LogFAQs > #905234023

gunplagirl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

This seems to be really misrepresented. MGM is being sued by the victims for liability. Their countersuit is on the grounds that they met the requirements for not being liable for a mass shooting event, so this is an effort to prevent any future liability litigation for this incident, which would not only be a losing case for the victims given the legal precedent, but also cost them a lot of time and money.

MGM and other entities involved can (and likely have) still donate to the recovery funds of the victims and all that, but this suit isn't seeking any money from the victims.

Just from browsing, this doesn't look like the "evil corporation does evil thing" narrative the headlines suggest.

If their "we are protected from liability" thing held true they could simply use that defense in all the liability cases against them. Instead they're doing something which will require more time and money from victims to resolve

It seems like they are trying to avoid that case altogether by heading it off with established legal precedent. Like a pre-defense to avoid a long and drawn out (and expensive for all parties) trial. This really does seem like it is in the best interest for both parties from what little I've read about it this morning.