Lawyer whose firm defended casino in Vegas shooter's tort case says he was 'slovenly' and 'unkempt'
Screenshot of Stephen Paddock/CBS News
A Las Vegas lawyer whose firm defended a casino in a slip-and-fall case brought by Stephen Paddock says the Las Vegas mass shooter was “slovenly” and didn’t always make sense.
The National Law Journal (sub. req.) spoke with lawyer Martin “Marty” Kravitz, who is managing partner of Kravitz, Schnitzer & Johnson. Kravitz spoke with the associate who successfully handled the case and is now with another law firm.
“She said he was a nothing: He was slovenly, not the brightest guy, had a lot of ‘I don’t knows’ for answers, his story didn’t always make sense,” Kravitz told the National Law Journal. “When we came to his deposition, he didn’t dress up. When he went to arbitration, he dressed sloppy.”
Kravitz made similar comments in an interview with NBC News in which he described Paddock as “unkempt,” “slovenly and careless” and “bizarre.” But there was no indication that Paddock was unstable, Kravitz said.
Kravitz told NBC that a video of the October 2011 fall at the Cosmopolitan Hotel showed Paddock was “was wearing crappy flip-flops with a beverage in a bag in his hand.” Paddock had claimed he fell in a puddle of liquid. An arbitrator, however, noted that a custodian and about 20 hotel customers had passed the spot where Paddock fell and no one appeared to notice or avoid anything on the floor.
Paddock killed at least 59 people when he opened fire Sunday night from a window at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, the New York Times reports. Paddock killed himself before police stormed his 32nd-floor room.
Kravitz told the National Law Journal his firm has represented Mandalay Bay, and he wouldn’t be surprised if his firm was retained in any lawsuits over the shooting. Kravitz said it would be difficult for plaintiffs to make out a case because of a prior suit handled by his firm that went to the Nevada Supreme Court.
The court ruled in that case in 2011 that Mahoney’s Silver Nugget didn’t owe a duty of care to a person shot on the premises because the crime wasn’t foreseeable. The case is Smith v. Mahoney’s Silver Nugget.
