Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The player claims that the casino has not only let him play intoxicated, they also served him more drinks, and lent him large amounts of money

Link to story

At least he was over 21

Best of luck with that one.

Well, if the case and evidence pan out to be what is said in the article, the guy has a very strong case, one that I'd agree with as well.

When Mark Johnston started playing pai gow and blackjack at The Grand, he had already drunk about ten drinks. The casino then continued serving him one free drink after the other while he played at their tables, 20 additional drinks in total.

Witnesses and surveillance tapes confirm his statement of being so drunk, that he couldn't even read the card values any more, having slurred speech, and dropping chips.

He may have a case. Huh.

 kronk wrote:

When Mark Johnston started playing pai gow and blackjack at The Grand, he had already drunk about ten drinks. The casino then continued serving him one free drink after the other while he played at their tables, 20 additional drinks in total.

Witnesses and surveillance tapes confirm his statement of being so drunk, that he couldn't even read the card values any more, having slurred speech, and dropping chips.

He may have a case. Huh.

Exactly. It's real easy to go "hurffle hurffle this guy is such an irresponsible choad screw him!" based off of the headline, but in all honesty...it looks like the casino is very much at fault in this.

 curran12 wrote:

 kronk wrote:

When Mark Johnston started playing pai gow and blackjack at The Grand, he had already drunk about ten drinks. The casino then continued serving him one free drink after the other while he played at their tables, 20 additional drinks in total.

Witnesses and surveillance tapes confirm his statement of being so drunk, that he couldn't even read the card values any more, having slurred speech, and dropping chips.

He may have a case. Huh.

Exactly. It's real easy to go "hurffle hurffle this guy is such an irresponsible choad screw him!" based off of the headline, but in all honesty...it looks like the casino is very much at fault in this.

Partly at fault. I'd even agree with mostly. However, unless it's VERY different in Vegas than the Grand Casino in Mississippi, they don't bring you a drink or refill it unless you ask.

Should they have lent him money in that condition or continued to serve him so many drinks in so short a time? No, but don't suggest he's entirely blameless in choosing to be that drunk.

I agree with the concensus of the thread. The casino also had a legal obligation to prevent him from playing. It may be difficult to legally define intoxication without medical tests done at the time, some states of inebriation are rather obvious but a loophole is a loophole and the casino will have hot lawyers.

Put one of these next to the place where you get loans.

*spoilered for OMG, huge picture!

 kronk wrote:
Put one of these next to the place where you get loans.

Agreed.

It will be interesting to see if the video really shows 20 drinks were given to him. I think it would be very hard to argue he wasn't intoxicated after that much, even if it was over a period of 17 hours. Also if he can show proof of the 10 drinks prior to arrival.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

 kronk wrote:

When Mark Johnston started playing pai gow and blackjack at The Grand, he had already drunk about ten drinks. The casino then continued serving him one free drink after the other while he played at their tables, 20 additional drinks in total.

Witnesses and surveillance tapes confirm his statement of being so drunk, that he couldn't even read the card values any more, having slurred speech, and dropping chips.

He may have a case. Huh.

Exactly. It's real easy to go "hurffle hurffle this guy is such an irresponsible choad screw him!" based off of the headline, but in all honesty...it looks like the casino is very much at fault in this.

Partly at fault. I'd even agree with mostly. However, unless it's VERY different in Vegas than the Grand Casino in Mississippi, they don't bring you a drink or refill it unless you ask.

Should they have lent him money in that condition or continued to serve him so many drinks in so short a time? No, but don't suggest he's entirely blameless in choosing to be that drunk.

Okay. I'll ask this then.

What wrong did the guy commit? He was drunk, sure. But how does that put any blame on him for what is the casino's legal responsibility for stopping obviously-intoxicated people from taking loans or continuing to play?

It's obviously his right to be drunk and the casino took advantage of him. Stop blaming the victim guys...

(in all seriousness the casino can at least get busted with negligence here or even assisting in a crime depending on the wording of the laws prohibiting gambling while intoxicated.)

 curran12 wrote:
But how does that put any blame on him for what is the casino's legal responsibility for stopping obviously-intoxicated people from taking loans or continuing to play?

Did I say that he was to blame for that? No, I didn't and you know it. I already said they should have denied him loans and stopped him playing. They are clearly in the wrong for that.

However, you can't hold them responsible for someone choosing to be too drunk to not know when to quit. As I said, they're majorly at fault, but they're not at fault for the clearly wrong choices he made before being too intoxicated, such as not ordering that one too many or not spacing them out better early on or not asking for food(they will bring you snacks at many, at least in the South).

I agree, he should win for all the reasons put forth, but he does need to be held responsible for what is clearly a drinking problem that lead to being illegally intoxicated in a public area.

Casinos are out to make money, and they commonly give free drinks to encourage continued gambling. It's hard for me to feel bad when most people understand the nature of the beast. Maybe he should get some rehab time, I guess, and possibly work out a deal, but the coddling world we live in now...eh, guy made a bad call. Live with it.

If I were him I'd just cry rape and watch the supporters flock in.

Um... wut?

He should be laughed out of court.

Moron drinks himself blind and goes to a Casino? His own damn fault.

Moron drinks himself blind and goes to a Casino that gives him even more drinks and eggs him on? Only partially his own damn fault.

Obviously this case will be settled out of court so we'll never know what the outcome was, but assuming the facts as alleged in the article are true, the casino bears at least some responsibility; just as any other venue with a liquor license is held to be partially responsible if a drunk driver kills or injures someone if it's proven they continued serving that driver who was visibly intoxicated prior to the incident.

I think he has a good case if indeed, as he claims, he couldn't even hold the cards and was dropping the chips. It doesn't seem like he was able to sign a lawful, enforceable contract the markers would have represented in that state. But, again, we'll never really know.

Non-accountability is for women.

I wonder, would anyone feel his drunk bets should be voided if he had won big?

You know what the REAL crime here is?

Apparently the drinks in casinos are FREE, and I didnt find this out till after I left vegas after the LVO...

That should be on the freaken plane ticket, or written in neon lights visible from the gamma quadrant....

 easysauce wrote:
You know what the REAL crime here is?

Apparently the drinks in casinos are FREE, and I didnt find this out till after I left vegas after the LVO...

That should be on the freaken plane ticket, or written in neon lights visible from the gamma quadrant....

You have to be at the tables for that.

 whembly wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
You know what the REAL crime here is?

Apparently the drinks in casinos are FREE, and I didnt find this out till after I left vegas after the LVO...

That should be on the freaken plane ticket, or written in neon lights visible from the gamma quadrant....

You have to be at the tables for that.

I'll stand ringside and watch some games for drinks ;D

 whembly wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
You know what the REAL crime here is?

Apparently the drinks in casinos are FREE, and I didnt find this out till after I left vegas after the LVO...

That should be on the freaken plane ticket, or written in neon lights visible from the gamma quadrant....

You have to be at the tables for that.

Yeah, you gotta belly up and put money on the table. And then, it's only if a waitress offers you a drink. If you ask for one, you're buying it. From what I've seen, anyway. YMMV

 kronk wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
You know what the REAL crime here is?

Apparently the drinks in casinos are FREE, and I didnt find this out till after I left vegas after the LVO...

That should be on the freaken plane ticket, or written in neon lights visible from the gamma quadrant....

You have to be at the tables for that.

Yeah, you gotta belly up and put money on the table. And then, it's only if a waitress offers you a drink. If you ask for one, you're buying it. From what I've seen, anyway. YMMV

I've never seen that, personally, but as I've said many a time, never been to the Vegas casinos, only their Mississippi and New Orleans branches.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Non-accountability is for women.

I wonder, would anyone feel his drunk bets should be voided if he had won big?

Then the casino would take him to court for gambling while drunk

Well, that makes me a bit happier then,
at least I found a place with 1$ bottles of beer, that combined with the "you can bring your alcohol with you anywhere" policy that seems to be going on, it wasnt that bad I guess.

lord_blackfang wrote:I wonder, would anyone feel his drunk bets should be voided if he had won big?

Ha ha maybe. However if he wins at Blackjack 20 drinks deep he deserves a medal if nothing else.

timetowaste85 wrote:Casinos are out to make money, and they commonly give free drinks to encourage continued gambling. It's hard for me to feel bad when most people understand the nature of the beast. Maybe he should get some rehab time, I guess, and possibly work out a deal, but the coddling world we live in now...eh, guy made a bad call. Live with it.

Live with half a million dollars debt? This is no $100 hustle that is life destroying debt. Unless it goes to court we won't know the whole truth but if what he says is the case then I'm on his side. When someone can't see the cards or even stand up it is the House's responsibility to tell him he's had enough and send him on his way. Plying someone who is smashed with ten extra drinks only makes them more culpable in the event.

Talk about the coddling, litigious 'world we live in' by all means, but this isn't one of those cases.

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:If I were him I'd just cry rape and watch the supporters flock in.

...?

In many states it is actually against the law to serve alcohol to intoxicated individuals, so it's not like there isn't some precedent for laying the responsibility with the people that served the alcohol.

I hope this guy wins, if so there's a whole heap of suits I'll file for every stag do and rugby tour I went on for the last 15 years!

I have however thought of an amicable solution;

Casino Manager: Here let me freshen that glass up for you buddy....heads or tails?

Mark Johnston: ......I fethin' love you guys.....Hejjs!

I wish I had 500k to gamble away.