Las Vegas Massacre - Lawsuits For NEGLIGENCE Filed. Are All Named Entities Negligent?.

October 11, 2017

The first lawsuits were filed today by a victim who was wounded by a bullet, in the worst mass shooting in modern American history.

Paige Gasper came close to becoming one of gunman Stephen Paddock’s victims when he shot into a crowd of 22,000 at a Las Vegas country music festival headlined by Jason Aldean last week.

Fifty-eight people were killed in the massacre, and hundreds, like Gasper, were wounded.

Luckily, the 21-year-old Sonoma State University student beat death in the nation’s worst mass shooting in modern history, with the aid of Good Samaritans who pulled her incapacitated body into a pickup truck and transported her to a hospital.

Now, Gasper, of Wheatland, California, is suing the Mandalay Bay hotel, the concert organizers, bump stock manufacturers and retailers as well as the “Estate of Stephen Paddock” for “negligence” in failing to prevent Paddock’s 11-minute terrorizing rampage.

Source: www.wfroradio.com...

When a lawsuit like this is filed, does a JUDGE determine which of those entities were "negligent", by not preventing this mass shooting..or is that left up to a JURY?

In your opinion, which of those defendants were "negligent"? All, or some, or none of them?

Since there's only so much money to go around, it's curious that 10 days elapsed after the October 1st massacre, before the first victim filed a lawsuit. Will there likely be a lot more, or will everyone sort of be pooled together in a class-action, comprehensive suit?

-CareWeMust

a reply to: carewemust

Percentages of liability would be assigned, if appropriate. There is probably a statute of limitations -- that means anyone that could or should be named in a lawsuit needs to be named now, because they can't be named after it's too late. A judge will decide the case if the plaintiff waives the right to a jury trial.

If the court thinks other plaintiffs should be joined to this lawsuit, it will require it. I do not think that's necessarily normal or standard though.

And it won't stop there either, the authors of books pertaining to such an event may also get sued since they'll be sickly profiting from the terrible event.

I guess America still is a "sue happy " country, was that way 25 years ago when I left.

a reply to: carewemust

Seems to me to be the USA 'There is always someone to sue.'

The Fourth Amendment prevents searches of luggage without warrant. That clears the Hotel.

How are the event organizers supposed to stop a shooter who is not even at the event.

Bump stocks are legal as are firearms ... see the Second Amendment.

Going after his Estate is viable ... although there is no evidence that he actually fired a weapon.

P

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: carewemust

Seems to me to be the USA 'There is always someone to sue.'

The Fourth Amendment prevents searches of luggage without warrant. That clears the Hotel.

How are the event organizers supposed to stop a shooter who is not even at the event.

Bump stocks are legal as are firearms ... see the Second Amendment.

Going after his Estate is viable ... although there is no evidence that he actually fired a weapon.

P

Bump stocks were approved/cleared by the ATF years ago as well.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's interesting that the law enforcement entities, who are charged with keeping citizens and visitors safe in Las Vegas, were not named as defendants.

originally posted by: musicismagic


I guess America still is a "sue happy " country, was that way 25 years ago when I left.

I don't think Americans are as "sue happy" as you think. Over 600 people were wounded or killed, yet 10 days elapsed before the first suit was filed. Unless some victims filed earlier, but did so "confidentially", if there is such a thing?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: carewemust

Seems to me to be the USA 'There is always someone to sue.'

The Fourth Amendment prevents searches of luggage without warrant. That clears the Hotel.

How are the event organizers supposed to stop a shooter who is not even at the event.

Bump stocks are legal as are firearms ... see the Second Amendment.

Going after his Estate is viable ... although there is no evidence that he actually fired a weapon.

P

Bump stocks were approved/cleared by the ATF years ago as well.

Approved...no.

They found that they didn't have legal grounds to ban them.

It's not like they get a USDA aproval or anything

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: carewemust

Seems to me to be the USA 'There is always someone to sue.'

The Fourth Amendment prevents searches of luggage without warrant. That clears the Hotel.

How are the event organizers supposed to stop a shooter who is not even at the event.

Bump stocks are legal as are firearms ... see the Second Amendment.

Going after his Estate is viable ... although there is no evidence that he actually fired a weapon.

P

Those are good points, pheonix358. Maybe security guard Jesus Campos falls under the "hotel". The suing attorney's may feel that he should have kicked the door down and rushed Paddock.

a reply to: carewemust

Since the security guard got shot before the shooting happened I'd say the hotel can be sued since the police should've been able to get to the room within 10 minutes of being called but it doesn't appear that happened since it took 79 minutes to breach after the guard was shot

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: carewemust

Seems to me to be the USA 'There is always someone to sue.'

The Fourth Amendment prevents searches of luggage without warrant. That clears the Hotel.

How are the event organizers supposed to stop a shooter who is not even at the event.

Bump stocks are legal as are firearms ... see the Second Amendment.

Going after his Estate is viable ... although there is no evidence that he actually fired a weapon.

P

Those are good points, pheonix358. Maybe security guard Jesus Campos falls under the "hotel". The suing attorney's may feel that he should have kicked the door down and rushed Paddock.

He's a security guard, not a Marine ordered to take a hill. I'm sure he's protected under the assumption that he has the right to gauge his own personal safety in regards to security concerns where he's completely out gunned.

originally posted by: musicismagic
And it won't stop there either, the authors of books pertaining to such an event may also get sued since they'll be sickly profiting from the terrible event.

I guess America still is a "sue happy " country, was that way 25 years ago when I left.

In this case, a civil lawsuit may be the only way that evidence in the case will be made public. Since the alleged shooter is dead there will be no criminal trial, no reason to convict a dead man. If his estate is sued in civil court, proof that he was the shooter will need presenting.

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: musicismagic
And it won't stop there either, the authors of books pertaining to such an event may also get sued since they'll be sickly profiting from the terrible event.

I guess America still is a "sue happy " country, was that way 25 years ago when I left.

In this case, a civil lawsuit may be the only way that evidence in the case will be made public. Since the alleged shooter is dead there will be no criminal trial, no reason to convict a dead man. If his estate is sued in civil court, proof that he was the shooter will need presenting.

I hope this is a pursuit of justice and not just for monetary gain as a settlement will allow for the sealing of documents related to the investigation. You can say adios to ANY truth or clarity if that happens.

I sincerely hope people, victims and the general public, consider and realize that WE ARE ALL VICTIMS until the truth is completely set forth for review and analysis. Otherwise, this will be considered a viable tool by conspirators that can be used again.

With all the inconsistencies, weirdness, improbability, and sheer BS..the best way to prevent this from happening again is to prove one way or the other the truth of when, why, how, and the real who was behind this. One guy or several, because this stinks something fierce.

a reply to: andrew778


I think the Mandalay hotel is a component of a really big company isn't it?

a reply to: EternalShadow


I agree. My comment was referring to what the plaintiff's lawyers may be thinking.

a reply to: carewemust

a reply to: diggindirt


Maybe a civil lawsuit will force the autopsy results to be made public? News media is saying that the Sheriff is becoming less forthcoming during his briefings. Reporters can't get him to say WHY the timeline of events keeps shifting.

a reply to: EternalShadow
Well said and I agree.


Sadly, I already see that there are percentage of people out there who have made up their minds and no matter what a trial brings out, if it doesn't fit what they believe they will find reason to discount it.

I actually gained a bit of respect for Alex Jones yesterday when he admitted the errors he'd made in the early days. He's still way out there with all his "insider" info. But I'm sure he's being fed mis/disinformation in massive doses just like every other media outlet. I suspect that effort applies to the "alternative media" as well as msm.

Now, if the evidence in this case is declared to be classified due to national security issues---I'll put on my tin foil hat.

FYI...Here's a report from earlier today that potentially makes the hotel liable for negligence...

LAS VEGAS -- A maintenance worker said Wednesday he told hotel dispatchers to call police and report a gunman had opened fire with a rifle inside the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino hotel before the shooter began firing from his high-rise suite into a crowd at a nearby musical performance.

Worker Stephen Schuck says he was checking out a report of a jammed fire door on the 32nd floor of Mandalay Bay when he heard gunshots and a hotel security guard, who had been shot in the leg, peeked out from an alcove and told him to take cover.

More at: www.cbsnews.com...

First I've heard of a Mandalay Bay maintenance worker being involved in the mix. Has police mentione him during any of the briefings?

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: EternalShadow



Now, if the evidence in this case is declared to be classified due to national security issues---I'll put on my tin foil hat.

Excellent point there because his employment record includes working for Lockheed Martin and his actual job there has yet to be disclosed. A possible, convenient fill in the blank escape clause for the defense.

Considering the company has, and continues to do classified work and projects, the defense may use that as a way to seal the court records in their entirety under the guise of national security.

Plausible, and highly probable that may transpire.

I'm going to go ahead and start my Reynolds Wrap origami now to lessen the "sticker shock".