Gambler sues, claims he was blackout-drunk when he lost $500,000

Gambling for 17 hours straight, Johnston said he was invited to stay at the Downtown Grand over Super Bowl weekend by a casino host he knows. The civil complaint indicates he drank before and after his flight to Las Vegas, later having dinner and more drinks at the Triple George Grill downtown.

Story here. so who is at fault here? Johnson or the casino?

Where is the Downtown Grand?

Nevada law says "visibly drunk" patrons are suppose to be barred from gambling. But I've seen various Cops and Crime TV episodes where someone looks fine and they get tested and blow over a .2 BAC on the breathalyzer! I've also seen 1st hand guys that drink close to a 12 pack and that are highly functional. So what's next, blowing into a breathalyzer lock system to play Blackjack or even a slot machine?

Johnson, I am sick of people that blame everything on everyone else, hey Johnson do not drink!!!!! I do not do drugs because I am not will ing to risk my body and soul. If he wins, The casinos should be able to take anyones winnings if they are drunk!!!

A mitigating factor working against Downtown Grand will be their poor VP pay tables.

I've seen people fall out of their chair at a slot machine. In fact, I think thats happened every time I've visited Casino Royale. I was kinda jealous.

If he made some outrageous bet while blackout drunk, would he also give that back to the casino? Could the casino demand that the bet be nullified on the issue that he was too drunk to make an intelligent decision?

No one forced him to drink, to put money on the table, or to even travel to Las Vegas.
He was obviously lucid enough to take out markers and to order dinner and drinks.

I can't stand the term "over-served" as well. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. If they can't, then they need to stay out of bars, or casinos.

In 1991, The Sands in AC sued Lenoard Tose for failing to make an installment payment on a $1.3 million gambling debt. He was a former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles.
He countersued, claiming the casino induced him to gamble away more than a $1 million on six occasions when he was drunk on gratis liquor. The Sands acknowledged coddling Tose but denied plying him with alcohol.

A jury ruled against him.

The entire article:
Lenoard Tose

Um, no, but so what? Your complaint has nothing to do with the law.

Since English Common Law, contracts are only enforceable when each party to the contract has capacity. If a casino accepts bets from someone without capacity, such as a minor, someone who is retarded, someone with Alzheimer's, or someone incapacitated by drugs, the casino should never be allowed to keep the winnings.

I don't know if that applies to this particular case, but the standard is clear.

DonDiego would say Mr. Johnson is at fault for gambling while intoxicated, . . . and the casino is at fault for dealing to him when he was intoxicated.
On balance he'd hold Mr. Johnson responsible for his own actions, while recognizing the reprehensible action of the casino management.
But what matters is not what poor old DonDiego thinks. What matters is The Law.

i. There is little to be added concerning Mr. Johnson's liability in the matter. Mr. Johnson has a significant debt liability to the casino, . . . until/unless a Court rules otherwise.

ii. What about the casino's liability?
From the Story:
"An attorney for Mark Johnston claims Nevada gaming regulations prohibit casinos from letting those visibly drunk from gambling."

Although DonDiego hasn't located the applicable statue, DonDiego believes this is true. And if a casino violates this regulation it is subject to fines. So the casino has a liability to pay whatever fines the Gaming Commission levies upon it for allowing Mr. Johnson to gamble-while-intoxicated.

iii. What about the $400,00 or $500,000 gambling loss?

"Dram-shop liability" refers to liability imposed upon tavern owners for physical injuries to a patron or to others from the owner's service of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron.
Presumedly dram-shop liability would apply to casinos serving an intoxicated person as well. But no such physical injury pertains to the matter under discussion here.

So the question in this case is: does dram-shop liability also pertain specifically to the economic injury to the intoxicated losing gambler?
DonDiego hasn't found a prior case gone to trial. There have been similar filings, but so far as DonDiego knows they've always ended in a negotiated settlement before a trial. Pr'bly because the casino doesn't want i. the publicity and ii. the possibility of losing and setting a precedent. And the complainant isn't certain that he'll win.

Maybe this case'll make it to court.