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

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.

 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.

 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.

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

 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.

 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?

 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....

 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.

 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.

 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

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Non-accountability is for women.

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

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

 daedalus wrote:
I wish I had 500k to gamble away.

 Lord-Captain Cepinari wrote:
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.

 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.

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

 sebster wrote:

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

If you sign a contract with a person under 18, they are able to walk away from the contract and you are not. The moral of this story is that you don't go around making legally binding contracts with children. I don't see why it should be any different with drunk people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Yep. I used to live in Vegas and would see jack asses like this guy all the time going to casinos. I have zero sympathy for the man.

You shouldn't confuse lacking sympathy for the gambler with maintaining an important legal principle that you can't let people get away with exploiting people who are incapable of informed decisions.

Relapse wrote:
Just a quick look at a casino will let anyone with common sense know they havn't been built on the concept of giving away money. Going into one of those places and combining drinking with gambling nets anyone foolish enough to do that what they deserve.

Relapse wrote:
I would laugh my ass off if he spent that money and lost. Consider this, however, I decide I want to go gambling at a casino but want to cover my ass in case I lose. I make sure that I act a bit drunk so the cameras can pick things up like me dropping my chips, cards, etc. If I lose, I go back and say the casino took advantage of my drunken state with no way to prove how sloshed I was except what people recall me acting like or what was recorded by the cameras.
It's a sweet scam if you can pull it off, but I wouldn't be surprised if this guy's picture hasn't been issued to every casino in Nevada with a ban on him gambling.

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I would laugh my ass off if he spent that money and lost. Consider this, however, I decide I want to go gambling at a casino but want to cover my ass in case I lose. I make sure that I act a bit drunk so the cameras can pick things up like me dropping my chips, cards, etc. If I lose, I go back and say the casino took advantage of my drunken state with no way to prove how sloshed I was except what people recall me acting like or what was recorded by the cameras.
It's a sweet scam if you can pull it off, but I wouldn't be surprised if this guy's picture hasn't been issued to every casino in Nevada with a ban on him gambling.

Well, the stories I have read are sort of all over the place as far as how many drinks and what the timeframe was. However I think a jury would find it persuasive if a casino provided a player with - I'm just making a number up here to argue the principle - 20 cocktails over lets say 2 hours; that a player has been legally over-served and they are violating the law by continuing to let him play (and continuing to serve him, regardless of the gambling).

Regardless of how this case shakes out I am sure your latter point is already true; no one has a right to play at a casino, after all.

Relapse wrote:
I would laugh my ass off if he spent that money and lost.

Relapse wrote:

]Consider this, however, I decide I want to go gambling at a casino but want to cover my ass in case I lose. I make sure that I act a bit drunk so the cameras can pick things up like me dropping my chips, cards, etc. If I lose, I go back and say the casino took advantage of my drunken state with no way to prove how sloshed I was except what people recall me acting like or what was recorded by the cameras.

 Steve steveson wrote:
The question in the court case seems to be how drunk he was.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I wish I had 500k to gamble away.

So does the guy suing the casino.

 Soladrin wrote:
Yeah.... sorry, he's an adult, he chose to get drunk at casino. Unless the staff force fed him drinks I don't see how it's the casino's fault.

I have better rule for all of this though.

Don't fething gamble.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Would he still sue them if he'd won $500,000?

Relapse wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Would he still sue them if he'd won $500,000?

Trust me when I tell you a guy like that never comes out ahead in a casino. He's lost more money than that before according to the story. The man's got the money to lose and he doesn't miss a chance, it appears.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Would he still sue them if he'd won $500,000?

Trust me when I tell you a guy like that never comes out ahead in a casino. He's lost more money than that before according to the story. The man's got the money to lose and he doesn't miss a chance, it appears.

Understood.

It's just that in modern society, everyone wants the right to be able to gamble, in order to make money. Then moans when they lose money. Tho I don't blame him for trying in a world where banks gamble millions, keep the money if they win, and ask us to bail them out when they lose.

Relapse wrote:
I have seen people jump tables all the time if the one they're playing at is cold, and of course one server is regulated to a particular area of a casino with literaly hundreds of people a night to deal with.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have seen people jump tables all the time if the one they're playing at is cold, and of course one server is regulated to a particular area of a casino with literaly hundreds of people a night to deal with.

But if someone is visibly drunk then no server should continue serving them alcoholic beverages, and the imbiber certainly shouldn't be allowed to sign for a loan.

Relapse wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have seen people jump tables all the time if the one they're playing at is cold, and of course one server is regulated to a particular area of a casino with literaly hundreds of people a night to deal with.

But if someone is visibly drunk then no server should continue serving them alcoholic beverages, and the imbiber certainly shouldn't be allowed to sign for a loan.

The only word we really have about how drunk he was is his. There have been more than a couple people bounced from casinos in Vegas for being drunk. The casinos there don't need to take advantage of such people since there are armies worth of visitors willing to throw their money away in them.

 curran12 wrote:

 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?

 Frazzled wrote:
Give him a little Casino justice and move on.

Relapse wrote:

The only word we really have about how drunk he was is his.

 Frazzled wrote:
Nevada law is whatever the casinos want it to be.

 Frazzled wrote:
Nevada law is whatever the casinos want it to be.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

The only word we really have about how drunk he was is his.

Well, his word, that of his lady-friend and a UNLV law professor; and the video evidence which may be provided by security cameras.

Relapse wrote:

There have been more than a couple people bounced from casinos in Vegas for being drunk. The casinos there don't need to take advantage of such people since there are armies worth of visitors willing to throw their money away in them.

Apparently this one was not bounced: the crux of the issue.

 Frazzled wrote:

I'll answer your question with a question - why is it the casio's responsibility for his behavior.

Nevada law.

 kronk wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nevada law is whatever the casinos want it to be.

Is that why hookers are legal in most of the state but not Las Vegas? The casinos don't want someone else screwing their patrons?

Relapse wrote:
Casinos like to stack odds in their favor in many different ways without having to risk losing their liscence by rolling way sloshed players:

http://io9.com/5917868/the-reason-casinos-track-your-behavior-to-lure-you-into-gambling-too-much

 Soladrin wrote:
he chose to get drunk

Relapse wrote:

His girl friend was asleep most of the night, aside from the very fact that she is his girlfriend, which leads me to discounting anything she has to say.

 Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Casinos like to stack odds in their favor in many different ways without having to risk losing their liscence by rolling way sloshed players:

http://io9.com/5917868/the-reason-casinos-track-your-behavior-to-lure-you-into-gambling-too-much

So? I've spent $8 gambling in Vegas. We go (or went pre TBone hospice) for the shows and entertainment. They can't make you gamble.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

This is the crux of the matter for me.

I don't see why people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions just because they're intoxicated. They have voluntarily put themselves in that state.

 dogma wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

This is the crux of the matter for me.

I don't see why people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions just because they're intoxicated. They have voluntarily put themselves in that state.

Generally speaking they are not, but this is a unique case given the prohibitions built into Nevada state law.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

His girl friend was asleep most of the night, aside from the very fact that she is his girlfriend, which leads me to discounting anything she has to say.

How do you account for the law professor's testimony?

Relapse wrote:

The law professor is a friend of his, so I wouldn't really count on him, either. If he was that drunk, why didn't his buddy stop him? It looks more and more like a scam to me.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
he chose to get drunk

This is the crux of the matter for me.

I don't see why people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions just because they're intoxicated. They have voluntarily put themselves in that state.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

The law professor is a friend of his, so I wouldn't really count on him, either. If he was that drunk, why didn't his buddy stop him? It looks more and more like a scam to me.

But you would count on the testimony of the casino employees?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It's usually at least frowned upon to continue to serve an intoxicated person at a bar. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss a case where they did this and extended him a massive loan to gamble himself into $500,000 of debt. That's not right.

Seems like a recipe for disaster that casinos can operate as money lenders too. That seems a conflict of interest where it suits them to loan irresponsibly as they can safely win it all back and pin a person down in debt. Unlike a bank that lends money to someone who loses it, and the bank is out of pocket due to the debtor. A casino will likely lend to someone who gambles it all back to them anyway. The casino has lost nothing, risked nothing, and now has gained a person owing them a huge amount. Added to the fact that they're serving copious amounts of drink out at the same time...

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
he chose to get drunk

This is the crux of the matter for me.

I don't see why people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions just because they're intoxicated. They have voluntarily put themselves in that state.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Actually, Orlanth, not all of their staff is/was rookies. I've got friends who have worked at the Biloxi Grand for years and many of their best staff got stolen for the Vegas Grand.

That said, 3 months probably isn't enough time for the non-rookies to know the difference off hand in what's legal in MS vs NV regarding Casino behavior(if they were informed or even knew old laws at all).

Relapse wrote:
He was interviewed leaning on his $250 ,000 car. I bet he's good for it.

Relapse wrote:
Seb, you were in Zion? You weren't far from me. Wish I knew that, I could have shown you around a few places.

Relapse wrote:

Not if they were hanging with the man and being friends with him.

 kronk wrote:
Are we too early in this thread to call out "Blame the Victim"?

What if we really don't care, either way?

 kronk wrote:
Are we too early in this thread to call out "Blame the Victim"?

What if we really don't care, either way?

 kronk wrote:
Are we too early in this thread to call out "Blame the Victim"?

 Ouze wrote:
it's not like he would have returned the $500k if he returned it.

 Ouze wrote:
dammit, I didn't fix that before someone caught it. multitasking.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
dammit, I didn't fix that before someone caught it. multitasking.

I hope you ain't coding at the same time either...

niv-mizzet wrote:
I hate the ridiculous line of thinking that some people have where they believe that they're magically not responsible for their actions after they start drinking.

 sebster wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
I hate the ridiculous line of thinking that some people have where they believe that they're magically not responsible for their actions after they start drinking.

If he had hit someone with his car he'd be responsible.

 Frazzled wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Are we too early in this thread to call out "Blame the Victim"?

What if we really don't care, either way?

Whoever loses, the lawyers win?

 sebster wrote:
What's interesting to me is how people are thinking purely of the rich idiot, and his actions. "He acted like an idiot, therefore I have no sympathy, therefore he has no case".

They are completely ignoring whether or not what the casino did was legal, or morally acceptable. No matter what people think of how stupidly this guy acted, there are limitations on the legal contracts you can enter in to with people who's mental faculties are impaired. If the casino wilfully ignored that, it is predatory and illegal and they should not be allowed to benefit from it.