What do they gain by a lawsuit that more firmly attaches their name to the shooting?
I have never seen any cameras on the hotel room floors (except where the elevators are).
All I remember reading is that he set up a camera on a room service cart that was outside his door. No other cameras, and he didn’t disable any hotel cameras.
(Disclaimer: I didn’t follow the investigation closely and I have not researched the claims in this post.)
1 Like
I agree that they might well have decided to settle in order to avoid the further negative publicity of a long drawn out lawsuit, but my original question was why would they be legally liable for the shootings.
This is one of those situations where the potential risks of a jury finding them liable and hitting them for waaaay more money weren’t all that low. Also they stopped the negative publicity and there’s a good chance their insurance company is footing a huge % of the total bill.
My guess is that this settlement was a good choice. I say this as a guy from an industry where a couple of years back a major trucking company got hit for 100M+ because a minivan crossed the divider on the highway and slammed into a semi head on killing everyone involved. To be really clear the minivan was on the wrong side of an interstate and the company still lost in court. You don’t want to risk a jury trial with an event this large if you can get out for an acceptable sum.
1 Like
Unfortunately, I don’t think the actual liability matters, it’s the risk of a jury settlement higher than what they settled for.
As someone familiar with the general liability insurance world, this is spot on. There was definitely some sort of agreement with whoever their umbrella liability carrier(s) is with the higher ups at MGM. It’s very likely MGM is footing most of the bill though as I doubt they had coverage even close to the settlement amount. I’m sure the settlement agreement will include a no admission of liability paragraph.
In terms of actual legal liability, negligence (I haven’t read the lawsuits but I’m guessing that’s what the cause of action was) can be a squishy thing that no one wanted to put in front of a jury.
The cop car is parked out front of the Jewish Community Center by my house again. It’s always there for a few days after big mass shootings.
Maybe from the Joker threat?
And that company is sharing risk with every other company. Ultimately it’s a business decision that barely affects any of their bottom lines.
Are you suggesting they just…
Write it off?
1 Like
I’ve seen the car there. I’ve wondered if maybe it’s a traffic thing because he’s a little hidden, but also thought about it being from security threats. My mom goes there and my older daughter goes with her sometimes.
It’s always there after mass shootings - especially any Jewish involved ones. Could be any day of the week. They want the car right out front to be seen so everyone is aware there is an armed cop inside. A couple of times that’s how I learned there was a new mass shooting - while on my way to the gym.
It usually goes away in about a week.
I was across the river in KC MO power & light district when this happened. Send thots and prayers
I love Dick’s
5 Likes
This type of stuff is a really good sign, especially given that Dick’s is a publicly traded company. They are betting on the fact that this press is better for their long-term business than returning the inventory and getting some money back. That’s an American corporation betting on their future customers being strongly anti-gun rather than anti-gun control.
4 Likes
Gimme all the Dick’s I can eat!
Other Republicans who think subpoenas don’t apply to them: the NRA