3 ms·

Just looked up the settlement: it seems crazy to me that the hotel could be held liable for the shooting. Is there really an expectation for the hotel to keep t

Just looked up the settlement: it seems crazy to me that the hotel could be held liable for the shooting. Is there really an expectation for the hotel to keep tabs on what its guests are doing? Edit: I looked into it further: MGM was insured for 751M for the payout and I suppose they figured an additional 100M to get it out of their hair was worth it. The existence of a settlement doesn't create a precedent, but I worry about these incremental movements towards a society where there is some expectation of invasive tracking.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
There is now. Prepare to have your bags checked, and hotel rooms inspected at least once, if not multiple times per day. It's a ludicrous settlement, and I'd love to see an explanation from the judge(s) that let the suit(s) proceed instead of throwing it out. The whole situation in America at this point is you're liable for anything and everything that could be connected to you (and definitely if it's on your property), but it only matters if you have assets you can have taken from you. So better hope you're big enough to protect yourself as much as possible with a team of lawyers.
- ocschwar 7y ago
  Next time you check in to a hotel, notice that the little hanging sign on the door no longer has a side that says "do not disturb."
  - vonseel 7y ago
    Is that true everywhere or only in high-risk places like LV?
    - ocschwar 7y ago
      It's spreading.(They're also doing this to crack on fly by night meth cooks)
- vkou 7y ago
  > There is now. Prepare to have your bags checked, and hotel rooms inspected at least once, if not multiple times per day. It's a ludicrous settlement, and I'd love to see an explanation from the judge(s) that let the suit(s) proceed instead of throwing it out. Because someone has to be held accountable for the tragedy, and since we can't hold politicians, or the gun manufacturers accountable for it, you find the next person in line.
  - Razengan 7y ago
    "Why is this so hard? – Says the only nation where it regularly happens"
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    > Because someone has to be held accountable for the tragedy, and since we can't hold politicians, or the gun manufacturers accountable for it, you find the next person in line. What happened to holding the shooter responsible?
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      Gun owners in the USA aren’t required to carry liability insurance, so going after shooters in civil cases isn’t very productive.
      - WalterBright 7y ago
        True, but it isn't just to sue someone else just because they do have liability insurance.
        seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        There is no pointing in suing someone for hundreds of millions of dollars unless they have some chance of actually paying that much.
        7y ago
throwaway2048 7y ago
A settlement isn't a court deciding that they are liable, its the MGM Grand paying out rather than taking a risk of the court case (likely would generate a ton of bad PR).
- mc32 7y ago
  Right, in a statement it said it was not to be “interpreted as an admission of guilt”. Or some legal boilerplate to that effect.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  I can’t imagine avoiding bad PR (for something that clearly wasn’t the hotel’s fault) is worth $800M. They must have thought there was some possibility of legal liability, at least the the cost to defend with lawyers. But there shouldn’t be, in a sane world the suit would have been tossed immediately.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    What they thought is mostly irrelevant, acting as if this is some kind of precedent and that hotels are now responsible and prepare to have your bags and rooms searched every day is stupid overblown alarmism. The payment was large because they had liability insurance that covered 7/8ths of it, and the plaintiffs realized it would be very easy to get them to pay at least that amount out.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      In my experience, just because your insurance pays, it doesn’t mean you don’t have an incentive to stop the payout. Premiums are based on how much insurance pays in claims, so their future premiums will be higher than if there were not to be a payment in the first place. I still don’t see why a hotel would be at all culpable, so I would love to see the analysis of the lawyers involved. It is not legal precedent, but it is precedent in the sense that if MGM’s lawyers thought it best not to fight it, then what can a smaller company do?

lotsofpulp 7y ago

There is now. Prepare to have your bags checked, and hotel rooms inspected at least once, if not multiple times per day. It's a ludicrous settlement, and I'd love to see an explanation from the judge(s) that let the suit(s) proceed instead of throwing it out. The whole situation in America at this point is you're liable for anything and everything that could be connected to you (and definitely if it's on your property), but it only matters if you have assets you can have taken from you. So better hope you're big enough to protect yourself as much as possible with a team of lawyers.

ocschwar 7y ago
Next time you check in to a hotel, notice that the little hanging sign on the door no longer has a side that says "do not disturb."
- vonseel 7y ago
  Is that true everywhere or only in high-risk places like LV?
  - ocschwar 7y ago
    It's spreading.(They're also doing this to crack on fly by night meth cooks)
vkou 7y ago
> There is now. Prepare to have your bags checked, and hotel rooms inspected at least once, if not multiple times per day. It's a ludicrous settlement, and I'd love to see an explanation from the judge(s) that let the suit(s) proceed instead of throwing it out. Because someone has to be held accountable for the tragedy, and since we can't hold politicians, or the gun manufacturers accountable for it, you find the next person in line.
- Razengan 7y ago
  "Why is this so hard? – Says the only nation where it regularly happens"
- WalterBright 7y ago
  > Because someone has to be held accountable for the tragedy, and since we can't hold politicians, or the gun manufacturers accountable for it, you find the next person in line. What happened to holding the shooter responsible?
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    Gun owners in the USA aren’t required to carry liability insurance, so going after shooters in civil cases isn’t very productive.
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      True, but it isn't just to sue someone else just because they do have liability insurance.
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        There is no pointing in suing someone for hundreds of millions of dollars unless they have some chance of actually paying that much.
        7y ago

throwaway2048 7y ago

A settlement isn't a court deciding that they are liable, its the MGM Grand paying out rather than taking a risk of the court case (likely would generate a ton of bad PR).

mc32 7y ago
Right, in a statement it said it was not to be “interpreted as an admission of guilt”. Or some legal boilerplate to that effect.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
I can’t imagine avoiding bad PR (for something that clearly wasn’t the hotel’s fault) is worth $800M. They must have thought there was some possibility of legal liability, at least the the cost to defend with lawyers. But there shouldn’t be, in a sane world the suit would have been tossed immediately.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  What they thought is mostly irrelevant, acting as if this is some kind of precedent and that hotels are now responsible and prepare to have your bags and rooms searched every day is stupid overblown alarmism. The payment was large because they had liability insurance that covered 7/8ths of it, and the plaintiffs realized it would be very easy to get them to pay at least that amount out.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    In my experience, just because your insurance pays, it doesn’t mean you don’t have an incentive to stop the payout. Premiums are based on how much insurance pays in claims, so their future premiums will be higher than if there were not to be a payment in the first place. I still don’t see why a hotel would be at all culpable, so I would love to see the analysis of the lawyers involved. It is not legal precedent, but it is precedent in the sense that if MGM’s lawyers thought it best not to fight it, then what can a smaller company do?