The tragedy was horrific but can someone tell me why MGM would be legally liable for some nut renting a room in their place and shooting people.?
ANd if they are responsible how are they responsible to the tune of $13 million plus per victim. IF the average victim made $150,000 in a year, they'd only make $6 million in a lifetime of work.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/las-vegas-massacre-victims-families-151414010.html
Less than a million per. Over 800 were wounded. They are included in that settlement.
I don't get it. Did they find that MGM security could have gotten to the shooter faster?
people can sue for anything...companies can settle if they like.
They had $750M or so in insurance.
Lawyers get a big cut 1/4 to 1/3
As a result of this lawsuit, Las Vegas hotels will no longer be able to let rooms to individuals with a psychiatric disorder. Thus, Las Vegas is officially closed.
MGM is the party with the deepest pockets.
It is an interesting turn of events. The victims of the Aurora movie theater shooting sued the theater owner for having inadequate security and ended up having to pay the defendant's attorney's fees. MGM actually sued the victims for declaratory relief under a terrorism law that granted immunity to businesses that install anti-terrorism surveillance equipment. But ultimately, MGM did have some bad facts. MGM gave the shooter access to service elevators as part of his high roller status. There are security videos of him wheeling in carts of guns and ammo with no one at the hotel doing anything about it. Then, when the shooting started, a security guard went to the shooters room and was shot. MGM's security pretty much froze up after that and waited for police. So, there was enough to get MGM in front of a jury. The last thing MGM needs is to reopen these wounds by going to trial. Paying $800 mil now is much better than paying $1 bil+ later and lose tons of business as the whole mess ends up back in the news.
I don't understand it.
The hotel resort was a much as a victim, had no responsability. It probably lost a lot of money. Why would it pay anything?
The compensationsystem in the US are something else. It probably does not exist anywhere outside the US.
Ever see Grey's Anatomy, season nine when the plane crashes with a bunch of doctors onboard? They sue the hospital and get 15mil each and the hospital nearly goes bankrupt. Same thing.
The hotel likely settled because there was insurance coverage, and multiple layers of excess coverage, and the insurers did not like the odds of putting the policy limits at risk . These could be multiple claims, with multiple separate insured occurrences under the policies. The underlying theories of negligence respecting allowing a guest/invitee over a period of days to turn the premises into a fortress high above the concert area would be sound. Too risky to take to trial for the insurers and the insured, too much further bad publicity for the hotel = inevitable settlement.
5000mLegends wrote:
I don't understand it.
The hotel resort was a much as a victim, had no responsability. It probably lost a lot of money. Why would it pay anything?
The compensationsystem in the US are something else. It probably does not exist anywhere outside the US.
Sponge wrote:
The hotel likely settled because there was insurance coverage, and multiple layers of excess coverage, and the insurers did not like the odds of putting the policy limits at risk . These could be multiple claims, with multiple separate insured occurrences under the policies. The underlying theories of negligence respecting allowing a guest/invitee over a period of days to turn the premises into a fortress high above the concert area would be sound. Too risky to take to trial for the insurers and the insured, too much further bad publicity for the hotel = inevitable settlement.
5000mLegends wrote:
I don't understand it.
The hotel resort was a much as a victim, had no responsability. It probably lost a lot of money. Why would it pay anything?
The compensationsystem in the US are something else. It probably does not exist anywhere outside the US.
That's how it works in the US. But I am almost sure than in any european country, or even in south america, Asia , Africa, the hotel pay nothing as it's not the hotel's fault that a terrorist attacked there.
US courts fail to practice common sense when it comes to liability and responsibility for business and property owners. I know of a case recently in Georgia where a man was gunned down in a parking lot, the judge found that the gunman bore 0% of the responsibility for the occurrence and the business who owned the lot was burdened with 100%. The gunman! Not at all liable! Insurers beware...
not my normal name wrote:
The tragedy was horrific but can someone tell me why MGM would be legally liable for some nut renting a room in their place and shooting people.?
ANd if they are responsible how are they responsible to the tune of $13 million plus per victim. IF the average victim made $150,000 in a year, they'd only make $6 million in a lifetime of work.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/las-vegas-massacre-victims-families-151414010.html
He used their hotel as a sniper nest. That should answer your first question lol.
Had you ever heard of pain and suffering? They aren't just liable for lost wages.
Not a lawyer but with some legal background. MGM probably settled because if the case went to court they would very likely lose. 58 dead. 800 injured. With actual damages + punitive damages awarded the awards could be huge. MORE than $800M. MGM is being sued because their hotel was the perfect sniper's nest which he used to kill 58 and wound 800 people. MGM in effect, aided him in the massacre, though not willingly of course. It's the same as if an assault rifle manufacturer was sued if their product was used in a shooting or a car manufacturer if their product caused a fatality. The number of victims was huge so the award is proportionate. With 858 victims, it comes out to less than $1M per victim average.
Officially closed.
Hahaha
MGM was negligent in allowing someone to bring multiple rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo to a hotel room. This wasn't a pea shooter hiding in his sock. He had dozens of large rifles and enough ammo to hold off a couple battalions of Marines.
It's better for MGM not to fight this anyways. It wouldn't be good for their reputation to go on record trying to avoid paying the victims of the worst mass shooting in US history. Especially when many of those victims will keep coming to Vegas and staying in their hotel rooms. In fact, there's a good chance MGM gets a lot of that money back over the next 30 years by these victims staying at the MGM.
super fun insurance guy wrote:
US courts fail to practice common sense when it comes to liability and responsibility for business and property owners. I know of a case recently in Georgia where a man was gunned down in a parking lot, the judge found that the gunman bore 0% of the responsibility for the occurrence and the business who owned the lot was burdened with 100%. The gunman! Not at all liable! Insurers beware...
The court had nothing to do with it since it was settled out of court. But juries often fall for sob stories and figure big, evil insurance companies have too much money anyway so they are the ones paying. (Not recognizing the problems with that "logic").
not my normal name wrote:
The tragedy was horrific but can someone tell me why MGM would be legally liable for some nut renting a room in their place and shooting people.?
ANd if they are responsible how are they responsible to the tune of $13 million plus per victim. IF the average victim made $150,000 in a year, they'd only make $6 million in a lifetime of work.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/las-vegas-massacre-victims-families-151414010.html
Shooting people? No one got shot and no one died. Where are the obituaries? Fake shooting.
Not sure where you are getting your numbers but there are thousands of people that this money is going to. Nowhere near the amount per person that you have said.
Plus it's their insurance companies that are paying it out. Not MGM.
Insurance companies aren't paying. They are passing all their costs on to us. Higher rates to businesses now that get passed down to consumers. Higher rates to individuals to make up their bottom line. Only 1 group, us, actual pays. Judges should throw out these lawsuits.