News World
  • Facebook
    Facebook
  • Twitter
    Twitter
  • Pinterest
    Pinterest
  • +
  • Linkedin
    Linkedin
  • WhatsApp
    WhatsApp
  • Email
    Email
SHARE THIS
  • Facebook
    Facebook
  • Twitter
    Twitter
  • Pinterest
    Pinterest
  • Linkedin
    Linkedin
  • WhatsApp
    WhatsApp
  • Email
    Email

It’s been ten months since the shooting attack by Stephen Paddock at the Route 91 Harvest Country Festival in Las Vegas that killed 58 people and left another 500 wounded. It is still the deadliest shooting in U.S. history. Paddock opened fire from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel across the street from where the outdoor festival was happening the night of October 1, 2017. Now, MGM — the owner of the Mandalay Bay — is taking preemptive legal action against over 1,000 of the survivors to keep them from suing the company.

MGM is seeking a court declaration that they cannot be held responsible for any of the deaths, injuries or damages from the attack, claiming that 2,500 such lawsuits have already been threatened or filed against the company. They are citing a post-9/11 anti-terrorism law as a defense. The law is complex but MGM is essentially arguing that the liability for the event lies with the private security vendor hired by the venue and approved by the Department of Homeland Security, not with the hotel.

While they may have a legal argument, lawyers representing the victims were quick to point out the moral disparity in it. They called it “a stretch,” “outrageous,” and verging on “unethical.” Likewise, the public is completely opposed to a large multinational corporation suing the victims of a massacre, many of whom lost loved ones and had to experience the trauma of running for their lives while people around them were gunned down. Within a few minutes of the news breaking, the hashtag #BoycottMGMResorts had started gaining popularity.

MGM Resorts made a statement clarifying their intentions with the lawsuits, saying they are not seeking money or legal fees from victims. Since the anti-terrorism law is federal, however, the chain is asking that the case be seen by a federal court rather than at the state level. Some have speculated that federal courts are also more likely to be sympathetic to a large company — this is Trump’s America, after all.

Still, it doesn’t look like people are buying MGM’s argument. The company probably should have seen this PR nightmare coming.