Originally Posted by mfpaul
I guess it's kind of the argument used against a bar serving an obviously intoxicated patron more alcohol simply so they can get the sale. i guess i can see both sides. since I'm not a lawyer I won't make a claim that the lawsuit is valid or not though!
The argument against a bar serving an intoxicated patron is different in that the legal responsibility of the bar evolved from court decisions not explicitly laid out in the law. And it was considered negligent of the bar owner to continue serving alcohol because the bar owner had to know that the drunk patron was alone and likely driving home (especially in a non urban bar).
In this case, the casino has no way of knowing the impact of their patron's losses. There is no negligence involved.
As to the argument that he was brainwashed, if the courts agree to this then all companies that advertise products that when used as intended can cause harm (i.e., cigarettes, soft drinks, fast food, cars, boats, guns, fishing rods, etc.) will then be held to the same standard and be potentially liable to similar lawsuits.
Similar cases in the past have lost. I have no doubt this case will lose too.