New York – Las Vegas Gunman’s Estate Could Offer Rare Redress For Victims

    3

    FILE  - Las Vegas police officers walk past a sign at a makeshift memorial set up for the victims of the Route 91 Harvest music festival mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S., October 7, 2017. REUTERS/Chris WattieNew York – Victims of mass shootings in the United States often win little or no damages from perpetrators but the Las Vegas massacre may be different because the shooter is thought to have been a wealthy man, lawyers said.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    While there are often few assets to collect from the young men who typically carry out these killings, Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock, 64, is thought to have had multi-million-dollar investments in buildings across Texas and California.

    Paddocks’s estate has become a target for claimants in a case where victims and their families face an uphill battle holding liable the hotel and musical festival where the shooting rampage took place.

    “It definitely depends on the assets in the estate whether you pursue that claim,” said Theida Salazar, a Los Angeles attorney who represented one of the victim’s families in the 2015 shooting in San Bernadino, California.

    Paddock killed 58 people and injured hundreds more on Oct. 1 when he fired into the crowd gathered for a country music festival from his 32nd-floor suite at the Las Vegas Mandalay Bay hotel. The gunman killed himself before he could be apprehended.

    His estate was named as a defendant in a complaint filed last week in Nevada state court. Attorneys who brought that action said they are planning to file more lawsuits.

    Plaintiff Paige Gasper, who was wounded in the shooting, accused Paddock of battery and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. She also sued MGM Resorts International, the owner of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino; event organizer Live Nation Entertainment and the maker of a gun accessory Paddock used, Slide Fire Solution.

    Another lawsuit on behalf of a California woman, Andrea Castilla, killed in the shooting was filed on Tuesday against the same defendants.

    Eric Paddock, the shooter’s brother, did not respond to a request for comment, but he previously told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that he was administering his brother’s estate for the benefit of his victims.

    MGM and Live Nation declined to comment on pending litigation. Slide Fire never responded to a request for comment.

    LIABILITY BEYOND QUESTION

    Legal experts said it was hard to hold premises and firearms manufacturers responsible for mass shootings.

    Victor Schwartz, an attorney specializing in injury cases, said victims suing the Las Vegas hotel and event organizer would have to show the latter could have foreseen and taken steps to prevent the shooting. That would be difficult for such an extreme event, he said.

    At the same time, Federal law specifically protects the makers of guns and ammunition from liability for the criminal use of their products.

    Though Paddock’s estate will likely not be able to pay nearly as much as a large corporate defendant could, and individual payouts could be small given the number of victims, his liability for the shooting is beyond question.

    Shooting victims would have the same claim on Paddock’s estate as those trying to collect unpaid bills, said Mark Solomon, a Las Vegas estate lawyer. Certain claims, such as unpaid taxes or an outstanding mortgage, would have higher priority.

    However, among victims, the families of those killed would receive the highest amounts and those who suffered emotional distress and no physical harm would get the least, Solomon said.

    Paddock’s heirs would not receive anything unless all creditors had been paid. Given the number of victims, there is unlikely to be anything left, legal experts said.

    Any money Paddock gave away just before the shooting, like the $100,000 he is believed to have sent to his girlfriend Marilou Danley in the Philippines, might also be clawed back as a “fraudulent conveyance,” said Elizabeth Carter, an estate law professor at Louisiana State University.

    Though recovery from shooters has been rare, victims have received substantial payments from younger shooters’ parents, who have been accused of insufficiently monitoring their children or failing to prevent them from accessing firearms.

    The parents of the two teenagers who committed the 1999 Columbine high school shooting settled with most of the victims’ families for $1.6 million in 2001.


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    3 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    6 years ago

    This article is very misleading. There were hundreds of victims of the mass shooting. The total legal liability will amount to about 1.5 billion dollars. In addition to the 500 or so known victims, there were thousands of other victims who suffered from, and still suffer from mental trauma, as a result of the stampede, and of being trapped, while bullets were flying. The shooter’s estate is less than 10 million dollars. Hence, the families of the victims would have the best legal recourse in going after the MGM Corp., which owns the Mandalay Bay Resort. Although this case may drag on for ten years, MGM will eventually settle with the family of the deceased victims, and with the living victims, many who will require ongoing medical care for decades. Incidentally, the concert organizers can also be sued, regarding the security. This shooting was not unprecedented. On August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman of Austin, Texas opened fire on a crowd, from a tower (at the University of Texas), high above the ground, with a high powered rifle. Lee Harvey Oswald also used a high powered rifle from a building. Hence, the victims stand a good chance of getting legal redress from MGM.

    6 years ago

    To #2 - Thank you for your sarcastic response; the security of the MGM Corporation or the lack thereof, will be a key legal issue which will be argued in court. The Mandalay Resort had numerous signs stating “Weapons not allowed”. However, in an effort to cut costs, the Mandalay Resort chose not to scan the luggage of the guests for weapons, which they could have done. On the other hand, all of the large hotels in Las Vegas, which Steve Wynn owns have employed searching and scanning of all of the luggage, which guests bring into their hotels. Since Steve Wynn had the foresight to have such a security policy, the shooter intentionally avoided staying at his hotels, as he knew that he would have been apprehended. Also, in Eretz Yisrael, all of the luggage which guests bring into hotels, is searched for weapons. Also, the federal government never thought that terrorists would use commercial airliners, as flying bombs to fly into office buildings. Yet, it paid millions of dollars in compensation, to the families of the victims, through a special fund, which was set up, in an effort to save the airlines from legal liability. MGM is not off the hook, regarding civil recourse.