If you where riding in a cab and a terrorist blew up the bridge you where about to cross and the driver couldn't stop in time it would not be the drivers fault. However if he could not stop because he didn't maintain his car and the brakes failed then it would be.

His guns were legal Johnny, explain what MGM was supose to do even if they did know he had guns.

(GO DURING A GUN SHOW, LOTS OF HOTEL GUESTS HAVE A ROOM FULL OF GUNS)

Hosting the event is where the perceived responsibility might come into play you create an event with it comes expectations whether real or not!

By that definition they would also be responsible for a lightening strike.

Bacterial infection from using the portapots?

I'm pretty sure the fine print on the back of each ticket has noted individual responsibility on it.

Your first sentence hits it on the head. Kind of a toss up equal to suing the MGM.

MGM's name is on the lawsuit but you better believe their insurance carrier is behind the whole affair. They are trying to limit their pay out. If you have ever been hurt in an accident, your insurance company will do their best to place the blame on anyone involved so they can recover anything they have to pay out. Been there and seen it first hand.

A act of God VS the argument of proper amount of security are 2 different things, not that either would of mattered it's lawyers getting paid well to argue with other lawyers the real winners!

I'm not sure what the liability might be or if there even was one. But hypothetically if they located the gunman and then failed to engage him then maybe that might be a reason for a lawsuit.

You spend some time in Court and you will see that a good reason has nothing to do with the legal system it's a lot of smoke and mirrors the truth has little to do with what goes on, if you pay a guy to say the world is flat they will testify as a expert witness for you.

Negligent or not, because it happened in their hotel, they will be named in the lawsuit by the victims. The victim's theory being that somebody has to be liable whether they are or not. Who else can they sue? Maybe the shooter's wife? Nope. They will look where the money is: MGM.

Since a bump stock was used, will the gun manufacturer be sued in the future? There's money there too.

For all of the talk about them stocks nothing has happened with them that I know of at the Federal level. Pretty sure they stopped making them.

Lawyers will look for any possible source they can find to include them in the lawsuit.

Just tired of all the sueing BS and people who like to place blame everywhere but where it should be....WITH THE SHOOTER.

The only reason MGM, Rider, U-Haul, Remington and these innocent companies get drug into this BS is MONEY.

Perhaps they can argue it was an act of the devil?

Actually, an abundance of money. Jurors see evil companies with pockets way deeper than their's and are eager to give it away.

It would take an act of gross negligence on the part of MGM for them to be responsible. That does not mean that many Americans will not try to take a windfall from them and plenty of lawyers will not pass up the possible payday.

No doubt. I remember getting a letter there was a class action lawsuit and now I was owed 5 free movie rentals. I always wondered how much money the lawyers made suing on "My behalf"

Gotta be careful if they lose do they come after you for those fees then, someone's paying that bill? LOL

The person responsible for your safety is you. Its a fine thing when a cop or security guard risks their life to protect yours. That doesn't change the fact that the responsibility for your protection is yours and yours alone. That concept is too scary for many. They have no self confidence. So they whine around about how someone else should take of them and if its not done to their satisfaction then they ought to be compensated.

Ought to drown the whole lot of them. Ticks and chiggers have more self respect than those low self esteem types. tick and chiggers at least don't pretend to not be parasites.