Bizarre news item.
Is MGM suing the victims for money? Because that was not mentioned in the article. I have never heard of someone suing for the purpose of setting forth their side of things. Very strange, and incredibly stupid, considering how bad it looks on its face!
Wait, so they are suing the victims, so that they can mitigate their own liability? Wow, way to become a company that no one in the country will want to do business with.
I like the way that the New York Times opens its article:
Personally, I also find the NYT article more informative than the USA Today article I read yesterday. (Granted, I read it on the bus ride home from work, so maybe I wasn’t operating at 100%.) Anyways, there was apparently an untested law passed in the wake of 9/11, and MGM is testing it. The NYT article goes into more detail.
But yeah, MGM probably pulled the worst possible move that they could.
I realize this may be an unpopular thought, but how was the hotel to know that Paddock was bringing in guns? It just seems kind of odd to blame the hotel. Are we to have metal detectors in all our hotels now?
Ahhh…the fruits of an over-litigious society.
Apparently, they’re betting that a preemptive lawsuit, lawyer fees, bad publicity / damage to brand, and possible loss of revenue from people choosing other hotels is cheaper that defending numerous lawsuits from victims and their families.
Even if they did, what could they have done? Owning firearms isn’t illegal in Nevada and Las Vegas is home to some very nice shooting ranges, like this one owned by the Clark County Department of Parks and Rec:
I bet Ron Swanson wishes he could work here…
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.