Mandalay Bay Shooting Gasper v MGM Resorts International On October 1, 2017, a horrific event occurred in Las Vegas. Steven Paddock fired into the crowd of a music festival from a Mandalay Bay hotel, killing 58 people and injuring more than 500 others. Following this tragic shooting, a law suit was filed by Paige Gasper against the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino’s parent company, MGM Resorts International. This law suit claimed the company had negligent preventative measures and failed to maintain the Mandalay Bay premises in a reasonably safe condition. Further, the law suit claimed negligence due to a lack of surveillance and a failure to adequately train and supervise employees on the reporting and discovery of suspicious individuals, persons, or activities. …show more content…
The first element of a tort is clearly present: victims were injured and suffered damages. The remaining two required elements are the injurer having caused harm and having performed a breach of duty. If the plaintiff is able to prove the MGM Resort International did in fact fail to enforce preventative measures, the two elements will be considered present in this case. Cause-in-fact and proximate cause will be more difficult to prove. It is possible the shooter could have chosen a different location from which to act out his mass casualty shooting, making cause-in-face questionable in this case. When using the “but-for” test, it is difficult to place blame on the hotel. Additionally, proximate cause will also prove difficult to verify. If this causation was to be validated it could call into question the foreseeability of any hotel, venue, or public building’s accountability in the event of any mass
(Cheeseman2013) In the National Labor Relation Board v Shop Rite Foods case some employees of Shop Rite Foods of Texas elected a worker union as a Bargaining agent for a collective bargaining agreement for over 3 months the agreement was still not settled. Then ShopRite began to notice a lot of it merchandise being damaged in the warehouse. They determined that the damage was being intentionally being caused by dissident employees as a pressure tactic to secure concessions from the company in the collective bargaining negotiations.
Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerned with the qualified privilege of employers. In this case Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,”
...ulations in the U.S. judicial system is “most define the law as a system of principles and processes by which people in a society deal with disputes and problems, seeking to solve or settle them without resorting to force” (p. 15). Some situations cannot be rectified in a board meeting. However, negligence is in the category of objectives of tort law, it is also the most popular lawsuit pursued by patients against medical professionals against doctors and healthcare organizations (Bal, 2009). Objectives of Tort Law
Case Name: Dyer v. National By-Products, Inc., Supreme Court of Iowa, 1986., 380 N.W.2d 732
Wolford General Partnership (WGP) operates plumbing supply business which is also an exclusive supplier for certain stable construction firms. Because of its excellent reputations and services, WGP is able to an extremely profitable entity for the business. WGP uses an accrual method of accounting and has been using June 30 fiscal year for the tax report purpose after its election of §444 since its formation.
Between 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. PDT (pacific daylight time) 64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada, fired hundreds of rifle rounds from his suite on the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay
Vicarious liability is a common law concept that refers to the liability that arises when one party, such as an employer, is legally liable for the acts or omissions of another party, such as an employee. This is because employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees and those of others who come into contact with them and their business. Does vicarious liability expose businesses to too much liability? In the case study 4.1 (Tardif v. Wiebe), we learned that vicarious liability does not always applied on employers for employee’s wrongdoings.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton case was taken in by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 1988. The case was brought up by Beth Ann Faragher, whom between 1985 and 1990, worked as a lifeguard for the City of Boca Raton, Florida. During these years, Faragher stated the two male supervisors, Bill Terry and David Silverman, performed several acts of sexual harassment against her, and several other female lifeguards. These acts ranged from sexual comments about these women’s bodies to asking them to engage in sexual intercourse with them. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the City of Boca Raton under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that an employer may only be held responsible, if supervisory employees
The California Legislature, in 1927, enacted section 36 of California Civil Code. The section read as follows: “A minor cannot disaffirm a contract, otherwise valid, to perform or render services as actor, actress, or other dramatic services, as participant or player in professional sports, including, but without being limited to, professional boxers, professional wrestlers and professional jockeys, where such contract has been approved by the superior court of the county where such minor resides or is employed. Such approval may be given on the petition of either party to the contract after such reasonable notice to the other party thereto, as may be fixed by said court, with opportunity to such other party to appear and be heard.”
There is little information right now, even still, after the mass shooting in Las Vegas. An older man named Stephen Paddock fired into a large crowd of people attending a country music concert on October 1, 2017. 58 people enjoying a concert on a Sunday evening lost their lives and hundreds more were injured. Nearly a month later and authorities are still at a loss when it comes to finding Stephen Paddock’s motive for this mass shooting. However, there are many theories circulating. I personally feel Stephen Paddock was an isolated man who had a warped view on the community, and one day decided something needed to change and he was going to plan a way to do it.
General speaking, a tort of negligence is a failure of someone or one party to follow a standard of care which means failed to do what a reasonable person do or do what a reasonable personal would not do. From the interest perspective, the tort of negligent investigation is an offence against private interest of an individual, corporation or government due to the negligent investigation. Whether a tort of negligent investigation exists in Canada is related to whether investigators owe a duty of care to person being investigated and what is the standard of care. Finally, a tort of negligent investigation only exist when there is a loss or injury to the suspect and the loss or injury was caused by the negligent investigation.
An active shooter incident is a form of workplace violence that has increased at an alarming rate. From the year 2000 through 2013 there has been a 6.4% increase in annual shooting in commercial environments from 2000 to 2007 and an 11% increase in active shooter incidents from the years of 2008 through 2013 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014). There are many factors that contribute to active shooter incidents, including everyday home and work stresses, unemployment, substance addiction and major stresses (e.g. death of a loved one). It is now more important than ever that companies work together with employees when it comes to agreeing on proper preventative measures and procedures in the response to workplace violence. Homicides due to active shooter incidents are caused by emotional abuse, stalking, threats and more commonly termination of employment.
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
On July 20th 2012 a lone gunman later identified later as James Holmes entered Century 16 Movie Theater in Aurora, Colorado to inflict deliberate harms against civilians with no identifiable reasoning. Holmes, dressed from head to toe in body armor opened fire on a crowd of 70 moviegoers, killing 12 thus labeling this event as a mass shooting. Within 60 seconds, James Holmes was able cause anarchy before police apprehend him. Though the events of the shooting were horrific it did spark a nationwide debate on how we look at the security of public places trying to prevent or minimize future incidents.
This article is about Harrah’s Entertainment; one of the largest casino entertainments made a decision to move away from being a product based company to a strategic marketing company geared towards customer satisfaction by implementing a customer focused rewards program. Bill Harrah, the founder of the company established the company’s reputation on the premise of pride of the employees working for “the best in the business” while given more attention to the condition of the properties. However, when Gary Loveman joined the company as the new Chief operating officer, he made a move towards customer service. Gary Loveman hired Marilyn Winn, the head of Human Resources, to change how the company engaged in people development. Winn came up with a strategic plan to develop Harrah’s human capital. As a result, Winn is faced with the difficult task of improving employee motivation and job satisfaction in a rough economy after 9/11, which changed our nation forever. Although, the company gained market share it did not quite meet the company’s projected level.