The Gaza Genocide Narrative Suffers Another Major Deathblow
Liberal Reporter Sees Some Serious Media Frustration on This Issue
About Those Alleged Posts of Snipers on the Campuses of Indiana and Ohio...
The Terrorists Are Running the Asylum
Get the Popcorn: Biden Says He Will Debate Trump but Doesn't Know When
Oh Look, Another Terrible Inflation Report
Iran's Nightmares
There's a Big Change in How Biden Now Walks to and From Marine...
US Ambassador to the UN Calls Russia's Latest Veto 'Baffling'
Trump Responds to Bill Barr's Endorsement in Typical Fashion
Polling on Support for Mass Deportations Has Some Surprising Findings. But Does It...
Here’s Why One University Postponed a Pro-Hamas Protest
Leader of Columbia's Pro-Hamas Encampment: Israel Supporters 'Don't Deserve to Live'
Mounting Debt Accumulation Can’t Go On Forever. It Won’t.
Is Arizona Turning Blue? The Latest Voter Registration Numbers Tell a Different Story.
Notebook

Here's Why MGM Just Filed a Lawsuit Against the Las Vegas Shooting Victims

MGM International Resorts, the owners of Mandalay Bay and the Route 91 Harvest Festival venue, have filed a lawsuit against more than 1,000 victims of the Las Vegas shooting. The goal of their lawsuit is to avoid liability, the Las Vegas-Review Journal reported. 

Advertisement

According to the lawsuit, MGM's security company, Contemporary Services Corp., was certified by the Department of Homeland Security for “protecting against and responding to acts of mass injury and destruction.” 

A 2002 federal act, known as the SAFETY Act, extends liability protection to companies who use "anti-terrorism" technology and services that "prevent and respond to mass violence." Contemporary Services Corps. utilized those technologies, which allowed them to be certified by DHS. Having that certification removes security companies from being held liable should an incident like the Las Vegas shooting occur.

MGM argues that the liability protections extend to their company because they were the ones who hired Contemporary Services Corp. They cite the SAFETY Act as their cause for being protected from liability.

The purpose of the lawsuit is for a judge to decide if MGM falls under the SAFETY Act. If the judge rules in the company's favor, future civil lawsuits against MGM would not be viable. 

“The Federal Court is an appropriate venue for these cases and provides those affected with the opportunity for a timely resolution. Years of drawn out litigation and hearings are not in the best interest of victims, the community and those still healing," Debra DeShong, a spokeswoman for MGM Resorts, said in a statement.

Advertisement

Robert Eglet, a Las Vegas attorney who has represented a handful of the festival's victims, said the lawsuit is outrageous and a "blatant display of judge shopping” that “quite frankly verges on unethical.”

“I’ve never seen a more outrageous thing, where they sue the victims in an effort to find a judge they like,” Eglet told the Las Vegas-Review Journal. “It’s just really sad that they would stoop to this level.”

The SAFETY Act was initially passed after the September 11th attacks. The private sector was concerned about being held liable for acts of terrorism.

The FBI has yet to define the Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting as an act of terrorism because the gunman's intentions were unclear. In order to have the terrorism designation, the act of terror has to be "associated with extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial or environmental nature."

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement