Posted on 03/04/2010 10:45:06 AM PST by DemforBush
A judge faces a decision on whether a gambler must repay $75,000 in loans from a southern Indiana casino where he claims workers kept serving him bourbon drinks while he was drunk.
A lawyer for Jimmy L. Vance of Corbin, Ky., said that the key issue in the case is whether Indiana law allows a casino to enter into a legal contract with a patron who is drunk.
(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...
Interesting indeed!
I am torn on this. On the one hand, I am for personal responsibility and what he does while drunk, he is responsible for.
On the other hand, it’s pretty underhanded for a business to ply a person (especially already intoxicated) with alcohol and then expect them to uphold a contract.
I'd be willing to bet he will experience a sudden miraculous recovery if'n he wins his suit.
Can someone who is intoxicated legally sign a binding contract??
Somehow I would think not.
Interesting news involving copious amounts of bourbon.
PING!
Simple just attach a breathalyzer to the contract.
Who says he was drunk?
How drunk?
How was it quantified?
At least, not in Virginia.
I learned that at the hospital, yesterday.
interesting
They shouldn't be allowed to name their children, either. That's how we end up seeing names like Placentia.
I'm guessing that it will all come down to how drunk this guy really was. It is an interesting case, and I'm surprised it doesn't come up in NV more often given the number of markers that are taken out in that state.
He’s lucky. 100 years ago, he would have been scalped.
Hey,wait a minute! *My* name is Placentia.Do you have a problem with that? ;-)
How drunk?
How was it quantified?
Indiana, like every other state, has a definition of what intoxicated is. The number and types of drinks and time of service are part of the bar receipt. They could just use his body weight and do the math.
If not, it was obviously an Indian casino.
If Indian, why can this case be brought in state court?
Suppose the drunk man used the borrowed money and won at gambling. Would the casino be able to sue the man for the winnings because he was drunk? -no.
It was a stupid loan by the casino, but ultimatly individuals are responsible for their own actions. While the casino is allowed to recoup triple the loan amount, as the judge I rule in favor of the casino, but only allow them to recoup principle+interest+legal fees.
I think your right. We had a lot of cases regarding the sale of Indian property, where they tried to set the contract aside b/c of drunkenness.
I think the bottom line was that you musthave lost the ability to understand the agreement you had entered into. If you agreed to sell property A for $100, and that is what you understood the agreement to be, I think they enforced the contract.
With the gambler, his best bet would be to claim he had no idea the amount of money he was loaned.
It's a wildly complicated area of law, but in a nutshell...the states reserve the right to assert jurisdiction in events - both civil and criminal - for non-Indians complainant/victims that happen to transpire on Indian reservations. This is especially true when dealing with events transpiring inside these Indian Casinos, as the tribes have frequently reached separate agreements with the state, giving the state expanded influence or reach.
This was horribly worded. What I'm trying to say is - if the victim/complainant is a non-Indian citizen, but the "event" transpires on an Indian Reservation, the state can usually assert jurisdiction in both civil and criminal law.
I did some checking, and apparently the casino in question is a riverboat casino called Horseshoe Southern Indiana. Indiana law (as I understand it) allows casino gambling, but only on riverboats; land-based casinos are still illegal.
Of course, said riverboats pretty much stay in dock 24-7 and (if wiki is to be believed) are not required to keep a captain or crew on board, but as long as it’s on the water, it’s legal - but I digress.
The casino is owned by Horseshoe Gaming Holding Corporation, which is owned by Harrah Entertainment.
>>Can someone who is intoxicated legally sign a binding contract??
Somehow I would think not.<<
Especially if the one he is signing a contract with is the one who continued to serve him.
This could change a lot regarding how casino’s offer credit if this guy wins.
Yep, you're right. Before Katrina - maybe still - that was the law in Mississippi, as well. All those casinos on the Gulf Coast were floating, but permanently moored to the hotel, which was located on land.
Yes it could.
Get them to sign a loan BEFORE they get drunk. lol.
>>Get them to sign a loan BEFORE they get drunk. lol.
<<
Exactly. And I suspect it would be more difficult to get him to sign.
No, that was an honest mistake. Dad read the chart and saw where it said "placenta delivered shortly thereafter" and figured mom gave the name to the Doc. Dad decided to go with it on the BC application. Oh, and dad is a lousy speller.
The point on triple damages confuses me. I thought that in a case like this, the idea would be to be made whole again. Thus, the casino would recoup their loan, plus interest, court costs, legal and other fees. Why are they entitled to more than that?
I’ll stay with my two fingers of bourbon, thank you very much. And as long as I stay away from casinos, no problem here, I’ll be fine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.