Aside from the terrorism law, isn’t this a typical “no duty” case? How could a hotel possibly have a duty to non patrons of the hotel due to the actions of a customer?
Let’s assume that the security indeed saw the guy carrying AR-15s into his room. Those are legal in NV, yes? Am I not allowed to lease a portion of my property to someone who is committing no crime? I don’t see the duty or the breach of a duty if there is one.
Indeed, isn’t it a principle of tort law that there is no duty to assist? I can walk by a guy dying of a heart attack, grab a bag of popcorn, and watch him die, right? What if the Mandalay Bay security saw the guy setting up a tripod and said, “Holy shit, let’s see how this plays out”? Isn’t it still a no duty case?
Torts isn’t my thing, but I distinctly remember this from law school. I also remember that innkeepers have certain common law duties to their guests*, but I cannot recall that duty extending to non guests.
*I’ve always hated when businesses use the term “guests.” They are customers. The word “guest” implies an act of generosity or charity such that the thing given is free of charge. I am not a fucking guest at Wendy’s!
The victims were MGM guests, because the company owned the music festival as well as the hotel.
If I were arguing for the victims, I would cite the shifting and incomplete conclusions from the police investigation as to how the hotel’s own security responded to and reported the situation as a basis for putting the hotel’s own actions at issue, regardless of its choice of contractor for festival security. But this is new to me.
I suppose. But the suit is necessarily limited to those victims who have already threatened to sue. At some point, if you’re making legal threats, you have to expect the question to be called.
Of course, the outcome of this suit is going to have persuasive effect on any future suits. But that would be true even if MGM used this argument to defend in an already pending suit.
In general, you are correct I believe … a paralegal has no duty to try to help a stranger in need of medical attention … however some jurisdictions make it a requirement for licensed MD’s and RN’s to stop and render aid to such a victim …
The better analogy is if a heart attack victim was brought into a hospital ER … it’s the doctor’s job to render aid, so he/she can’t just grab a bag of popcorn and “see how it plays out” … same with the hotel security guard, if he sees a breach of security, it’s his/her job to intervene …
Technically, hotel “guests” are tenants … but that word has such filthy connotations it’s better for business to use another word … New Speak at its finest as it were …
Please bear in mind that my experience in civil law is entirely theoretical, so I turn turn would defer to those practitioners who know of whence they speak.
But my opinion, grounded in reading and not practice: they certainly have standing to sue for state law torts. I don’t think the factual record at this stage is nearly developed enough to determine if the hotel has any liability: this is why civil suits include a discovery component. The victims would be entitled to depose hotel staff, get copies of hotel practices and policy documents, and learn what specific actions the hotel took ahead of time to guard the safety of their surroundings and what specific actions happened that night.
So I don’t have any opinion on an ultimate win, but I’d say that generally, there’s enough to move into a discovery phase in state court.
What the hotel is trying here is to move the case to federal court, and then to leverage a federal law that says, in effect, “If an organization has followed all the recommendations of a security company that’s certified by the Department of Homeland Security, and then a terrorist attack happens anyway, they are not liable for damages to the victims.”
In my view, the weak part of that claim is the statement that this was a terror attack – an atrocity committed for political goals – as opposed to your more run of the mill mass murder.
My best guess is that MGM will not get the declaratory judgement they seek, and will have to defend themselves more conventionally against tort liability. But that, too, could change, especially if the determination that sciurophobic refers to above is made. With an official finding that the attack is classified as an act of terrorism, MGM’s position will be far stronger.
Someone please help me out here. According to the DHS, an event qualifies as an act of terrorism if it
So if someone uses a semi-automatic with a bump stock and (deliberately) injures one person, that meets the definition? I can’t be reading that right.
Also, the actual security firm COULD be held liable, right? Although my guess is no security firm has pockets deep enough or insurance sufficient to handle 1,000 claims. Would victims have any other recourse?
It’s sad people can now use the term “run-of-the-mill mass murder” and not have it be the slightest bit ironic. “Yep, just plain ol’ mass murder, nothing terroristic about it. Just one of those guys who goes off and kills a bunch of people. Happens all the time for no reason.” Years ago this would be dripping with irony. Now, not so much.
For all the social, moral, and political implications of the following, I submit that sometimes evil acts are suffered and there is no recourse from other humans in the tangible, material world. Including money, “symbolic” as it can be claimed and accepted.
From the 2002 SAFETY Act:
“(i) is unlawful; (ii) causes harm to a person, property, or entity, in the United States, or in the case of a domestic United States air carrier or a United States-flag vessel (or a vessel based principally in the United States on which the United States income tax is paid and whose insurance coverage is subject to regulation in the United States), in or outside the United States; and (iii) uses or attempts to use instrumentalities, weapons or other methods designed or intended to cause mass destruction, injury or other loss to citizens or institutions of the United States.”
Doesn’t that just move the definitional problem around? This ‘defines’ the term terrorism using an equally nebulous term of ‘cause mass destruction’. I know the Government isn’t interested in putting roadblocks in its own way, but here we have a definition of a nebulous term (terrorism) based on an equally nebulous term ‘mass destruction’. If I push someone over I may cause the mass destruction of the skin covering his knees. If I use a bumpstock or a classical machine gun to shoot one target many times, is that mass destruction? How many victims does it take to be a mass casualty event? (as I understand it, one is the minimum)
Sigh, yet another security law that gives the Government unfettered power over others. Unfortunately I am no longer surprised.
Part of the social, moral, and political implications are that if society at large, or some individuals in society benefit from allowing certain things to happen, such as high-rise hotels, outdoor concerts, private ownership of weaponry, and unrestricted travel, then we can predict that a certain number of people will inevitably suffer catastrophic consequences from use or misuse of such features. That means that the society at large or the individuals who are benefitting should be responsible for compensating the individuals who suffer those disproportionate consequences.
So, for example, if society benefits from the existence of high speed motor vehicles and superhighways, then we know that there will be some people who will be killed by them. So we as a society have a social, moral, and political obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent those consequences to the extent reasonable and for the remaining consequences that will be unavoidable, to compensate those who will inevitably suffer.
The way we compensate them might be a combination of private insurance, government insurance, government benefits, and liability from those who benefit the most, such as a giant hotel chain that benefits from being able to rent rooms to potential murderers without overly intrusive security inspections.
That may be that MGM owned the music festival, but IMHO that is not relevant unless the music festival was one of the hotel amenities enjoyed by the guests. One isn’t connected with the other except by common ownership.
