatives of the affected victims have accused MGM Resorts of judge-shopping, so they can find a judge they like at the federal level instead of the state level, where a lawyer of one of the victims believes the matter should be handled. The case is currently ongoing.