Guns / Firearms

MGM Casinos Wager Their Own Sense Of Common Decency

The casino has sued upwards of 1000 victims of the infamous mass shooting in a bid to escape liability.

By  
on

(Photo by David Becker/Getty Images)

There’s nothing like an unparalleled national tragedy to bring out the worst in corporations.

When a gunman opened fire from the Mandalay Bay killing 58 people and wounding scores more, it was an opportunity for our nation to come together and allow the NRA to explain how getting gunned down in the streets to help gun manufacturers sell more product is the most American thing we can do. It was also the sort of mass calamity that would inevitably spawn lawsuits seeking to hold responsible those whose negligence enabled this monster to kill so many.

Should Mandalay Bay and its parent organization MGM Resorts International bear any liability here? That’s arguable. But rather than take each legal challenge as it comes, possibly moving at that time to consolidate claims brought against it across the country to one efficient litigation, MGM — represented by Munger Tolles — decided to preemptively sue upwards of 1000 victims seeking a ruling that they cannot be held liable by anyone, anywhere, at any time for any damages because they hired a security company once.

This is a procedural tactic that’s understandable from their perspective to bring everything under one courthouse roof and resolve it for all time. It’s also a deserved public relations nightmare to be suing innocent victims.

The crux of MGM’s lawsuit rests on getting clarity on the scope of a dubious 2002 law that purports to exempt companies that employ “anti-terrorism” tech from liability for terrorist attacks. MGM hired a company called Contemporary Services Corp. that the Department of Homeland Security certified as an anti-terrorism outfit — whatever that means — and MGM claims that exemption should therefore extend to them. I’m sure this is one of those times when this Supreme Court is going to excitedly stand up for giving the DHS the benefit of Chevron deference.

While there’s a certain logic to promoting prophylactic measures, it’s also pretty clear these anti-terrorism procedures “totally failed” here so maybe we shouldn’t automatically reward a casino for trying and failing to avoid calamity. In any event, that’s the question that requires suing 1000 victims and reopening their trauma.

Sponsored

But MGM has another problem on their hands. Guess which government isn’t willing to designate a mass shooting as an act of terror? That would be the United States government, whose genitals remain firmly in the NRA’s ammo bag and can’t countenance the idea that a white guy with a gun could possibly be a “terrorist” unless they can tie his motives to radicalization by some comfortably ethnic organization.

Not to belabor the gambling analogies, but MGM’s strategy seems like a dangerous wager. Obviously, the casino stood to lose a lot of money if every victim successfully sued, but seeking this declaratory judgment by hauling innocent victims who may never have sued the hotel into court just makes the conglomerate — whose business depends on nurturing the goodwill of the public — look like the most insensitive gang of assholes imaginable. And for what? A chance at immunity that may well be an uphill climb given the U.S. government’s refusal to apply the word terrorism literally?

That seems like a bad wager.

Casino owners sue Las Vegas shooting victims to try to avoid legal liability [The Hill]

Sponsored

HeadshotJoe Patrice is an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.

Topics

, ,