Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="OzExorcist, post: 2331801, member: 23910"]
She won the initial trial, McDonalds said they were going to appeal, then the two parties reached an out of court settlement before the appeal was lodged.

What I read into that is that she did get paid, but it was an amount less than the $640,000 in damages that the judge prescribed at the end of the trial.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants[/URL]

The obvious difference between playing drunk online and playing drunk in a casino is the site doesn't have any staff in your home to see if you're visibly drunk or not.  It's unreasonable to expect an online poker site to be able to tell how much if anything you've had to drink.

It's not unreasonable, on the other hand, to expect a casino that has a floor crawling with real human staff to recognise and cut off someone who's falling down drunk.

And as mentioned above, a win for the guy in this case doesn't really open any cans of worms.  The Nevada regulations [I]already state[/I] that casinos aren't meant to let excessively drunk people play.  A victory in this case is a victory for the status quo.

Casinos couldn't use the precedent to hurt players, because they can already kick them out / cut them off for pretty much any reason they like - they don't need to say somebody is too drunk to play to stop them from playing.  And players can only use the precedent to hurt casinos (ie: by freerolling the house and claiming they were drunk and don't have to pay if they lose) if casinos do the wrong thing by not cutting them off.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us

Language