Was the guy "visibly intoxicated" while he was gambling ?
Nevada State Gaming Regulations and Alcohol
Under Nevada State Gaming Control Regulations, it is grounds for disciplinary action on the part of any gaming licensee, agent or employee that would reflect or tend to reflect discredit upon the State of Nevada or the gaming industry. This includes:
Permitting persons who are visibly intoxicated to participate in gaming activity. (NGCB 5.011.01)
Regulation 5, Operation of Gaming Establishments Page 2
(Rev. 04/18)
5.011 Grounds for disciplinary action. The board and the commission deem any activity on the part of any licensee, his agents or employees, that is inimical to the public health, safety, morals, good order and general welfare of the people of the State of Nevada, or that would reflect or tend to reflect discredit upon the State of Nevada or the gaming industry, to be an unsuitable method of operation and
shall be grounds for disciplinary action by the board and the commission in accordance with the Nevada Gaming Control Act and the regulations of the board and the commission. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following acts or omissions may be determined to be unsuitable methods of operation:
1. Failure to exercise discretion and sound judgment to prevent incidents which might reflect on the repute of the State of Nevada and act as a detriment to the development of the industry.
2. Permitting persons who are visibly impaired by alcohol or any other drug to participate in gaming activity."
Under the influence of drugs counts as intoxicated.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/busine...ug-impairment/
Whether or not a patron can prove that a casino spiked a drink or served a drink to a drunk gambler likely not required get a settlement against enforcement of a marker if the casino permits a visibility intoxicated person, under the influence of drugs, to gamble on related extensions of credit which the marker evidences.
1. marker signed, funds advanced,
2. thereafter, a visibly intoxicated guy gambles, losing the funds advanced on the marker,
3. Rinse and repeat.
Proof of a "smoking drink" being served would be leverage as an element for a counterclaim, but not sure it is strictly a marker defense. That the gambling occurred while the patron was visibly intoxicated should be provable and prompt meaningful settlement discussions. ... (I have not reviewed all the rulings on this in recent years or the filings in this matter, , just gave the regulations a quick look.)
(The above is NOT offered as legal advice or opinion and should not be seen as such by anyone. It is just something anyone can find on the internet, and posted here to advance meaningful discussion in this thread. I have no dog in this fight.)
Last edited by Gzesh; 10-15-2023 at 02:31 PM.