MGM Resorts International has filed more than a 1,000 federal lawsuits against victims of last October’s Las Vegas mass shooting in an attempt to avoid liability claims.
The company owns the Mandalay Bay hotel where the shooter, Stephen Paddock, was located when he fired upon the crowd at the Route 91 Harvest festival – a venue which also belongs to the company. The company said it can not be held responsible for any deaths, injuries, or other damages related to the shooting and that all claims against the company “must be dismissed,” according complaints filed on Friday in California and Nevada, the Las Vegas Review Journal reports.
The company referred to a 2002 federal act that protects a company against liability claims as long as it is able to offer “anti-terrorism” services or technology that can “help prevent and respond to mass violence.” The company said it hired Contemporary Services Corp. to cover security during the festival, which was certified by the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of “protecting against and responding to acts of mass injury and destruction.”
Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against the company since the Oct. 1 shooting in which 58 people died and 580 more were injured.
Tom Russell, a personal injury lawyer and law professor at the University of Denver, said one would have to find that the hotel had prior knowledge related to the shooting and disregarded that knowledge in order to prove the hotel’s liability, NPR reports.
“One can’t blame the hotel for not predicting that this gunman would go up to their 32nd floor with an arsenal and break out the windows and start firing at people,” Russell said.
Las Vegas attorney Robert Eglet disagreed with the decision to file the lawsuit in federal rather than state court.
“I’ve never seen a more outrageous thing, where they sue the victims in an effort to find a judge they like,” he said. “It’s just really sad that they would stoop to this level.”
MGM does not seek payment from the victims through the lawsuit but wishes to settle the matter over whether or not the 2002 act applies so they can determine the viability of future lawsuits brought against them.
