Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Gamblers Sue Casinos!

Health Addiction Gambling 2003

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 01:16 AM

http://www.foxnews.c...3,86154,00.html

Quote

"Casinos cannot come into this state and just take advantage of a bunch of sick people," said his attorney, Terry Noffsinger.

Quote

But that didn't happen in Williams' case. When his gambling got out of control and a worried friend asked the casino to intervene, Williams was banned from entering Aztar. But early in 1999, after 11 gambling-free months, the casino began luring him back mailing him tickets for complimentary hotel stays and meals

Quote

Williams' lawsuit claims the casino should have done more to keep him out. The casino counters that Williams was the cause of his own problems.

"You shouldn't sue McDonald's claiming they're responsible for your obesity problems," said Patrick Shoulders, Casino Aztar's lawyer. "Fundamentally, problem gamblers have to take responsibility for their own actions."

Actually, got some bad news for you bud. I suspect this quote is outdated. ;).

Still.... I'm horrified. Personal responsibility is at an all time low....
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#2 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 02:37 AM

Quote

  When his gambling got out of control and a worried friend asked the casino to intervene, Williams was banned from entering Aztar. But early in 1999, after 11 gambling-free months, the casino began luring him back mailing him tickets for complimentary hotel stays and meals

If he can prove this, if he kept the stuff, he may well win. Once they knew he had a problem, and they start inviting him back, then they have to take part of the blame if he gets out of hand. Imagine if a bar started sending  an alcoholic invitations, Buy one, get one free!!
Can't Touch This!!

#3 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 02:42 AM

I'm not so sure Kosh.

First, I'm not sure if they were targeted ads, or if they were singling him out.

Secondly... even if they were targeting him, doesn't he bear responsibility for his own actions?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#4 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 02:51 AM

Quote

First, I'm not sure if they were targeted ads, or if they were singling him out.

Secondly... even if they were targeting him, doesn't he bear responsibility for his own actions?


If they are non targeted, then he has nothing. If everyone in his neighborhood got one, he has nothing. If he's the only one in the area that was invited, and they already knew he had a problem, then they bare some responcibility. How much will be for the judge.
Can't Touch This!!

#5 Laoise

Laoise

    I am bounce around so well

  • Islander
  • 714 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 07:31 PM

I'm begining to think I live in a magical world completely seperate from everyone else.  In my world, if you make a choice and take an action, then *you* made that choice and *you* took that action by yourself.

Silly me.

Gambling is a mental addiction.  It's all in your head.  There isn't something physical forcing you to go back to it once you've stopped.
Being Liberal means never having to say you're Tory.

#6 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 08:06 PM

Maybe I'm wrong, but if they knew the guy had a problem, had banned him from the place, then started to invite him back with offers of free stuff, then don't they get some of the blame if he goes nuts again?
Can't Touch This!!

#7 Laoise

Laoise

    I am bounce around so well

  • Islander
  • 714 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 08:09 PM

Did the force him to take the invites?  If they *forced* him, then yes, they deserve some blame.  Otherwise, it's his own fault for taking them.

I get offers to adult "hot" chats, but I don't take them because I know they're not good for me.
Being Liberal means never having to say you're Tory.

#8 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 08:27 PM

I get spam all the time too, but I don't have a porn problem, so I delete it and go about my business. I get casino adds for online gambling evry day, but I don't have a gambling problem, so I delete them.

If they sent an invatation to this guy, targeting him, not the rest of the neighborhood, not the entire county, or state, but just to him, inviting a person known to have a problem with gambling, to come back to the casino, even though they had banned him because they knew he had a problem. To me, that's the same as setting a drink down in front of an alcoholic. He may be able to resist the drink, he may not. If the person that set the drink sown knew that he was an alcoholic, then they have to share in that responcibility.

I know at least one of my friends is an alcoholic. I am careful not to mention alcohol in front of him. We have talked about it, and if he want's to talk about it, it's not a problem. He has been alcohol free for years. But I don't bring it up myself, and I wouldn't order a beer if we were eating together.
Can't Touch This!!

#9 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 08:29 PM

I get spam all the time too, but I don't have a porn problem, so I delete it and go about my business. I get casino adds for online gambling evry day, but I don't have a gambling problem, so I delete them.

If they sent an invitation to this guy, targeting him, not the rest of the neighborhood, not the entire county, or state, but just to him, inviting a person known to have a problem with gambling, to come back to the casino, even though they had banned him because they knew he had a problem. To me, that's the same as setting a drink down in front of an alcoholic. He may be able to resist the drink, he may not. If the person that set the drink down knew that he was an alcoholic, then they have to share in that responcibility.

I know at least one of my friends is an alcoholic. I am careful not to mention alcohol in front of him. We have talked about it, and if he want's to talk about it, it's not a problem. He has been alcohol free for years. But I don't bring it up myself, and I wouldn't order a beer if we were eating together.
Can't Touch This!!

#10 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:23 PM

Javert Rovinski, on May 6 2003, 05:29 PM, said:

I'm not so sure Kosh.

First, I'm not sure if they were targeted ads, or if they were singling him out.

Secondly... even if they were targeting him, doesn't he bear responsibility for his own actions?
Okay IF they knew he had a problem and IF they subsequently targeted him *specifically* then yeah I think that they bear *some* responsibility.  I say some because Rov is also right.  Plaintiffs do not check their brains at the door...not without accepting *some* of the responsibility.  But that's a comparative negligence issue, which goes to damages, not necessarily to liability.

Like I said, this is based on a couple of really big iffs.  Really big iffs.

Lil
Posted Image

#11 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:31 PM

I did some googling:

http://www.courier-j...2402s336635.htm

Quote

Williams didn't ask the casino to evict him. But he has alleged that Aztar was guilty of breach of contract by not stopping him after an employee wrote him a letter banning him from the riverboat.

And check this out:

Quote

He signed on for the casino's Fun Card, which tracks a patron's play and is used to award tokens and complimentary meals and hotel stays. He also authorized the riverboat to draw on a money-market account when it issued credit to him.

Quote

One night Aztar executives persuaded Williams to leave. They followed up with a letter barring him from the casino and warning him that he couldn't return until he provided evidence that future visits wouldn't pose a threat to his well-being.

Quote

But one night in February 1999, according to court records, he felt the urge to gamble and returned to the casino.

No one stopped him, and he began playing the slot machines without attracting any attention from casino officials, he said in a sworn statement for his lawsuit.

Quote

Soon, after using his Fun Card again, he began receiving mailings from Aztar, reminding him of slots tournaments and other special events for ''our very best players.''

The facts, as always, make the situation far stickier.

Yes, he received targeted mail from the casino..... beacuse he signed on to their mailing list!

The liability, as I see it is this: They failed to remove him from their "Fun Card" mailing list, even though they knew he had a problem... as evidenced by banning him. I'm not sure if that's enough for damages.

I think this changes the picture, a bit...
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#12 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:39 PM

^ In this case, I'd be willing to be that the casino could make a good case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing.

I'd be willing to bet that the casino officials who look out for problem gamblers aren't the same ones in charge of sending things to people with these "fun cards".

It could easily be negligence for not removing him from the fun card list - but - I'd be willing to bet they had enough confidence in their security staff that they wouldn't have to worry about a banned person getting close enough to a slot machine to have to deactivate his card.

*shrug*

Its hard to say what's what...
cervisiam tene rem specta

#13 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:44 PM

True Jid.

But logically, you'd expect the problem gamblers to be the ones who had fun cards. I think the argument can be made that the casino *should* have known and been better coordinated and never sent that letter... but I don't think that translates into any significiant damages.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#14 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:44 PM

Oops!  Editing because you all are fast!  

Rov said:

Quote

The liability, as I see it is this: They failed to remove him from their "Fun Card" mailing list, even though they knew he had a problem... as evidenced by banning him. I'm not sure if that's enough for damages.

I think this changes the picture, a bit...

^^ A little, but not much.

Part of a recovery plan is real consequence to your actions.  It's how addicted people get better.  And it's never good to underestimate how far addicted people will go to blame other people for their problems...and while collusion is a real thing - it is not something that an addictive person can EVER be allowed to use to justify their actions.  

Tough love really is tough...

QT

Edited by QueenTiye, 07 May 2003 - 09:46 PM.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#15 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:52 PM

Agreed QT. I'm not saying this guy should win; I'm merely observing that the casino should have more properly distributed the 'trouble gambler' list within their own organization. If nothing else, it's in their own best interest to avoid headaches like this. I'm sure whatever profits they earned off of this man will quickly be gobbled up in legal fees.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#16 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:52 PM

^

I think that if a Casino institutes a system for tracking the activities of its members, and they fail to notice that um, someone they at least paid "lip service" to banning is still coming around, AND they then subsequently use the tracking system that they failed to um, notice was um, showing activity by a banned member, to specifically ENCOURAGE the allegedly banned member from coming back for more, has no call being outraged if they get sued.

Do I think there's a huge comparative fault issue?  Ayup, but let's not forget that this "responsibility" thing works two ways.
Posted Image

#17 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:55 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on May 7 2003, 12:39 PM, said:

Do I think there's a huge comparative fault issue?
Is that where they determine how much fault each party holds? (I.E., 90% gambler, 8% casino, 2% some other party....)
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#18 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:57 PM

Javert Rovinski, on May 7 2003, 02:18 PM, said:

I did some googling:

http://www.courier-j...2402s336635.htm

Quote

Williams didn't ask the casino to evict him. But he has alleged that Aztar was guilty of breach of contract by not stopping him after an employee wrote him a letter banning him from the riverboat.

And check this out:

Quote

He signed on for the casino's Fun Card, which tracks a patron's play and is used to award tokens and complimentary meals and hotel stays. He also authorized the riverboat to draw on a money-market account when it issued credit to him.

Quote

One night Aztar executives persuaded Williams to leave. They followed up with a letter barring him from the casino and warning him that he couldn't return until he provided evidence that future visits wouldn't pose a threat to his well-being.

Quote

But one night in February 1999, according to court records, he felt the urge to gamble and returned to the casino.

No one stopped him, and he began playing the slot machines without attracting any attention from casino officials, he said in a sworn statement for his lawsuit.

Quote

Soon, after using his Fun Card again, he began receiving mailings from Aztar, reminding him of slots tournaments and other special events for ''our very best players.''

The facts, as always, make the situation far stickier.

Yes, he received targeted mail from the casino..... beacuse he signed on to their mailing list!

The liability, as I see it is this: They failed to remove him from their "Fun Card" mailing list, even though they knew he had a problem... as evidenced by banning him. I'm not sure if that's enough for damages.

I think this changes the picture, a bit...
Judging by that, I'd haver to say he has nothing.
Can't Touch This!!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Health, Addiction, Gambling, 2003

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users