I don’t see why it would. MGM is trying to get a judge to dismiss them from any liability BEFORE any facts are heard. I find it hard to believe that something like the MGM locking fire exits would exempt from liability unless they can show that the “certified” company they hired had told them to, but we’d need a trial for that to come out in the first place, IIUC. MGM is trying to avoid the trial altogether.
BTW, the story you linked to is titled “MGM Resorts Sues 1,000 Victims of Las Vegas Shooting, Seeking to Avoid Liability”.
Frankly, I think MGM is likely to fail in this bid because I don’t think that what happened there was “terrorism” it was “terror”.
Do you ever read beyond the headline? Did you read what I quoted and what I said in my post? So the headline about “lawsuits” sounds like they are suing for money, or to find the victims liable for damages in some way. This is not the case.
And what makes you think that the facts won’t be heard in MGM’s lawsuits? It sounds to me (not a lawyer) like MGM is putting their liability to the test under an untested point of law, but that it will still involve trials and evidence and testimony and stuff like that.
How rude. Totally uncalled for and unprovoked. Pure jackassery, that was.
You asked if it would bring down the RO; I answered “I don’t see why it would” because I found your arguments unconvincing. That’s the way things are, sometimes: feeble arguments don’t convince people.
You also make assumptions about what people think and what will assuage their fears, and it hampers your ability to interact with others in a civil manner when your suppositions are contradicted, apparently. Your problems with what you perceive to be implications in the word “sue” or “lawsuit” are yours, not mine or anyone else’s, necessarily.
Because they are asking to be held immune from liability based on the law making them immune. Any proceedings will not hear evidence about the shooting at all. MGM isn’t putting anything to the test. They have farted in the wind, and if they can convince anyone it smells like a rose, they have a chance to win. This is a no-cost way of attempting to obtain a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
IANAL, but I’d say the answer is yes - but only if they want to push back against MGM. If there’s a realistic prospect that they could obtain a lucrative judgment against MGM in a future lawsuit, then they should have no trouble finding a lawyer to represent them on contingency in the present suit.
Well, yeah. And maybe we can’t have removable windows high up overlooking event spaces any more. Without airport screenings, a bomb on a plane would be 100% the fault of the bomber so do we really need to go through security lines?
They didnt have removable windows in the first place. The shootings really couldnt have been avoided without police state tactics people hate. The shooter was probably the single most ruthless and intelligent mass murderer.
