Compulsive gambler sues casino

[Arwon]

I was under the impression, also, that the coffee in question was either hotter than industry standards or hotter than McDonalds internal guidelines and therefore, the 3rd degree burns could be attributed to their neglegence.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Arwon,

Yeah, it just wasn't as bad as everyone thinks it is. My point is only that if you were on that jury and the old lady came up with a week-long hospital stay for skin grafts and two years of therapy, you might find the coffee defective, too. It's not the "Twinkie Defense."

Cleo

 

[JollyRoger]

If her lawyer took this case on contingency and loses, can the lawyer sue the client for encouraging the lawyer to gamble?

 

[Chazumi]

People like this and the McDonald Coffee bish make me want to puke. People like this need to be tied up, brutally beaten, and shot.

Can I volunteer for a position like this?

 

[JollyRoger]

People like this and the McDonald Coffee bish make me want to puke. People like this need to be tied up, brutally beaten, and shot.

Can I volunteer for a position like this?

Sure you can, if you don't mind doing some prison time.

 

[amadeus]

I actually agree here, but with the proviso that there damn well should be laws requiring places that profit from compulsive gambling (casinos, bars with slot machines/pokies, etcetera) to exercise a minimal duty of care with addicts. If there was a specific law that said "don't let people gamble longer than X hours" and "don't put ATMs right next to slot machines" then they could be held responsible if they breeched that but otherwise couldn't.

They have a ridiculously profitable industry that can easily be exploitative of a genuine psychological condition, it's not unreasonable to expect some minimal bloody standards.

The problem here is that you can't really exactly define what a casino does to encourage problem gambling. Look at the psychology of the casino developer; the flashing lights, colorful displays, the sound of coins clanking in the register, the music... all of that is used by the casino to "get" people to gamble.

 

[LucyDuke]

Link that makes noisy video pop up without warning = totally not cool.

 

[skadistic]

Wow this means every time my horse gets beat by a nose and I lose my $2 bet I can sue TVG, Twin Spires and HRTV to get my money back !!!!!

 

[Elta]

The casino is not to blame - my dad had it for a long time. ... spent whole pay checks.
He got over it by doing drugs instead /jk He was an addict for a long time and got over it.

In Vegas you can get banned from a casino for compulsive gaming.

P.S. I didn't read the whole thread - I normally read all of them, If I gave any useless info I am sorry

 

[Rossiya]

It's ironic. Casino is sued by gambler (idiot), he gets loads of money, and spends it all on gambling. When the money runs out, he sues again, more money, more gambling.

Ad infinitum.

 

[warpus]

I actually agree here, but with the proviso that there damn well should be laws requiring places that profit from compulsive gambling (casinos, bars with slot machines/pokies, etcetera) to exercise a minimal duty of care with addicts. If there was a specific law that said "don't let people gamble longer than X hours" and "don't put ATMs right next to slot machines" then they could be held responsible if they breeched that but otherwise couldn't.

Why? Do we do the same thing with other addictive products?

People should take responsibility for their own actions.. sheesh

 

[amadeus]

It's ironic. Casino is sued by gambler (idiot), he gets loads of money, and spends it all on gambling. When the money runs out, he sues again, more money, more gambling.

Ad infinitum.

[1.] It's a woman.

[2.] Yeah, who is to say that she won't just blow all of that money gambling?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

warpus,

Do we do the same thing with other addictive products?

Yes.

Dealing drugs isn't wrong because drugs are illegal, dealing drugs is wrong because drugs are highly addictive and destroy people's lives. Admittedly, crack is more addictive and destructive than gambling, but I don't think it's unreasonable at all for there to be additional duties on casinos to watch for addicted patrons. As many have pointed out, Las Vegas seems to have instituted some kind of addict-protection plan. I think that's a good idea.

Cleo

 

[warpus]

Meh.. People who destroy their lives by trying crack in the first place - stupid.

If you know you have an addictive personality - stay the hell away from addictive drugs.

People who destroy their lives by gambling - stupid.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

warpus,

But isn't that part of "having an addictive personality"? That it's hard to stay away from addictive things?

Hey, it's one thing to say that people should take responsibility for their lives. It's another to condone other people taking advantage of others' addictions. I'm not saying this woman's suit should win, I'm only saying that it's responsible for the casinos not to prey on addicts.

Cleo

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

How is compulsive gambling the fault of the casino? This is just another frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Arwon]

The problem here is that you can't really exactly define what a casino does to encourage problem gambling. Look at the psychology of the casino developer; the flashing lights, colorful displays, the sound of coins clanking in the register, the music... all of that is used by the casino to "get" people to gamble.

I agree completely, that's why I say a few simply defined legally defined tests to force them to stop the most egregrious manifestations are the way to go. It'd make court cases much simpler, too - did they meet their legal requirements? No? Bam, guilty of neglegence just as much as a bar selling alcohol to people who're clearly so drunk they can't stand up is illegal.

Why? Do we do the same thing with other addictive products?

People should take responsibility for their own actions.. sheesh

Why shouldn't casinos and other purveyers of gambling should take responsibility for their actions too? We have all sorts of laws about consumer rights, laws against taking advantage of people in certain ways. We have laws that say bars can't keep serving alcohol to somebody that's clearly so drunk they can't stand up, laws against putting certain things in food, etcetera.

It's just common sense. The fact that people should take responsibility for their own actions (and be helped to do so, for example, with publically funded programs for problem gamblers with mandatory advertising in places of gambling) doesn't preclude the fact that legal concepts of neglegence and duty of care still exist.

 

[warpus]

Compulsive gamblers aren't physically addicted to gambling.. the comparison to crack fails, in that respect.

Casinos provide a service.. if you want to abuse that service.. your fault. If I spent all my money on junk food because I have an eating disorder, should I be able to sue the convenience store for taking advantage of me?

Casinos are in business of taking advantage of people, anyway. That's what their business model is based on!

 

[Arwon]

"Physical" versus "psychological" matters here a lot less than you think it does. People have this irritating tendency to think "psychological" means "fake" or "not serious".

 

[warpus]

"Physical" versus "psychological" matters here a lot less than you think it does. People have this irritating tendency to think "psychological" means "fake" or "not serious".

Not at all.. I am psychologically addicted to various things, myself.

I just have no sympathy for people who participate in "tax on the stupid" schemes and then complain when they lose money.