The shooting was a harvest festival turned chaotic. It was October 1st, 2017 when a man unleashed a barrage of gunfire from Mandalay Bay hotel
The shooting was a harvest festival turned chaotic. It was October 1st, 2017 when a man unleashed a barrage of gunfire from Mandalay Bay hotel (Ambellas, 2018). It is believed that the shooter sprayed bullets from the 32nd floor of the hotel which is about 400 yards from the scene. Few gunshots were heard first at around 10:00 pm before a fully automatic machine gun unleashed the bullets. People started running for their lives while jumping over fences to take cover. The shooting went on for like 10 minutes after which there were more than 50 gunfire casualties. Later, it was confirmed that 58 people died from gunshots and others were seriously injured.
The questions that arose from the cases that were presented before the court were on negligence liability and their determination depends on whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care. The plaintiffs have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the hotel had a duty of care and it was breached (Dorfman, 2016).
In the same case, whether Mandalay Bay had a duty to protect the people who attended the concert from the killer. In the same case, whether the hotel had a duty to protect it guests and any other person within the premises form any reasonable likely harm or danger. The contentious question was whether the same care it offered to its guests and anyone in the premises applies to the general and determination on whether the person carrying a weapon to his/her room and shooting to the public from the room was reasonable to foresee or not.
another question will arise on whether the hotel breached that duty. It is believed that the shooter arrived into the hotel room three days before the shooting with 23 guns which included AR-15-style and AK-47-style rifles. The court needs to establish whether the hotel could have spotted the shooter and suspect him of any unusual behavior. The shooter had also installed a “Do Not Disturb” sign on the door to his room, hence the question is whether the hotel could have found it suspicious. Another question that arose is whether the hotel should have installed bulletproof window glasses and how was the response to the shooting.
At all accounts, the success of the suit solely depends on the plaintiffs being able to demonstrate that the hotel breached the duty and not intervening acts that caused casualties (Stein, 2017). In this case, the hotel was not negligent as it did not breach any duty it owes to the general public. Therefore, the course will likely find the shooter responsible for the shooting and mass killing.
As the lawyer to the Mandalay Bay Hotel, I would recommend the installation of body scanners at the entrance of the hotel. The installation of these devices will control the type of tools allowed into the hotel premises. The devices could have detected the weapons used in the mass shooting. Another important thing is constant surveillance of the movement of people in the premises. A close look at the guests’ behaviors and movements would have maybe pointed to the shooter and mark him for further investigations which could have established his intention hence control the massacre.