http://www.startribune.com/16413841.html

So what is your position. Do you think she has a case? Should casinos have a cut off limit or have a responsibility to watch for problematic gamblers?

Ha! What a joke. She can't take responsibility for her own problems, so she's suing the casinos for not babysitting her. The only thing casinos have a "duty" to do, if that, is keep the tables going. If she couldn't be bothered to leave them alone even long enough to take care of her daily needs, it's nobody's problem but hers, and the casinos only stand to gain from gambling addicts such as her. Just goes to show what obsession can do to a person.

On the other hand, this incident almost makes me want to start a topic about sue-happy Americans with an entitlement complex.

For once, Country Music sums up my feelings about this woman. She doesn't know when to fold.

Hmmm, this one could be a little tricky. However, I think that perhaps the casinos should shoulder some of the blame as not only did they do nothing to help her despite it being obvious something is wrong, but they also encouraged her, with stuff such as limos and allowing her dog in.

Yes, they shouldn't babysit everyone, but in cases like this where it's obvious there is a huge problem, they should have stepped in. In a pub or bar, if someone is drinking like this woman, there for days without showering, then the bar manager will ask them to leave for their own health, despite the money that the owner would potentially make.

Gambling addiction is serious, and not a joke. Just like alcohol and drugs, it's a mental disorder.

People get cut off at bars because they get too drunk to stay on the barstool, or angry and abusive toward other patrons or staff - and bars don't usually stay open 24 hours. If someone is there daily, nursing their drink quietly in the corner and ruining their liver without bothering anyone or causing trouble, they generally won't be asked to leave.

From reading the article, they -did- speak to her and try to refer her to help but she refused. She also wasn't just gambling at one casino, but several - so it would be very difficult for a particular casino to tell whether this was just a woman wanting to make the most of her few days in Vegas, with plenty of money to burn, or someone with a real problem who was doing illegal things and going into massive debt to support her habit. I'm sure she's not the only person who brings her dog (also, how could she stay at the table for days at a time with her dog? Even if she can live off orange juice and snickers and hold it, her dog can't - she had to have gotten up sometime to feed the dog and let it relieve itself), gets a limo for being a big spender, and other normal perks of the gambling industry to encourage folks who gamble a lot to come back and enjoy themselves again.

Just as it's not McDonald's fault for making you fat or the bar's fault for making you drink, it's not the casinos' fault for making her gamble. It's her responsibility to realize she has a problem and seek treatment or... god forbid, use a little willpower.

If there were any merit to these types of lawsuits, casinos would have been shut down a long time ago by greedy lawyers seeking to get big settlements. People enter casinos through their own choice, spend their own money through their own choice. Nobody is forced to gamble. It is not the casino's fault that she cannot control her own impulses. If she thought that the casinos were encouraging her gambling by not "cutting her off", she could have gotten up from the poker table, slots machine, or whatever, and walked out. Of course the casino encouraged her to gamble...that's how they make their money, duh! But, as a lawyer, she should have been smart enough to realize that before she ever stepped foot inside. The casino didn't force her to spend a single dime. She did that all on her own.

That's the thing, her behavior is not the equivilant of nursing a drink quietly in the corner, but rather it's more like repeatedly ordering triple vodkas and cokes and chugging them down continuiously. Passing out at tables, staying there for days without leaving, and playing an entire table by herself is not normal behavior. I know that after a limit, the pubs and bars in my area would not serve alcohol to someone who is obviously drinking too much, as in the case of a friend of mine who drank one triple vodka with coke, a double vodka and coke, and was then refused by the bar staff for the rest of that evening.

As I've said, gambling is an addition similar to alcohol and drugs, and like those addictions, the person is in deniel and needs help. Whether it's a bar owner refusing to serve a customer, or friends and family intervening, or even as has happened in a couple of cases at my University, personal tutors getting involved by arranging meetings with AA and other help groups. So no, it's not a clear-cut case of 'she could just get up and leave' because addiction is a long and slippery slope that affects the brain and no one can defeat it properly alone.

Here's a couple of links related to gambling addiction:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4154709.stm
http://www.medic8.com/healthguide/a...s/gambling.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...bmedid=16650722
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...bmedid=16516056
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi.../full/163/2/180

Of course addiction is a problem- in the case of gambling, it's not an uncommon one. But like alcoholism and drug addiction, the person needs to acquiesce that they have a problem before it can be helped. The casinos did warn her, and she refused. Then, this:



They held up their end of the bargain. She was informed she had a problem and asked to help herself; she denied it. She was told she had to do something about her huge losses due to addiction, and when she didn't, they shut the door on her. The CASINOS did everything right, and now she's claiming they should have done more. What did she want them to do, kidnap her and take her to a self-help group or psychologist? That's ridiculous. In the end, no one can help you but yourself, and this woman is refusing to see that.

Fair point, I missed that bit when I read through the first time, but notice that it was only one casino, and they didn't bar her for her health but because she didn't sign something that would have save their asses if she died due to her addiction.

I'm not saying that she is fully guiltless, but what I am saying is that the casinos should be more responsible. If someone is having that much trouble, they should stop serving that customer, not tell them 'Sign this that keeps us out of trouble and you can carry on exactly the way you did before, or you're barred'. Denial of a problem is part of the disorder, so obviously if someone has PG they would resist any idea that they may have a problem, so of course they won't sign.

Personal responsibility. If you can't control your gambling, don't go into a casino. PERIOD.

I am seeing these kind of things more and more. I think it is partially due to the blame culture that has been created in society. People are blaming other people for faults but not themselves. If things goes wrong, it is other people's fault and not them. People are refusing to take responsibility for their own failures.

Bingo.

Couldn't have said it better.

If shes smart enough to be a lawyer, she should be smart enough to foresee the consequences of her actions and take some responsibility.
Sure, alcoholics could make the same claim for not being thrown out of the pub in time.That would be funny to watch.

This Lady is an idiot, i hope the case get thrown out and her into an loony bin, seriously

I think the headline sums it up: the case is a long shot. Personally, I think she's hoping the casinos will try to settle out of court to avoid publicity, but even that seems a stretch. Social attitudes toward gambling addiction are not so advanced that the casinos' reputation would suffer more than hers. (I was appalled to read that she lost her parents' home. Do I hold the casino responsible? No.)

Based on the info available in the article, the casinos did all that was required legally. Atlantic City has a self-exclusion program designed to prevent self-acknowledged compulsive gamblers from receiving casino solicitations, including mass mailings and high-roller perks like limo rides. If that option was suggested by casino staff (as the article implies), then even the contradiction between the casino cautioning her against extreme behavior while simultaneously soliciting her with perks doesn't leave them legally liable.