Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by CalWizrd, Mar 7, 2014.
Isn't personal responsibility a wonderful thing?
Next thing you know all those casinos will have to get rid of all those "free" drinks.
And stop putting a gun to people's head forcing them to drink those freebies...
I think the lawsuit is frivolous, but I've seen cases with less merit emerge with success.
Another reason why we need a loser-pays system.
I'm all for a loser-pays system for obvious frivolous lawsuits.
But if someone sues someone else with a real legitimate claim, but that legitimate claim just happens to be legal through some sort of technicality or loophole, it seems wrong to burden that person with more lost money out of pocket.
The problem is, how do you separate the two?
Who forced him to drink?
He did it all on his own...?
The I call big boy rules. Play stupid game, win stupid prize.
Would this be equivalent to signing a contract while completely intoxicated? I mean even though I believe it's his responsibility for his own actions, could a Casino have some type of responsibility for knowingly enticing an intoxicated person to keep gambling?
I agree. If they let him get blitzed and encouraged his gambling, they might have some responsibility.
But, that's a pretty high hurdle.
Should be pretty easy to prove either way as casinos record and save everything.
Actually, according to the article, it is not a high hurdle at all. Just like bartenders in most states are required to cut off obviously plastered patrons, Nevada law says that casinos are required to extend the same courtesy to theirs. It is all well and good to pontificate about personal responsibility, but if that does not also extend to businesses ("... corporations are people, my friend ..."), where does that leave us? Is a business license just a license to fleece?
Good question. But I guess you could say the same is already happening.
Yeah, never mind personal responsibility. Just blame Big Casino.
Addicts are not considered to be responsible when it applies to their addictions, however this is not an endorsement of the suit, just a statement of possible fact.
That is a real possibility, except I presume addicts would still purchase these drinks so it might not relieve them of legal liability.
There are regulations when it comes to restaurants and bars in terms of when someone should be cut off from being served further alcohol. Apparently regulations also exist regarding gambling. While I don't think he'll win this, I would like to still see it bite the casino in the ass for their own part in violating such regulations. Someone actually approved a half million dollar line of credit for a drunk.
Keep in mind these are the places who post no clocks on the walls. I believe anyone prior to a credit advance should take a breathalyzer and if under the influence should be denied.
Possible. I just didn't pick up that possibility in this case from reading the article.
But yes, possible.
Businesses would dislike that because it would make their customers uncomfortable. I kind of understand that, yet they need to maintain a respectable business by adhering to such rules. There have been both lawsuits against bars when one of their drunks injures or kills another person and at times legal investigations. I have no sympathy for a business that chooses to ignore these things, when their employees and management are fully aware at the time. I mention management because it's unlikely that a cashier can authorize a half million dollar loan without the approval of someone in a supervisory role.
Whatever happened to "In God we trust, all others pay cash."??
If the casino is stupid enough to advance him money on pure spec, then screw them.
If he somehow managed to put that amount on credit cards, well good luck Charlie.
I'm finding this thread a bit puzzling, The whole point of Vegas is influencing the gambler. Credit lines, extra O2, exciting noises, free boos, cool air, pretty girls, cheap lodging, bright lighting, abundant food. If any of these were stopped or even reduced, income (players losses) would fall dramatically. However worthy the idea of a safe Vegas, it would not be successful.
People have been loosing their shirts for years. The only mystery is why such a lawsuit (if in fact this is the first) didn't happen much sooner.
Vegas exists through payoffs, of one type or another, so there is no reason to believe that the result of such as suit would be success.
(Remember, you heard it here first.)
Lord knows how many years ago the joke was, "I went to Vegas in a $3,000 vehicle and left in a $50,000 vehicle. Drove my car there, left on a Greyhound."
As I read the article, it sounds like he has a pretty good case according to Nevada law. If what the witnesses quoted were saying is true, they knowingly enticed him to borrow money while legally drunk and enticed him to drink more and gamble.
And, since you all asked, I think it should be illegal for a gambling establishment to lend its customers money. They shouldn't be allowed to gamble away any more than they have in their pockets when they walked in. End of sermon.
That seems fair to me.
They do this, with the threat, real or imagined, that harm will come to the player or his family if they don't somehow pay-up.
This guy has obviously nothing left to lose at such a juncture.
This guy belongs in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0RH0cYs4lw.