Thank you for this analysis. I tend to look at this from a higher level - even if it is LEGALLY responsible for MGM Resorts to launch this lawsuit, it could have wider BUSINESS IMPLICATIONS. (Or it may not; I'm not sure how many Vegas vacationers will use this as a criterion to decide where they will stay.)
US SAFETY Act Examined Amid Vegas Shooting Lawsuit
Published Jul 25, 2018 16:30 PM
Creating an international controversy, MGM Resorts has sued shooting victims, despite or perhaps because the Las Vegas gunman used the MGM-owned Mandalay Bay to kill 58 people.
Unsurprisingly, this has engendered significant opposition and mockery.
However, MGM is using the US SAFETY Act of 2002 as a defense in their complaint. But what is the SAFETY Act and how does it apply to security users? In this note, we examine:
- What does it take to become SAFETY Act certified?
- How do the levels of certification differ?
- What protection does it apply?
- What security system manufacturers are certified?
- Should buyers look to SAFETY Act certification as an important differentiator?
What ** ** *** **** **** ** ****?
*** ****** *** **** *** ** a ****-*/** **** *** ********** *** for ******** ****-****** *** ******** ********** would ******** ******* **** ** **********. Basically, *** ********** **** *** **** companies *** *********** ************ *** **** up **** ********, ********** *** ********* to *** ******** *** *********** **** lives ******* **** *** ****** ** being **** ** ***** ********** ** perceived ** **** ** *** **** of * ********* ***.
***** ***** ** ** *** ** become ****** *** *********, ** ******** submitting ** *********** (*** **** *****), ***** ******** *** ******** *** information **** *** ****** ** ****** Act ************** (****) *** ******* ********* coverage *** *** ****-********* ********** (****** details ** *** **** ** ****** of ********* *** *** ****** ** the *****).
How ** *** ****** ** ************* ******?
***** ******** ********* ******** ******* *** *** ****** ***, from ******* ** ******, ***, **** and *****:
- *** ** *** ********* ************. *** provides *** **** ********** ** ********* but **** ****** *** ****** *** everyone ** *** ****** ***** ** the ********* ********** **** ** ******* the********** ********** *******. **** ***** **** ** **** as *** ******** ********* *** ***** to *** ********** **** *** ********** wasn't ***** **, *** *** ****** was, **** *** ****** ***'* ** sued.
- **** ** *** ********** ******. **** is *** ***** **** **** ******* on * ************ ********* ********** *** same ****** ** ********* **** *** Green **&* ***** *******. * ******* looking ** ** ****** *** *** first **** **** ******* *********** ****** before ******** *********.
- ***** ********* ************* *** ******* ********** Designation. ** ** * *********** *** a ********** **** ** *** ************ available ***, *** ***** *******. ** may ** ******** ** **** ******* to ** ****** *** **** ************ used ****** * ********* *****. *** DT&E *********** ****** ********* ** **** which ** ***** ** *** ********* the ********** ****** ** ******** ** DHS ** *****.
********* ** *** ******** *** ***********, ***** ** ********** **** ******* or *** **** ********** ******* *** be ******** ** ***-********, ***-************ *****.
What ******** ******** ********* *** ******?
*** ***** **** ** *** ******** handed *** ***** *,***** ****** *** listing. ********* *** ******** ************ ************* *** ** ******. *******, *** confirmed ** **** **** **** ********* who *** ******** ****** ** *** display ***** ****** ********.
********* *** **** ** *** ********-********-******* listings **** *****:
- ****
- *****, ***.
- ********
- ***** *******, ***.
- ******* ***.
- ********* ************* (******* ********)
- ***** ******* ***.
- ****** *****, ***.
- ******* ********** *********, ***
- ***** ******* *************, ***.
- ****
- ******** *******, ***.
- ****é*** ***. *** ******** ***
- ******** ********** ********
- ****** *********, ***.
- **** ********** ******** *** *** **** Integrated **** & ******** ******, ***.
- ****** (****** ****** *** ******* ********* to *** ****** *** *******).
- *** **** ****...
************** *** **** *** * ******** hard **********, *** ************* **** *** methods ** ********, ********* ********* ********, procedures *** ********** ******** ******, ***. For *******:
*************** *** ****** *** *******:
Should ****** **** ** ****** *** ******* ** * **************?
******** ** ********* **** **** ** **** ** safe *** ********** ********* ** ******** and ******* ********* **** **** ***** without *** ****** ** **********. ** solution ********* *** ********* ***** *** likelihood ** * ********* *** ********* within *** ** ***** *********, **** pursuing *********** *** **** ************* *** make *****. *** ********* ********** ******* to ******** ** *** ****** ***** of *** ****** **********.
*** *** **** ** ******* **** to *** ****.
Is *** ***** ** *** *** *******?
***'* **** ******* ************** ******** ***********, *** ******* ***** ** ******* security *** *** ***** ** ******* Festival, * ****** ***-********* *******, ****** ******* ** ***** *********:
**** ** ** **** ********* ********** *** ********* ********:
*** ****** ** ***** ***** *** Government ********** *******:
Dispute ************* ** ****** *** ** **** *****
*******,***** ** * ************ ******* *** ********** ********** ******* protection *** ** ******** ** * non-military, ***-************ *******:
***** ** **** **** ******* ********* whether ** *** *** ***** ** Harvest ******** ******** **** ********* *** for ********** ***** *** ****** ***, since,********* ** ***, **** **** *** ******* ******* or *** *** **** ******** *** an *** ** *********:
*******, ** ********* *** ** ***** *********, ***'**** ******** ******* *********** * *** **** ****** ****** doubt **** ***** **** ******** ********* as *********.
******* ***' ********* **********:
*******, ** *** ***** ****, **** if **** **** ******* ** *********, that *** ******** *** **** **** the ******** *** ****** *** *** the ********, ***** **** **** *** MGM ** *** ********* ** *** SAFETY *** ************* ** *** *** was ******* *** *** ******** *** not *** ******.
Outlook ****** ***
*** ******* ** **** **** ***** have * ******* ****** ** *** the ****** *** *** ** *******. Minimally, ** ** ******* ********* ** a ** ********** ******* **** ***** be ** *** ** **** ******** companies.
Comments (8)
John Bredehoft
Jul 27, 2018JH
John Honovich
Jul 27, 2018At least from a marketing perspective, it's a terrible move. I do wonder what coordination or consideration was given to that when filing the suit.
U
Undisclosed #1
Jul 27, 2018This may be an unpopular tactic, but the lawyers for MGM are doing their jobs - limiting their clients potential exposure to fault using existing statutes that are on the books.
To do anything less could be considered dereliction of duty on their part.
The problem here, as Dan points out in the OP, is that the existing statutes claimed as a defense are pretty ambiguous and completely untested in court.
My personal opinion is that plaintiffs will get next to nothing - even without SAFETY ACT protections.
JH
John Honovich
Jul 27, 2018Ultimately the company makes the decision on what the lawyers should do - sue or not.
It may be worth it. It's a function of how much they believe they will lose x the probability they succeed with the case - the brand damage of the suit.
U
Undisclosed #1
Jul 27, 2018"Ultimately the company makes the decision on what the lawyers should do - sue or not."
I agree, but, as you mentioned, this move is entirely based on potential loss of $$.
While the move could face potential backlash and hurt their brand financially, the exposure risk to thousands of lawsuits from victims appears to have been determined to be an even greater financial risk.
Jeffrey Hinckley
Jul 28, 2018Great article, Dan.
Dan Gelinas
Jul 30, 2018Thank you, Jeff!
SB
Steven Burman
Jul 30, 2018I think the main thrust of folks suing MGM is that they let this guy bring suitcase after suitcase into his room and nobody ever questioned it. I'd bet the plaintiff's lawyers will move to have the SAFETY act defense declared irrelevant.