Remember that young lady who just lost her lawsuit trying to force her parents to support her after she ran away from the house?
This guy must be related to her.

won't be the last.

Bar staff are supposed to be keeping an eye on guest sobriety for that very reason, but things get tricky when someone's playing that kind of money and the pit bosses wants them to continue being served.

can't see the person it gets served to and have no way to yet are the ones responsible over the server that can see the condition of the customer.

What a crappy policy. The owner ought to be banned from holding a business license. Only the person in direct contact with the guest is supposed to be responsible for determining if they should be served or not- at the bar it's the bartender, on the floor it's the server.

I had to learn the intricacies of state law concerning bartenders that's really only touched on in bartending school but is what the TIPS certification course is really all about. It's madness. Yet that's how it is. I refused a job offer at one big chain place that was a restaurant that served alcohol for a lot of reasons that being one of them since the servers weren't even old enough to serve alcohol (you have to be at least 18, and most of the servers weren't that old yet). In this state it is illegal for a bartender to hand off an alcoholic drink to anyone under 18 for them to serve. I've never even heard of a restaurant before that allowed their servers under 18 to be anywhere near the alcohol. No way was I doing that.

They don't have dram shop laws either, unless the person being served was underage.

I certainly wouldn't take a job where I was responsible for someone else's judgement. That's just ridiculous. I can't say I blame you for refusing to take the job either, it sounds like a massive lawsuit waiting to happen.

It makes so much more sense. How is someone that can't even see the patron or even know whether or that is the one drinking the drink to be able to assess their level of sobriety? I guess it does sort of suck that having the server be the responsible party makes businesses not want to hire teenage workers or have to provide TIPS classes for them... there are a ton more servers in a restaurant than there are bartenders. I guess they could hire "drink runners" but it doesn't seem that they'd have enough to do if all they did was run drinks.

I confess it was me in the TIPS class that raised a ruckus about this that brought everyone else into it. But most bartenders I've found at least around here never go to bartending school or get the TIPS certification, and I started finding out that a lot of places don't WANT educated bartenders - so much nicer for them to have bartenders that aren't worried about whether or not they should be or even can serve someone. The general rule of thumb seems to be serve them even if they're falling down drunk or risk getting fired.

You take the class and get your card from it, or you don't work- that's the law.

Even then, like I said, there are still situations that get very touchy when you are working anywhere with gaming. Technically you have the right to refuse to serve anyone if you think they're over the limit, and they can't legally fire you for it; however, Nevada is a RTW state, so unless they come right out and state that "we are firing you for refusing to serve this person" or you work for one of the union shops, you're screwed. So servers will still cave in and serve people against their better judgement if the bosses want them served, because otherwise they risk a no-reason firing. Stories like the OP are the result of that.

I can't even remember when PA wasn't a RTW state. It always was since I've been old enough to work.

And it isn't like they haven't heard that one before. .

Some drunks who get their drinks stopped cause trouble. What if he were at a slot machine. Can the slot machine tell if he's drunk? I wonder if this works for fools who take their last $200.00 and try their luck while drunk. If he would have won, would the casino be able to sue him? He never should have played, he was drunk. LOL! Poor rich assholes.

Don't get drunk at a casino if you are prone to these kind of things

....I believe the phrase that covers this complaint is: "Thanks for playing..."

Idiot.

I have sort of a love/hate thing with gambling on sports or in casinos. It's like anything where people have to do it in moderation and control themselves, but they often don't. It's depressing thinking about people losing all that money especially those who can't really afford it (not the guy in the op). All those retirees that head up to Winstar every week. A casino can be both the happiest or saddest place.

I'm usually pro legalized gambling and find it fun myself, but then it causes so many secondary problems with people and can ruin people's lives that I'm conflicted.

That being said a lot of people are doing it and relatively few have problems. The problem I have with trying to legislate control for the sake of addicts is inevitably the civil liberties of non-addicts are the first to go out the window. Both are compelling interests and neither should be ignored.

And afterward when he freaks out at Hoover Dam.

Lost in America!

based on his being so drunk that the casino should not have allowed him to play. Yeah, right.

I've dropped quarter or two in the slots, and played a hand of Blackjack.

I have more fun playing a random role-playing video game that has nothing to do with money than sit in a place to gamble. It just never has appealed to me.

we make each other laugh. And the money revolves between us all. One week I win, next week he wins, next week somebody else.



I wouldn't step inside a casino though. Gambling with strangers where the House has odds in their favor is unappealing to me.

is an excuse to eat, drink beer and play cards.

I don't understand people draining their bank accounts for gambling in casinos. I get bored if I have to sit in one place for too long.

That said, you are good people KittyWampus.

Unless you are good at counting cards in blackjack, or play poker against other people, you over a lifetime will lose money.
The casinos have all the odds in their favor.

but I am open to arguments.

After all, tit was their product that put this guy into a state of severely impaired judgment, causing him to squander a not-so-small fortune. At least he admits being able to afford the loss, so he can always throw a few more bucks around and support the local attorneys. However, I wish him good luck in getting a judge or jury to get past the laugh test!

...but it does seem like he has a reasonable argument. I don't think (or I hope) that no one here disagrees that a person can be too drunk to consent to sex. I once had a medical procedure halted so that they could bring me out of anesthesia long enough to consent to a change in the agreed upon procedure, presumably because I wasn't mentally capable of consenting. So is it possible that he was too drunk to enter into what amounts to a contract?