Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: Snaggletiger on October 04, 2019, 11:57:06 AM
-
Two years after the mass shooting in Las Vegas, MGM Resorts has agreed to divvy up approximately $800 million in settlement proceeds. 58 people were killed and many more were injured and still, nobody knows why the shooter decided to do what he did. My daughter, who works in Vegas, was two blocks away and had just finished her show. People covered in blood came running and screaming through the lobby of the resort and for a while, they thought terrorists were all through the city. She called us from a bathroom that her and others were hiding in. We went out to Vegas a week later and I went to that outdoor venue where the Jason Aldean concert was when the shooting started. Kind of sobering to see the stage cover and all kinds of stuff ripped up by bullets. This guy rained some hell down on those people.
First off, I'm happy for the people and families that will be receiving a portion of this settlement. Doesn't do anything to change what happened, but maybe some of them can use the money for something important in their lives.
However, even a plaintiff attorney like myself doesn't get the theory behind any liability for MGM. Honestly, I haven't looked into the actual claims and why people are pointing the finger at MGM, who owns Mandalay Bay. I understand this guy had quite the arsenal in his room, and even though I'm far from a weapons expert, I imagine most of them could be broken down, transferred easily in a suitcase or something else and reassembled in the room. Was the staff at Mandalay Bay supposed to be looking for people stashing weapons in their luggage? Were they negligent in not knowing that a guest was going to unleash that hell on concert goers? If I load down my trunk with weaponry, check into the Holiday Inn, go around back and take all that up to my room, then start unloading on everyone passing by...does the Holiday Inn have a duty to those victims for my actions?
As crazy as this sounds, $800 million is most likely the proverbial drop in the bucket for MGM. And my thoughts are that they know they could fight it, but in doing so, they would look like the bad guy here. I'm glad they're doing it, but I honestly don't think they should have to.
-
I agree. Seems as if they are trying to get ahead of this, but I don't think they should be held responsible.
-
Two years after the mass shooting in Las Vegas, MGM Resorts has agreed to divvy up approximately $800 million in settlement proceeds. 58 people were killed and many more were injured and still, nobody knows why the shooter decided to do what he did. My daughter, who works in Vegas, was two blocks away and had just finished her show. People covered in blood came running and screaming through the lobby of the resort and for a while, they thought terrorists were all through the city. She called us from a bathroom that her and others were hiding in. We went out to Vegas a week later and I went to that outdoor venue where the Jason Aldean concert was when the shooting started. Kind of sobering to see the stage cover and all kinds of stuff ripped up by bullets. This guy rained some hell down on those people.
First off, I'm happy for the people and families that will be receiving a portion of this settlement. Doesn't do anything to change what happened, but maybe some of them can use the money for something important in their lives.
However, even a plaintiff attorney like myself doesn't get the theory behind any liability for MGM. Honestly, I haven't looked into the actual claims and why people are pointing the finger at MGM, who owns Mandalay Bay. I understand this guy had quite the arsenal in his room, and even though I'm far from a weapons expert, I imagine most of them could be broken down, transferred easily in a suitcase or something else and reassembled in the room. Was the staff at Mandalay Bay supposed to be looking for people stashing weapons in their luggage? Were they negligent in not knowing that a guest was going to unleash that hell on concert goers? If I load down my trunk with weaponry, check into the Holiday Inn, go around back and take all that up to my room, then start unloading on everyone passing by...does the Holiday Inn have a duty to those victims for my actions?
As crazy as this sounds, $800 million is most likely the proverbial drop in the bucket for MGM. And my thoughts are that they know they could fight it, but in doing so, they would look like the bad guy here. I'm glad they're doing it, but I honestly don't think they should have to.
Funny enough was in Vegas this weekend and all the folks we talked to about it felt like this was just MGM getting ahead of it cause if it goes to a trial they will be guilty in the court of public opinion.
-
I'm glad they're doing it, but I honestly don't think they should have to.
I'm not. Where does it stop? Is there always someone to sue? Is that what we've come to in this country?
Unless MGM advertises gun free zones, I can't see this as being right.
I guess the mantra will just be "sue up", they have more than me.
-
I'm not. Where does it stop? Is there always someone to sue? Is that what we've come to in this country?
Unless MGM advertises gun free zones, I can't see this as being right.
I guess the mantra will just be "sue up", they have more than me.
Some lawyers care. Like cherry and Irwin.
-
Bump on a semi-related topic. Honestly, the "logic" on this decision is completely lost on me. foxy
In an order (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111219zor_db8e.pdf) released Tuesday, the Supreme Court (https://www.foxnews.com/category/politics/judiciary/supreme-court) allowed families of Sandy Hook (https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/crime/mass-murder) victims to proceed with a lawsuit against gun manufacturer Remington Arms despite the company's claims that it was protected from liability by federal law.
Remington had petitioned (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-168/109874/20190801122832527_Remington Cert Petition.pdf) the Supreme Court to reverse a March 2019 decision by the Connecticut (https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-regions/northeast/connecticut) Supreme Court, which ruled 4-3 that Remington could be sued under state law over its marketing practices, citing one of the few exemptions to the federal law.
The gunmaker argued (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-168/109874/20190801122832527_Remington Cert Petition.pdf) that the state court's interpretation of the marketing exemption is, "intolerable given Congress's 'intention to create national uniformity'" with the federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. "As the dissenters below noted, lawsuits like this one are precisely the kind the PLCAA was enacted to prevent."
(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2018/09/640/320/Newtown-911.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
In this photo provided by the Newtown Bee, Connecticut State Police lead a line of children from the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. on Friday, Dec. 14, 2012 after a shooting at the school. (AP Photo/Newtown Bee, Shannon Hicks, File)
Gunman Adam Lanza opened fire (https://apnews.com/8dd3345b33bb49c58c87ef05dc7d1287) at the Newtown, Conn., school with a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle on Dec. 14, 2012, killing 20 first-graders and six educators. The 20-year-old gunman earlier shot his mother to death at their Newtown home, and killed himself as police arrived at the school. The rifle was legally owned by his mother.
A survivor and relatives of nine victims filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Remington in 2015, saying the company should have never sold such a dangerous weapon to the public and alleging it targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games.
Tuesday's order from the Supreme Court does not mean Remington or other gun manufacturers will face any immediate liability, but it does set the stage for potential court battles over whether or not the gun industry is responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre and potentially open the door to other suits in relation to other mass shootings or murders.
"The decision will have immediate and severe consequences, exposing the firearms industry to costly and burdensome litigation," Remington argued in its petition to the Supreme Court. "Thus, as a leading scholar on firearm-manufacturer liability has explained, the decision below will 'unleash a flood of lawsuits across the country,'" it continued, citing Timothy D. Lytton (https://news.gsu.edu/expert/timothy-d-lytton/), a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law.
(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2019/09/640/320/AP19262633825178.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Three variations of the AR-15 rifle are displayed at the California Department of Justice in Sacramento, Calif. (Associated Press)
Joshua Kosoff, a lawyer for the families' victims, applauded the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year when Remington made its plea to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a newly refreshed conservative majority but refused to side with the gun industry Tuesday.
“Our state’s highest court has already ruled that the families deserve their day in court and we are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will defer to that well-reasoned opinion,†Koskoff said in a statement.
The high court's denial of Remington's petition also does not mean it will be the tribunal's last word on the issue, as it often allows controversial issues to percolate in lower courts for years before weighing in. The Remington case could also make its way back to the Supreme Court on other grounds.
The case will now proceed in a lower state court.
-
Bump on a semi-related topic. Honestly, the "logic" on this decision is completely lost on me.
I would like to sue Sara Lee because I am fat. Or maybe Little Debbie. Definitely Dr. Pepper or Mt. Dew.
I would also like to sue Chevrolet because I was hit by a person who was drunk and driving one.
I would further like to sue Mother Nature because I am allergic to poison ivy and it grew near my house.
I intend to sue Cracker Barrel because I have high blood pressure. Please add Morton Salt to that litigation as well.
Hmmmm... the possibilities are endless. It's not MY fault!
-
I've been begging a lawyer friend of mine to sue Gus for the triple effect of anxiety, depression and alcoholism since 2010. He might now. Or? He just doesn't care.
-
I've been begging a lawyer friend of mine to sue Gus for the triple effect of anxiety, depression and alcoholism since 2010. He might now. Or? He just doesn't care.
Actually, you'll be part of a class action that we're trying to get going now. There will be hundreds of thousands in the class, but we should be able to get you nice amount.
-
I've been begging a lawyer friend of mine to sue Gus for the triple effect of anxiety, depression and alcoholism since 2010. He might now. Or? He just doesn't care.
You should call these guys instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rclxKbv4QqY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rclxKbv4QqY)
-
ЗдравÑтвуйте, помогите найти где можно поÑлушать много пеÑен
, Ñ Ð²Ñегда здеÑÑŒ нахожу
Ñлушать музыку онлайн беÑплатно без региÑтрации (http://poiskm.club)
ÑпаÑибо большое за помощь.
Bullshit. That rumor was debunked months ago.