(10-11-2017 07:53 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 07:21 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.3555747

Shooting survivor sues MGM Resorts, the Paddock Estate, the Music Festival promoters, and the company that made the bump stock that Paddock used. Before you go crazy about the suit, the story says she is only asking for $15,000 to cover her medical expenses. Since she was shot in the right side, her ribs shattered and her liver lacerated, and then trampled by fellow concert goers, I'd say someone needs to quickly give her that money before she realizes she missed some zeroes at the end.

Well, the Paddock case pretty nullifies this Nevada Law. Automatic weapons attack on the premises of a Hotel is foreseeable. Difference in this case is 99% of the victims were off premises. But those Guests on the 32nd floor might have a claim.

NRS651.015Civil liability of innkeepers for death or injury of person on premises caused by person who is not employee.

1.An owner or keeper of any hotel, inn, motel, motor court, boardinghouse or lodging house is not civilly liable for the death or injury of a patron or other person on the premises caused by another person who is not an employee under the control or supervision of the owner or keeper unless:

(a)The wrongful act which caused the death or injury was foreseeable; and

(b)There is a preponderance of evidence that the owner or keeper did not exercise due care for the safety of the patron or other person on the premises.

2.An owner or keeper of any hotel, inn, motel, motor court, boardinghouse or lodging house is civilly liable for the death or injury of a patron or other person on the premises caused by another person who is not an employee under the control or supervision of the owner or keeper if:

(a)The wrongful act which caused the death or injury was foreseeable; and

(b)The owner or keeper failed to take reasonable precautions against the foreseeable wrongful act.

Ê The court shall determine as a matter of law whether the wrongful act was foreseeable and whether the owner or keeper had a duty to take reasonable precautions against the foreseeable wrongful act of the person who caused the death or injury.

3.For the purposes of this section, a wrongful act is not foreseeable unless:

(a)The owner or keeper failed to exercise due care for the safety of the patron or other person on the premises; or

(b)Prior incidents of similar wrongful acts occurred on the premises and the owner or keeper had notice or knowledge of those incidents.

(Added to NRS by 1995, 2670)

the keyword is in bold.....

either pay the lawyers and risk or just pay 'em off.....

this one's pretty simple....