I did some googling:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.