Man Sues Casino After $500k Loss 'While Drunk

[tazer]

Great read, thanks for posting.

Several things though:



Seriously!!!! In a styrofoam or paper cup, between her knees, and that's McDonald's fault?

• I stand by my statement that ""IF"" someone served me a coffee that was at a temperature so that it wouldn't cause burns, I wouldn't take it, nor would anyone else who enjoys a cup of black coffee, I don't think
• In spite of the information presented, I still feel it's an example of the society we live in, where people will take advantage of any situation for the financial betterment of themselves without having to work for it.
• I would like to see an honest public poll showing what percentage of people think the judgement was stupid and socialistic (as will probably the one coming from the subject of the OP in this thread).

I think many people who are quoted in your link are of the same breed as the "ambulance chasing lawyers".

You ever hear of that bus accident where passers-by helped injured folks off the damaged bus in some city and laid them on the sidewalk whilst awaiting paramedics, ambulances and such? By the time it was over, there were something like 3 times as many people laying on the sidewalk as could possibly fit into the bus.

My opinion - Same thing.

I see where you're coming from and I agree with you about the people. I'm just saying in this specific case McDonald's knowingly had their coffee at that temperature thus making them liable for any such accidents causing burns. I'll have to bring it up next week in my law class to see what he says about the subject.

 

[credsfan03]

He says he had ten drinks before he entered the casino. End of case, why would someone go to a place to gamble that already had ten drinks?

 

[Four Dogs]

Just curious if he would have given the casino their money back if he had won. He was freerolling.

 

[SeaRun]

I see where you're coming from and I agree with you about the people. I'm just saying in this specific case McDonald's knowingly had their coffee at that temperature thus making them liable for any such accidents causing burns. I'll have to bring it up next week in my law class to see what he says about the subject.

The thing is - ALL coffee shops will have coffee at that temp if they're worth more than 1/2 their weight in sh*t. If I'm working in a coffee shop and serve you a black coffee, and spill it on you, I, or the coffee shop, is ultimately responsible. However, if you take a coffee and leave the premises, I think the onus is on you.

I'm not a lawyer, just trying to make some common sense of it all.

Let us know what your law class thinks, I'm interested.

 

[magicius]

The thing is - ALL coffee shops will have coffee at that temp if they're worth more than 1/2 their weight in sh*t. If I'm working in a coffee shop and serve you a black coffee, and spill it on you, I, or the coffee shop, is ultimately responsible. However, if you take a coffee and leave the premises, I think the onus is on you.

I'm not a lawyer, just trying to make some common sense of it all.

Let us know what your law class thinks, I'm interested.

Ever happened to you or heard anyone smashed get into bar,ask for drink and they say "sorry sir we are not allowed to serve drunk guests"?
Thats what happened here,they saw hes drunk and wanted to make him more drunk....
I hope he wins

Sent from my HTC Desire X using Tapatalk

 

[tazer]

The thing is - ALL coffee shops will have coffee at that temp if they're worth more than 1/2 their weight in sh*t. If I'm working in a coffee shop and serve you a black coffee, and spill it on you, I, or the coffee shop, is ultimately responsible. However, if you take a coffee and leave the premises, I think the onus is on you.

I'm not a lawyer, just trying to make some common sense of it all.

Let us know what your law class thinks, I'm interested.

I definitely will, that's one thing about law is that it doesn't matter about common sense lol.

 

[Mewuvmyself]

Personally, he should of had more self control. I feel, personally, it is mostly in his blame.

 

[rahina]

Rule number 1:Never go to casino if you are drunk

 

[radman]

I agree he is the dumbazz that got drunk and lost his money. But If he walked into or got visably drunk while gambling it is the casinos responsibility to cut him off. If he walked into a bar drunk had a drink there and then hit me while driving. He and the bar are going to hear from my lawyers.
He acted irresponsibly but the casino violated the law

 

[TheDuke177]

I used to be a bartender, and it definitely is actually illegal to serve alcohol to a person that is visibly and obviously intoxicated. This is sort of a legal grey area because of what defines visibly intoxicated, but he may actually have some kind of case if the cameras show him being completely blackout drunk and like falling out of his seat and that kind of stuff while they continue to serve him.

 

[micalupagoo]

Ever happened to you or heard anyone smashed get into bar,ask for drink and they say "sorry sir we are not allowed to serve drunk guests"?
Thats what happened here,they saw hes drunk and wanted to make him more drunk....
I hope he wins

Sent from my HTC Desire X using Tapatalk

yup,
what if he broke even but died of alcohol poisoning?
you can't just feed a drunk (alcoholic) endless booze imo
and upping his credit limit in that condition is dodgy too
I know Ive been cut off and /or thrown out of many establishments in my day lol

 

[LgBassMan]

Well here is something none of you have brought up yet.

If the man believes he should have been cut of and not allowed to gamble while intoxicated what if he woke up with $500K in profit instead of a $500K deficit do you think he'd be running back to return the money??? Not a chance.

 

[Ronoh]

Well here is something none of you have brought up yet.

Pretty sure it's been mentioned

 

[torosanti012]

This is actually crazy, I believe he should take responsibility for his drinking and not to gamble when drunk. But he does have a point sometimes when you're drunk it's extremely hard to control yourself.

 

[long_bong]

Interesting how suit-happy a lot of folks are. Reminds me of the lady who sued McDonald's for hot coffee ;/

What about the person who sued Subway for her sub not being 12 inches long?

 

[OzExorcist]

Well here is something none of you have brought up yet.

If the man believes he should have been cut of and not allowed to gamble while intoxicated what if he woke up with $500K in profit instead of a $500K deficit do you think he'd be running back to return the money??? Not a chance.

Actually, that has been brought up. Don't know that it's really been addressed.

Now IANAL, but here's the thing: the player wasn't the one that broke the law. It was the casino.

If he'd have woken up $500K richer it would have been through no wrongdoing (in a legal sense) on his part. If what he's saying is true, however, then there was wrongdoing on the part of the casino on their way to taking his $500K.

 

[JusSumguy]

Actually, that has been brought up. Don't know that it's really been addressed.

Now IANAL, but here's the thing: the player wasn't the one that broke the law. It was the casino.

If he'd have woken up $500K richer it would have been through no wrongdoing (in a legal sense) on his part. If what he's saying is true, however, then there was wrongdoing on the part of the casino on their way to taking his $500K.

I agree... he definitely has a case.

-

 

[OzExorcist]

That's also the reason I think this is completely different to, say, the McDonalds coffee case. There may or may not have been some guideline somewhere that said that coffee above a certain temperature needed to have a warning label included on the cup.

But there definitely is a law on the books saying they weren't supposed to give this guy more booze when he was already drunk, or allow him to gamble - let alone lend him the better part of half a million bucks to do that gambling with.

 

[knileh]

"Johnston, a longtime gambler, acknowledges that he went on a drinking binge before he ever reached the casino floor." This tells me he WENT to the casino blacked out. And if it was a choice to GO to the casino while blacked out, that the casino is not at all responsible.

 

[OzExorcist]

"Johnston, a longtime gambler, acknowledges that he went on a drinking binge before he ever reached the casino floor." This tells me he WENT to the casino blacked out. And if it was a choice to GO to the casino while blacked out, that the casino is not at all responsible.

Again, I'm not a lawyer... but if the laws cited previously are accurate, then the law is that casinos can't allow patrons in his condition to gamble and keep drinking, not that drunk people shouldn't go to casinos. Only one of these parties broke the law.

 

[SeaRun]

Again, I'm not a lawyer... but if the laws cited previously are accurate, then the law is that casinos can't allow patrons in his condition to gamble and keep drinking, not that drunk people shouldn't go to casinos. Only one of these parties broke the law.

I remember a case where some guy who was partially disabled with some sort of disease of the nervous system where he "appeared" to be intoxicated, wasn't permitted to buy a beer in a bar because he "appeared" intoxicated. That I seem to remember was settled before it went to court.

How would something like this play into this scenario?

My opinion (and I would love for some "legal beagle to comment on this) is we have too many laws to cover frivolous situations caused by the people themselves.

 

[OzExorcist]

My opinion (and I would love for some "legal beagle to comment on this) is we have too many laws to cover frivolous situations caused by the people themselves.

My personal opinion is that sometimes laws can go to far, but many of them are in place for a good reason. This would seem to be one of them. Consider the alternative: without such a law, casinos could ply people with free drinks, get them good and drunk, then direct them to the high stakes tables. When those people woke up stone broke in the morning they'd have no recourse whatsoever. You can argue that it was partly their fault, and they could've said no to all those free drinks, but it's hard to argue that the casino wasn't preying on them.

That's all irrelevant to this case though: as mentioned above, if the law cited about not allowing drunk patrons to gamble (let alone drink even more) is indeed the law in Nevada, then as long as the guy can prove a reasonable person would have thought he was drunk, then he's got a case in this instance.

 

[naruto_miu]

Curious if he was "too drunk to remember anything" and had a black out, than how could he remember "Slurring during speach's, dropping chips on the floor", and everything else that happened, like which events he played?

I just don't understand, either he had connections in the casino (to a level, that he asked to see the video of himself), or something isn't really adding up.

 

[JusSumguy]

My personal opinion is that sometimes laws can go to far, but many of them are in place for a good reason. This would seem to be one of them. Consider the alternative: without such a law, casinos could ply people with free drinks,

When I first started going to Vegas, that's exactly what they did. As long as you were at a table, slot machine... whatever, you just flagged down the waitress. What ever you want, and as many as you want. That was still in the mob transition years.

get them good and drunk, then direct them to the high stakes tables. When those people woke up stone broke in the morning

On the sidewalk

they'd have no recourse whatsoever. You can argue that it was partly their fault, and they could've said no to all those free drinks, but it's hard to argue that the casino wasn't preying on them.

Never having been a drinker, I could see what was going on. Pretty vivid.

once a casino lei striking out a man who was winning by being drunk.

If he's drunk, he shouldn't be allowed to play. Unless he's playing poker at my table.

I think it a good law, and I saw why it was passed. Give the poor chump his duckets back.

-

 

[OzExorcist]

once a casino lei striking out a man who was winning by being drunk.

I see what you're getting at, but in most cases casinos will only want to stop a winning player from playing if they think they're cheating.

Otherwise they just rely in the math - every game has a house edge, and in the long run they'll come out the winners. If they kick a non-cheating winner out now they probably won't get that person back to play again, and the lose the opportunity to win their money back (and more) from them.

Pretty sure the casino also has pretty broad discretion to deny action to players that they think are winning too much: they don't have to accuse them of being drunk.