link:://news.msn.com/us/gambler-sues-says-he-lost-dollar500000-playing-drunk (link:://news.msn.com/us/gambler-sues-says-he-lost-dollar500000-playing-drunk)
Don't as a rule, the Nevada courts try to back the casino's to the hilt ?
As for the case, don't play pi$$ed you dick !!!! Man up n take your losses :thumbsup:
O0
1. The gambler is stupid
2. It says the casino loaned him money. If he signed a contract while "wasted", he may have been legally incompetent, and the contract would be void. The gambler would need to prove the incompetence though.
3. Even if there were technically no contract signed, there would still be a non-spoken agreement between him and the casino.
4. If there are laws where the casino is forbidden from serving drunk people, then the casino is liable.
With the video footage and witnesses, I'd say the odds are actually in the gambler's favour, at least from a "legal" perspective. But a judge ruling in favour of the gambler would open the flood gates for other such cases. In Vegas, that's no small thing. The judge would know this.
Realistically unless the evidence overwhelmingly shows the players was wasted and could barely do anything, the casino will probably win. Otherwise I think the judge will rule with heavy consideration of what might happen later if the gambler wins such a case.
In my experience, the rule of law is an illusion. Judgements are made with heavy considerations to the implications of who wins a case. If you consider cases like with local councils in australia, and the fact they are actually illegal, clear as day, no australian judge will rule against them because of the choas that would happen afterwards.