Is there any precedence for this?

[bernie]

Was in a conversation with a guy on a table who is a floorman at another cardbarn. He says he will try and deter a player that is too intoxicated from playing. His reasoning is that the room could be held responsible for his losses and sued.

I know there is the BS cases about a bar serving a drunk that goes off driving and kills someone where the bar was held liable, which is a joke, but i have never heard of any actual case of this.

Anyone?

I think allowing the 'I was drunk and didnt know what i was doing' line is opening a huge door for the many worse uses of that excuse.

b

[Ragnar]

There have been actual cases in which bars served drunks who went out and killed someone, and were successfully sued by the surviving relatives of the victim. It depends upon the statutes and case law in the particular state.

I prosecuted a case in the 1980's in which a man was .19 and going very fast and killed a child and her grandfather. He was convicted of second degree murder (there were some extremely aggravaging factors he was going 85, worked in speed shop, and had modified his car to go faster at the expense of braking). The family of the victims successfully sued the bar for serving him when he was obviously already drunk and the bar ended up closing down. The bar had previously had other incidents of a similar nature.

The drunk driver got 15 years, the victim's family got some money from the bar, and got it closed down.

Ragnar

[Chris Alger]

The tavern cases aren't urban legends they're fact and have been for decades. The trend is on the upswing, thanks to organizations like MADD and a growing public intolerance for drunk driving. The general rule is that if a bar serves alcohol to a customer knowing that he's intoxicated and likely to drive, they can be liable for third party injuries that result.

But they don't apply in your hypothetical because there's no innocent third party. There is one case where a degenerate gambler was barred from a casino for his family's protection, but the casino bent its own rule to let him back in and the family became destitute as a result. The family's lawyer had a colorable claim that the casino knew or should have known that innocents would suffer as a result of violating the casino's own rules for protecting society. I believe the case was notable for surviving an early motion to dismiss, but I don't know if the plaintiff ever prevailed on the merits.

[GWB]

A casino that allows a known compulsive gambler to gamble can be held responsible for his losses in some cases.

[bernie]

Yep, I know bars have been found liable. What I'm asking is if a cardrroom could be held liable for a drunks losses at the tables. I think it would be ridiculous to allow that.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The tavern cases aren't urban legends they're fact and have been for decades.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify, when i said it was BS, i was stating so because i dont think the bar should be held liable for it. Not because i didnt think it actually happened.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
A casino that allows a known compulsive gambler to gamble can be held responsible for his losses in some cases.



[/ QUOTE ]

But are there any actual cases? Is it rare enough that a cardroom shouldn't worry about a drunk, not a compulsive gambler, to file a suit against losses?

Actually, now that i think of it, there is a possible lawsuit that may happen against Scores stripclub of newyork. Where a guy got blasted and charged about 10K on his credit card claiming he was drunk and the establishment took advantage of him. Even though he signed all of the credit card receipts.

This may be more pertinent than the drunk driving cases now that i think about it.

b

[Nepa]

Former Philadelphia Eagles owner Leonard Tose tells Congress he lost $40 million to $50 million gambling. Tose lost a lawsuit against Atlantic City's Sands Hotel & Casino for allegedly encouraging him to lose $10 million while drunk. Tose's debts forced him to sell the Eagles in 1985.

I doubt that someone would be able to sue a card room for losses while drunk. Letting him drive would be a different story.

[elwoodblues]

Anybody have any thoughts on this theory --

Placing a bet in a casino is a contract. Contracts are voidable on grounds of intoxication. Therefore, all the drunk gamblers have a theory upon which to get their money back.

[J.R.]

In the Tose case, New Jersey law was interpreted to place a duty on a casino to monitor and not permit a visibly drunk person to gamble. Further, the court held that no comparative negligence instruction would be given with repect to the gambler's own culpability for drinking (because Jersey casinos encourage drinking and give free drinks, the casinos can't argue the patron shouldn't have been drinking), and the Federal Court applying New Jersey state law in this diversity action held that, as a matter of law, a casino is the a casino who negligently monitors a drunken patron is the proximate cause of the patron's losses incurred while gambling drunk.

The issue then is whether the casino was negligent in failing to prevent a visibly and openely drunk patron from continuing to gamble. Ironically, the Tose court noted that while the claim before it lay in tort, it could also be brought as a contract action seeking recision of the "gambling contract" and a retun to the parties' respective positions prior to the gambling.

"In the instant case, the court finds as a matter of law that, if proven, the defendant casino's negligent conduct was a cause-in-fact of plaintiff's injury. If defendant had not breached its duty--i.e., if plaintiff had been stopped from further gambling once intoxicated--plaintiff would not have incurred any gambling losses at all. As discussed above, the activity of gambling contemplates that the gambler will lose at least some of the time. By permitting someone to gamble, a casino almost invariably will thereby "cause" that person to lose money. It thus follows that defendant's conduct is also a "substantial factor" that caused plaintiff's injuries."


link (http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/Cochran/Cases%20&%20Readings/Gaming/tose.htm)

[elwoodblues]

Judging by your synopsis, it sounds like that case was argued on a negligence/tort basis. I wonder if anyone has argued it from a contracts basis.

Interesting stuff, I'll pull the case up today and take a look at it.

[CORed]

I don't know about where you play, but in Colorado the gaming statutes make it explicitly illegal to allow a visibly intoxicated person to gamble. I have seen people tossed out of casinos (but not from poker tables) more than once because of this law.

I believe in personal responsibility. If you get sloppy drunk and lose a lot of money, you have no one to blame but yourself.

[CORed]

I agree with you that the bar being held liable is BS. The real reason for suing the bar is that they usually have deeper pockets than the drunk driver. Unless the drunk driver has significant money or assets, all that the plaintif is likely to get from him is the liability limit of his car insurance. If he is uninsured and destitute, they won't even get that. The bar probably has a liability policy, and if not, is in itself a valuable asset.

[CORed]

In the case of a drunk poker player, if he wins the case, who is liable? He lost not to the casino (except rake), but the other players. Does the casino reimburse him for his losses, because it was their responsibility not to let him gamble, or do the players to whom he lost reimburse him because they took advantage of his intoxication?

[bernie]

Interesting. But has anyone tested that law to where they were able to recoup losses due to gambling while intoxicated?

Im with you, i dont believe in protecting people from themselves.

b

[bernie]

Great result. : No verdict.

Nice to note that they only look at possible losses for the drunk patron, but what about if he goes on a helluva run? Like one guy did in I. Andersons book. A guy gets loaded, blacks out, then is informed the next day that the casino is holding his winnings ($85,000) for him in a safety box.

Lots of interesting stuff in that link. Which all seems to lead to 'inconclusive'.

b

[J.R.]

For what its worth the Tose case was kinda a procedural quaqmire and there is some other case law indicating that this theory of liability may not be so solid. It has indirectly come up in subsuquent case where a card-counter elied on the Tose case to support his argument that he could maintain a private right of action against a casino. The general notion is that as casinos are regulated entities, administrative law may preempt, abrogate or preclude a casino patrons private right of action. Suffice to say this issue is not clearcut- duh.

for example:

"In the absence of a common-law basis, courts have been reluctant to imply a private right of action for money damages in favor of casino patrons. See, e.g., Marcangelo v. Boardwalk Regency Corp., 847 F. Supp. 1222, 1228 (D.N.J. 1994)(holding no implied private cause of action under Act for casino patron for inadequate or defective slot machine signage when casino complied with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements), aff'd, 47 F.3d 88 (3rd Cir. 1995); Decker v. Bally's Grand Hotel Casino, 280 N.J. Super. 217, 222 (App. Div. 1994)(holding CCC has exclusive jurisdiction over claims that casino violated regulations regarding gaming equipment signage); Miller, supra, 250 N.J. Super. at 576-77 (holding no implied private action for money damages for violation of Act's credit provisions). Given the elaborate regulatory scheme, we likewise decline to imply a cause of action when no such cause of action exists at common law. Miller, supra, 250 N.J. Super. at 578."

link (http://members.aol.com/rustyblkjk/campione.html)