Former Indiana state auditor sues Aztar to recover losses

Compulsive gambler wants his money back - says Casino Aztar knew he was addicted to gambling, yet they let him continue to play.

Story below:

Link to today's R-J story

apparently if you can get the casino security guards involved you have a much better chance of winning a court case. And the largest judgment of all was the $8,000,000 FRAUD win against Park Place - but of course it will be appealed for years to come.

This case is as ridiculous as the suits against McDonald's blaming them for causing obesity!

This guy is STILL addicted to gambling: he gambled on a huge settlement in this case (and lost)!

This guy tried to "clean up", but then failed and went back to lose more. Now, whether or not Casino Aztar really knew it was the same guy back in their casino is the real question, in my opinion. It's similar to an addict leaving a halfway house and buying more heroin, coke, or whatever, from the same dealer who KNEW he was a recovering addict. Do you remember Carroll O'Connor's son dying from an O.D. of cocaine? His dad pressed charges against the original coke dealer, who knew about his son's condition, yet sold his son more coke.

Under the present law, I think you are probably correct, but the law is wrong IMO and should be changed. In California, a bartender who sells more booze to a customer whom he KNOWS is intoxicated can be legally prosecuted. Why shouldn't it be the same for a casino who KNOWS the customer is an addict to gambling?

Having the habit of going to a restaurant for too much food is not the same as allowing somebody to gamble away their whole life savings when you KNOW they are addicted and have barred them from your establishment. Just my opinion, of course.

AB

I work at a Southern Indiana casino, of which Aztar (the very one in question) is one. I understand from the news reports that the plaintiff in this case was a slots player, and not a table games player. Since this is the case, he could play with anonymity. In fact, his card could be inserted into a machine by anyone to get the rating points. It's common practice on table games to allow two players to put their buy-ins on the same player card, thus increasing comps under one name. This should be reason enough that Aztar would not be responsible for looking for the guy just because they know his card is being used.

Someone is certainly thinking "well why does he still have a player card anyway?" Well, if you'd blown thousands of dollars at the casino, it's pretty likely that by the time you quit gambling, you've still got a few comps left on there you could use. Restaurants, hotel rooms, I'm sure this guy had plenty to blow that he'd "earned" by wasting his money. Deactivating his card would have wiped out his account, and I don't think he'd have been a real happy camper then. Aztar offers 3 different 'self-exclusion' programs, too (it's on a sign in their stairwells) -- 1 year, 5 years, or forever. If this guy wasn't set up for the forever plan (which apparently he wasn't since he would have been allowed to come back after showing some papers saying he was OK) he would want to keep the same account since it shows him as a high roller there. If he had to start from scratch and was suddenly only wasting 10% of what he used to, he'd be a nobody there and probably wouldn't even have a good time.

But regardless, I think he's a chump that needs to own up to his own responsibilities. If he had been turned away from Aztar as he NOW says they should have done, I'm sure he'd have driven two hours to go to another casino instead.

I don't know if this is going to go to a higher court or not, and I'm not a lawyer but this is what makes it interesting, in my eyes : The casino had previously banned him from playing there. And they didn't just ban him without giving out a reason, like they can do against card counters, for instance. They sent him a letter, as quoted in the article : In March 1998, the casino sent Williams a letter informing him that he was banned until he could demonstrate his gambling "poses no threat to [his] safety and/or well being."

Alright. Now, what this means, to me, is that the casino admits that (a) they were in a position to identify the player as a problem gambler, and (b) they felt they had to protect him from his addiction. Specifically that they had to protect his "safety and/or well being". That's in black and white.

Personally, I find both cases, against McDonalds and the casino, to be two ridiculous examples of totally bending the concept of personal responsibility. But things don't work out in court on the basis of personal morals. Imagine if McDonalds had sent a personal letter to an obese customer banning him from its restaurants until he could demonstrate that his bulimia "poses no threat to his safety and/or well being". You think that allowing him back on the premises later on means nothing legally?

Sorry, I don't agree. I am tired of Americans not wanting to take personal responsibility for their actions. I do not think Casinos should be responsible for deciding who is a "gambling addict" and who is not. I also do not agree with the laws that bartenders are liable for serving intoxicated customers, either, but unfortunately, those precendents have already been set in many states.

Believe me, I have no love for casinos, per se, and if they truly cheat people (which they often do), they should be held accountable, but in this case, it sounds like whining by a guy who lost a lot of cash.