Hundreds of Las Vegas shooting victims file lawsuits in California court

[webfact]

Hundreds of Las Vegas shooting victims file lawsuits in California court

By Tina Bellon

 

A hat rests on flowers in a makeshift memorial during a vigil marking the one-week anniversary of the October 1 mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada U.S. October 8, 2017. REUTERS/Las Vegas Sun/Steve Marcus

 

(Reuters) - Hundreds of victims of the Oct. 1 mass shooting in Las Vegas filed five lawsuits on Monday in a California court against the operators of the hotel from which the gunman fired, the organizers of the country music festival he targeted and the killer's estate.

 

The largest of the lawsuits was filed on behalf of 450 people who were either injured in or witnessed the shooting, while the other four were brought by families of people who were killed or severely injured.

 

All five cases were filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

 

Muhammad Aziz, a Houston-based lawyer heading the lawsuits, said they were filed in California because nearly all the plaintiffs were from the state and had been treated there. He noted that Live Nation Entertainment Inc <LYV.N>, the event organizer, was a California-based company.

 

Stephen Paddock, 64, fired into the crowd gathered for the Route 91 Harvest Festival from a 32nd-floor hotel suite at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas on Oct. 1, killing 58 people and injuring hundreds more, the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history. Paddock also killed himself.

 

The victims accused the hotel operator MGM Resorts International <MGM.N> and its subsidiary Mandalay Corp, which owns the hotel, of failing to properly monitor Paddock's activities, train staff members and employ adequate security measures.

 

The festival goers also alleged Live Nation was negligent for failing to provide adequate exits and properly train staff for an emergency.

 

Several lawsuits have previously been filed in the shooting, mostly in Nevada state court. One of those filed on Monday was brought by college student Paige Gasper, who brought the first lawsuit over the mass shooting.

 

Gasper voluntarily dismissed the Nevada lawsuit on Friday.

 

Live Nation and MGM did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The companies have previously declined to comment on lawsuits.

 

Plaintiffs also sued the shooter's estate for battery and assault. The reportedly wealthy shooter is thought to have had multimillion-dollar real estate investments across Texas and California.

 

A court hearing about who will be appointed to administer Paddock's estate is set for Dec. 7.

 

Slide Fire Solutions, the maker of the so-called bump stock device Paddock used to achieve a near-automatic rate of fire, was named in previous lawsuits over the shooting, but not in any of the suits filed on Monday.

 

Aziz said Slide Fire was not named because most of his clients supported the right to bear arms.

 

"We want to focus on hotel and venue security, not turn this into a gun rights case," he said.

 

(Reporting by Tina Bellon; editing by Anthony Lin and G Crosse)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-21

[graemeaylward]

How sad that the United States biggest mass shooting should be degraded to a money grabbing lottery! Where is the respect for the victims? This was indeed a tragedy caused by one evil man, who for whatever reason, committed a heinous act. To try and blame event organisers, hotels and the like, is a complete nonsense. They are in no way responsible for what happened. Why does everything have to be reduced to financial gain. Have some pride and respect for your loved ones.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, graemeaylward said:

How sad that the United States biggest mass shooting should be degraded to a money grabbing lottery! Where is the respect for the victims? This was indeed a tragedy caused by one evil man, who for whatever reason, committed a heinous act. To try and blame event organisers, hotels and the like, is a complete nonsense. They are in no way responsible for what happened. Why does everything have to be reduced to financial gain. Have some pride and respect for your loved ones.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

And of course they file in California, where courts seem to produce some very odd and very punitive decisions against businesses.

 

But they smell money and possibly egged on by attorneys who like sharks, circle when there's chance of a feed frenzy.

 

Perhaps the relatives of those murdered, or injured, by Muslim extremist attackers should sue local councils for failing to take sufficient security steps; the estates of the perps; and of course the local Mosque. - Ridiculous.

[connda]

Not sure how California is going to have jurisdiction on a criminal act in Nevada.  Should be interesting.    

[JulesMad]

american style: sue everything and everybody.... Disgusting!

 

[colinneil]

How pathetic,sue the hotel for what?

So these money grabbers are just looking for somebody/ anybody to sue.

Are they saying the hotel should go through guests luggage to make sure guests are not concealing guns.

[timendres]

24 minutes ago, JulesMad said:

american style: sue everything and everybody.... Disgusting!

 

Yup. One of the things I dislike about my home country.

There was a time when lawyers facilitated justice and equity.

But greed has perverted the profession to a degree never imagined.

I would suggest that the Federal government establish a fund to compensate those affected by these mass shootings, but I fear that it would not be long before groups were formed to hire a skilled marksman who could expertly "wing" them for the inevitable payday. Sigh...

[Emster23]

Unless you know some method to bring back the dead, suing in civil court is  a means to "get the attention"  of companies and hopefully bring about some change in security levels provided. This guy packed in an arsenal, not just one gun, which could be understandably missed.

 I don't see how concert provider is responsible, however.

California is the home of the corporation, so suing there seems to make sense.

 

[Srikcir]

In the US - civil compensation is not a matter for the criminal courts, albeit some sentencing guidelines may refer to value of damages.

As such award of civil compensation does not require criminal conviction - but it helps in accessing degree of compensation. Why civil lawsuits were filed in California is explained in the article. 

Given that it took police officers 75 minutes to breach Stephen Paddock’s hotel room after he carried out his horrific shooting, only a civil lawsuit will discern potential fault.

 

[kamahele]

47 minutes ago, timendres said:

Yup. One of the things I dislike about my home country.

There was a time when lawyers facilitated justice and equity.

But greed has perverted the profession to a degree never imagined.

I would suggest that the Federal government establish a fund to compensate those affected by these mass shootings, but I fear that it would not be long before groups were formed to hire a skilled marksman who could expertly "wing" them for the inevitable payday. Sigh...

Perhaps if we had sensible gun laws in America, we wouldn't need the government to establish a fund to compensate the families of the dead.

[kamahele]

Well one would think they would sue the gun manufacturers or the sellers but they can't as it is against the law thanks to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. God bless America. Protecting the sellers of  weapons instead of potential victims.

[USPatriot]

Yeah I was there too   yeah that's it.

 

How many people that were not there or not injured should get nothing

[observer90210]

Not commenting on the moral issue of the collective lawsuit,  but class actions are very much part of american society and well anchored in the US legal system.

 

However from a different approach, it could have made sense to also file a class action against the weapons manufacturers, besides the hotel operators.

 

It could lead  the hotels in enforcing security in the future, to avoid further tragedies or class actions,  and thus make it safer for all.

Edited November 21, 2017 by observer90210

[nausea]

As a UK spectator looking in two statements sprang out at me:

 

9 hours ago, webfact said:

Aziz said Slide Fire was not named because most of his clients supported the right to bear arms.

Really? And we're not talking the right to bear arms in general are we, we're talking bump stocks specifically.

 

9 hours ago, webfact said:

or witnessed the shooting,

Is there a precedent for this in American law? I hate to say it, this being such a tragedy and all, but they sound an awfully lot like gold-diggers to me.

 

 

[Here It Is]

2 hours ago, colinneil said:

How pathetic,sue the hotel for what?

That's an easy one.  The hotel provided the windows to shoot down on the victims.  

 

I should be a lawyer.

[Foozool]

12 hours ago, webfact said:

Slide Fire Solutions, the maker of the so-called bump stock device Paddock used to achieve a near-automatic rate of fire, was named in previous lawsuits over the shooting, but not in any of the suits filed on Monday.

 

Aziz said Slide Fire was not named because most of his clients supported the right to bear arms.

 

"We want to focus on hotel and venue security, not turn this into a gun rights case," he said.

 

All clients support bump stock. Perhaps it is a "cool" device, but bump stock (full automatic machine-gun) had no roll in mass murder to them ❗️But hotel security did, because they did not detect guns. ???

 

 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Foozool

[Mansell]

I will be filing next week and sueing CNN and the BBC because I was traumatized watching it here in Thailand on their networks. I will start off at 20 million dollars, but will probably settle for 2 million and a free rifle from the NRA. Then I will sue the Thai government because they won't allow me to bring the rifle into the country. After that I will sue my neighbor for his noisy chickens in the morning. Mmmm which Thai bank shall I put the 2 million in....Mmmm!

[Gandtee]

Typical American behavior. If you want to sue, sue the NRA who insist on the right to bear arms. Sue yourselves for stupidly backing the right to bear arms. The USA is still back in the 18th century in some things. When will they reach maturity. Bible punching, gun wavers. Pathetic.

[boomerangutang]

7 hours ago, colinneil said:

How pathetic,sue the hotel for what?

So these money grabbers are just looking for somebody/ anybody to sue.

Are they saying the hotel should go through guests luggage to make sure guests are not concealing guns.

I don't necessarily agree with suing the hotel.  However, the claimants may have found out about things that we haven't yet heard.  For example, there may have been indications, before the massacre, of weird th ings.  For example, a hotel worker may have entered the room and seen 34 weapons.  Or a worker/someone may have suspected there were multiple weapons and/or ammo being brought up to the room.  The suspicions may have been hushed up by management (in order to keep guests inured), instead of reported to authorities.

 

I'm a bit surprised there are no lawsuits (yet) against ATF (Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) and NRA.   Both groups actively supported making bump-stock purchases legal.  NRA lobbied for it.

 

If I sell a product which specific to bomb making, then it stands to reason that if a bomb is made using my product, I should be at least partially responsible for the damage.  This is particularly true if I lobby for that product (like NRA lobbies for bump-stocks and automatic weapons).

[jak2002003]

I'm suing America for disturbing my news with its crazy s@$t time and time again.  

 

[Trouble]

8 hours ago, Emster23 said:

Unless you know some method to bring back the dead, suing in civil court is  a means to "get the attention"  of companies and hopefully bring about some change in security levels provided. This guy packed in an arsenal, not just one gun, which could be understandably missed.

 I don't see how concert provider is responsible, however.

California is the home of the corporation, so suing there seems to make sense.

 

Suing for these people is not a means to get attention.  It is a means for the bottom feeding attorneys to get money.  The attorneys play off the possibility of monetary gain and collect names (Note that its seems even being a witness to the horror is eligibility for getting ones name in the lawsuits).  We will have more security. But the end result eventually will be that people going in a shopping mall will have to go through scanners so the business operators can be more secure from lawsuits should something happen. They won't be doing it for anyones safety, it will be to prevent lawsuits.  Hotels, concerts, malls, theaters, etc. are public places.  Glad I won't be around 30 years from now when going to a supermarket might require a security check. That's the state these lawyers will get us to in the future. 

[Gracas]

If only the gathering of people had been a convention for Attorneys and not a country music festival.

[lannarebirth]

4 hours ago, Gandtee said:

Typical American behavior. If you want to sue, sue the NRA who insist on the right to bear arms. Sue yourselves for stupidly backing the right to bear arms. The USA is still back in the 18th century in some things. When will they reach maturity. Bible punching, gun wavers. Pathetic.

Lawyers sue based on who has the money, not necessarily who is most liable for damages.

[pegman]

7 hours ago, Mansell said:

I will be filing next week and sueing CNN and the BBC because I was traumatized watching it here in Thailand on their networks. I will start off at 20 million dollars, but will probably settle for 2 million and a free rifle from the NRA. Then I will sue the Thai government because they won't allow me to bring the rifle into the country. After that I will sue my neighbor for his noisy chickens in the morning. Mmmm which Thai bank shall I put the 2 million in....Mmmm!

You still don't understand Thailand because you will be charged for bringing a gun into the country. Then fortunately for you that $2m will be just the amount of cash needed to keep you from a long stretch in the Bangkok Hilton.

 

If there was any rational in that country the gun, bump stock and ammunition makers would be held liable. Surely any law protecting them would be ruled against the Life and Liberty provisions of their Constitution. That is where the politically appointed SCOTUS comes in and makes a farce of the rule of law. Joke country is the best that can be said about it. 

[tropo]

12 hours ago, colinneil said:

How pathetic,sue the hotel for what?

So these money grabbers are just looking for somebody/ anybody to sue.

Are they saying the hotel should go through guests luggage to make sure guests are not concealing guns.

Don't you think that a decent security check of luggage (for firearms and other weapons) is a good idea? I think it's a great idea and I'm surprised they aren't already doing it. Would you not be more relaxed in a big hotel knowing people aren't walking around with guns? They need security personnel in churches too.

[tropo]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Lawyers sue based on who has the money, not necessarily who is most liable for damages.

But in this case, the people with the most money ARE the most liable. The Hotel, the event organizers, and the shooter's estate. If you lost family members, why shouldn't you get some compensation for pain and suffering? What about the people with permanent injuries/scarring/disabilities who are still alive? What about families that have lost their primary breadwinners?

[lannarebirth]

Just now, tropo said:

But in this case, the people with the most money ARE the most liable. The Hotel, the event organizers, and the shooter's estate. If you lost family members, why shouldn't you get some compensation for pain and suffering? What about the people with permanent injuries/scarring/disabilities who are still alive? What about families that have lost their primary breadwinners?

I agree on all points. There are some deep pockets here and they have a lot to lose. So much to lose IMO,  I think they are impeding the criminal investigation by withholding critical pieces of evidence.

[hawker9000]

13 hours ago, Emster23 said:

Unless you know some method to bring back the dead, suing in civil court is  a means to "get the attention"  of companies and hopefully bring about some change in security levels provided. This guy packed in an arsenal, not just one gun, which could be understandably missed.

 I don't see how concert provider is responsible, however.

California is the home of the corporation, so suing there seems to make sense.

 

Maybe, since it's a civil and not a criminal action.  But I can't really imagine what "normal and customary" actions by the hotel or the concert organizers should have been and weren't taken.   Are we going to have TSA at all hotels and concert venues now?   Oh goodie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bedouin1990]

Sure the hotel was negligent for not assuring everyone's complete safety. And the concert sponsors were negligent by the same reasoning. Too bad you cannot go after the gun manufacturer, since like airplane makers and auto makers, they owe a duty to insure their customers always act safely. The trouble with American Tort law is that it has been corrupted by Liberals who think everyone has a right to complete safety. And Liberal judges who believe that for every accident, SOMEONE must pay!

[Peterw42]

So Americans will worship and support the 2nd amendment, right to bear arms, but then argue the hotel shound have overridden the 2nd amendment rights. You cant have it both ways. 

In Nevada you can carry guns, and I presume keep them in your residence, wouldnt a hotel room be considered a residence.