Posted on 05/15/2011 4:41:28 AM PDT by EBH
Williams, who had gambled away his life's savings, sued the casino, claiming, among other things, that the "cease admissions" letter was a fraud and that Aztar broke its obligation to keep him out. But a federal appeals court dismissed the case, noting that Aztar's letter didn't say Williams would be barred from entering and gambling, just that the casino could stop doing business with him if it chose.
The Williams case and others like it show that, in the eyes of American courts, casinos have no legal requirement to stop compulsive gamblers from gambling.
The rulings are vindication for the casino industry, which insists -- as do some gambling counselors -- that the liability for stopping excessive gambling rests with the player.
But the U.S. courts' refusal to assign casinos any protective obligation -- the legal term is "duty of care" -- confounds others who see it as a failure of civic responsibility, compassion, and common sense.
The state regulations require casinos to make a "reasonable" effort to enforce the ban, but absolve the casino -- and the state -- from legal liability if a problem gambler gets back in. The self-exclusion form that a gambler signs contains similar language.
Judges have interpreted the state-granted protection for casinos as evidence that state lawmakers meant for pathological gamblers, not casinos, to bear the responsibility of preventing themselves from gambling. If casinos aren't making a "reasonable" attempt to keep self-excluded gamblers away, the legal reasoning goes, they should be penalized by state regulators, not by lawsuits.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.cleveland.com ...
I absolutely despise the gambling industry, and while I am a passionate advocate of personal responsibility I also recognize that casinos operate in a business environment that would never be accepted in any other industry (serving free alcohol to customers and then allowing them to put huge sums of money at risk, for example). It wouldn't have bothered me at all if this guy had won this case.
Maybe we ought to put casinos on the “list of re-distribution of the wealth” thingy and see how it goes. Surely, the guy who gambled away his family’s or his life savings would get the savings back! If the guy wins some, re-distribution of the winnings will help the poor! It is a win-win for all!/S
It is still somewhat of a free country. If gambling is your entertainment, good for you. If you lose everything that’s the breaks. Just don’t expect others to share their wealth with you by bailing you out, paying you welfare of some sort or supporting you in your old age.
I hope you understood that I am being sarcastic...that is the reason for a S at the end.
If I ate Leggos should I be able to sue the Leggo company for MY problem?... Sure, unless you did yell “Leggo of my Leggos’s.”
I hope fast food, sugary drinks and Wal-Mart join in and kick them while they're down.
lol
Back when Atlantic City only had the 3 original casino's I hit one for 1600 dollars and bought my husband a diamond ring and one for myself...my brother took us to this place in Philly thats called Diamond row...2 blocks of only jewerly stores and lots of competition. His had 3 1/3 K. diamonds and mine was a designer ring....Loved the idea of being able to buy my husband a diamond ring. He picked it out...
The best way to win on slots is hitting one big as your leaving the casino...My daughter did that at Soaring Eagle as we were walking out with our luggage she stopped at a dollar machine and hit with red 7's. Won 700 dollars and we left...Casino's can be fun but know your limit...
If like the movie 21 casinos can bar people from playing that count cards or win excessively, then they should also exclude people that lose excessively.
Sometimes its bad here too. 7-11s have two clerks even in the daytime, when it gets bad one handles the lottery line and the other handles everyone else.
I admit to buying a lottery ticket now and then, about three or four a year when the cash payout hits around a hundred million. I always chose a computer pick (it’s quicker) and only one at a time. I can lose just as easy with one ticket as I can with fifty. I don’t expect to win but it does give me some great dreams.
She has a couple of shopping bags full of her losers she intends to get a tax deduction on when she hits big. Then she shall leave me and move to Aruba with Mandingo.
I give her chocolate, Pepsi and tickets; Based on the assumption that if the wife is not happy, you are not happy.
It works for me... I understand that I am a pathetic individual.
i think you're sweet...
Give your money to the government on YOUR OWN DANM TIME!!!
It isn't their first time around the block - but they go over their “choices” like the fate of the world depends upon the proper choice of “Cat Scratch Fever” or “Big Buckaroos”. RUDE IDIOTS!!!
i wonder what were you expecting... i've stayed there numerous times myself... my sibs, parents and anyone else who wants to go meet up there once a year for my dad's birthday in October... three days, two nights... i never gamble... but we have lots of fun at the lounges, dancing or listening to music... sometimes watching the play-offs (baseball)... eating, drinking... being merry... of course, it wouldn't be fun w/o my family...
An alcoholic at a bar drinks, gets drunk, gets in car, and kills ...the bar can be sued?
The laws that are in place to keep bars from over-serving obviously intoxicated people are there to protect innocent people from the actions of the alcoholic, not to protect the alcoholic from himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.