https://www.gazettenet.com/Casino-giant-settles-Vegas-shooting-lawsuits-for-up-to-$800M-29050716 So, what think you? How will this affect the “gun control” issue? Will it mean a loosening of laws around “gun free zones” or a tightening on gun restrictions from frightened businesses afraid to be sued?
hard to say: one thing is for sure, the gun maker(s) should be absolutely immune to suits: the same with the sellers since Paddock passed multiple background checks
Vet them in what manner? Stephen Paddock possessed absolutely no indicators within his background to suggest that something like this incident would be committed. Such is why he is regarded as such an outlier, and a confirmation of the fact that absolutely anyone can engage in such a course of action if they so choose. That matter aside, the hotel in question, and various other property owners, will be hard pressed to determine a way of properly vetting those that utilize their property, without coming off as alienating in their approach and costing themselves business in the process. It is more than likely that nothing will actually change as a result of this suit.
“Excuse me sir - do you have any weapons in your luggage?” “Ah! I see 2 AK47s and a 200 rounds of ammunition- will sir be using that today or may we offer our gun cleaning services?”
I just don't understand how the hotel can be held liable. How were they at all responsible? How were they at all negligent? What could they possibly have done to prevent, or even mitigate, the damage done by a heavily-armed kook bent on mass murder? The lawyers are just out of control.
Vet how? Require inspection of luggage when checking in? In all hotels? In America? It’s done in the AU, eh? Perhaps have onsite swat teams for all hotels? Why is it GCAs often promote solutions that amount to police state tactics? What is your proposal? Aside from the obvious you’d suggest which won’t happen here? How about we pass a law prohibiting murder... that might work, eh?
It is entirely possible that all businesses will begin to install metal detectors at entrances and exits with armed guards manning them 24*7. That MASSIVE expense will be passed along to consumers which will be yet another exorbitant price that hardworking Americans will just have to bear because of the obsession of the minority who put their firearms over and above the lives of their fellow citizens.
The last time it was checked, hotels do not have the legal authority to investigate or inspect the luggage of potential customers, or otherwise inquire about what they are attempted to bring in with them. Even if they did, the customers are under no legal obligation to respond truthfully to such inquiries.
Except it is not a ruling, but a settlement. It is legally non-binding, and does not confer anymore authority to the property owner than was possessed prior to the settlement being reached. It is nothing more than the hotel giving the plaintiffs some relatively small monetary amount in exchange for them shutting up.
I think that lawyers examining a prospective case look around to see if anybody remotely linked to the situation has really deep pockets, and sets out to prove that they alone are responsible. "Gun control" is a sort of end-run to appease the fearful- not solution to the number of people who blame others, be it their school mates, their boss or society in general for their frustrations. I look at the extent to which political interests right now are fanning the flames of frustration in people who have no idea how to control their own lives, and I see them generating people with serious mental issues, some of whom will decide that to get even with their "oppressors" will eventually resort to violence. It's always a people problem. A rock is only a rock, until some one who has lost their self-control grabs it and hammers someone to death. Then, and only then, does it become a murder weapon- and the only variable between the millions of years when it was just a rock and the moment it becomes a murder weapon is A PERSON OUT OF CONTROL. When we become willing to (1) Stop telling people that they are not responsible for themselves so they blame others, and (2) start directing our focus on the person using the weapon for violence instead of the thing they used- THEN we will be addressing the problem. Do I think the public at large will understand this? It's doubtful. Most will not- we have cultivated sheep for too long; told people to blame others to gain political powers.... and we now have far too many grown up children passing for adults; unable to apply common sense logic to the question. Guns don't make people do bad things.People do that- we do it to the sheep, and to ourselves. That is a choice we make and can change anytime we decide to think straight. It's always been and always will be a people problem- and a war on guns would be about as effective as the war on drugs, except far more of those punished will be totally innocent.
Lawsuits like this doesn’t happen there? I know you will attribute that to AU’s gun policies, but there might be another factor to consider; the US is the land of civil lawsuits where lawyers, special interest groups, and individuals often seek to leverage lawsuits and the potential media coverage into large settlements, not necessarily because of some notion of justice, but settlements made because it is often seen as a means of avoiding potential, costly consequences of negative media coverage, which often can have the effect of biasing the jury pool, juries that can award massive payouts without upper limits; the effects of which can be seen in things like the high costs of drugs sold in the US. The Mandalay Hotel was seen as a soft, rich (casino) target that would settle to avoid any impact on their casino activities... a settlement that is pocket change to them. As for the effects of this judgement, it will embolden fortune seekers and special interest groups to initiate lawsuits against anything gun related, like those already attempted, but prohibited thus far, against gun manufacturers for the uses their products by criminals which are beyond the control of the gun manufacturers... something currently prohibited by law and which, if enabled would extend litigation that would suggest product manufacturers, of any product, are not just liable for product defects, but complicit in any use of a product that is used for purposes out of their control that injure others... think any product; knives, autos, hammers, etc. But, as is so often done to avoid litigation where companies wish to continue current practices, expect the comparable of warnings such as those posted on cigarettes and statements liability limits such as those you might see on tickets of parking structures, concerts, etc. When you check into a hotel, you will likely be asked to sign a liability waiver and a statement you aren’t going to stage a massacre. Just as the US is the land of litigation, it is also the land product warnings and liability denials... those warnings, rarely read by consumers, that come with nearly any product. By now, though usually printed on the pamphlets of any firearm instructions included with every new firearm and most packaging, I have been waiting on firearms to start appearing with ‘dangerous end: see instructions’ stamped on every barrel and on knives, imprinted on every blade, an arrows pointing to the sharp edge and point, ‘caution: sharp: can cut you: see instrictions’.
Sadly in the US, we do have a problem with litigation. It's become an industry for financial gain instead of a process of justice, thus the guilt is always assigned to those with deep pockets. Japan has 7 lawyers per 100,000 population. Great Britain loves litigation, so it has 83, second highest density of lawyers in the world. We in America- Have 287.
It is certainly a rather eloquent yet straightforward explanation of the situation currently plaguing the united states, where the court system is utilized as a weapon by others seeking to get rich for suffering that is not even their own.
I know Comes with the old joke about “what do you call 30 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?” A good start But what surprised me was the sheer amount of the payout. Not too sure what the hotel was supposed to do to prevent this shooting in any event
True. If they took TSA style actions to check guests- they would have no guests, and the public would be bad-mouthing them for trying to run it like a prison.
Why should MGM have to give any money? This just shows how messed up the laws are with the lawsuit system in the U.S. If they gave any money, it should have been out of charity.
You mean "hotel control" ? Hotels not being allowed to build tall structures overlooking places where crowds of people might congregate? Will hotels have to pass all their guests through metal detectors? What do you think I think about this??
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to sue the hotel unless they knew or reasonably should have known. How are hotel staff meant to know what's in his suitcase? Wouldn't they be facing privacy lawsuits if they search customer's bags and the such? How can the hotel win here? ___________________________ The reality is, unavenged grief is handled very poorly by humans. They NEED someone, something, anything to blame. Normally they'd blame the shooter, but he's dead. Still, that doesn't mean they pack up and go home, they'll work their way down the list and ascribe blame to someone, something, anything. It's a basic human need.