Well, ok. Deliberately coughing on someone is an assault, so I do think you could potentially hold someone liable for injuries resulting from an illegal act. But I assume we’re talking about behavior that is unintentional, or at least otherwise legal.

Interesting discussion, but it is far more interesting if you, and everyone else involved, believe 100% of what is provided as dicta on the evening news.

If you are not a true believer (and they are legion), not so much.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/05/...vast-majority/

The people who go to casinos are going to be by an large anti-mask as people who mistakenly believe a mask is useful will be staying home and posting self righteous crap on Facebook. Requiring masks likely makes the whole exercise economically infeasible.

Yeah, it's not impossible, but it's still not easy. Contract tracing normally happens ASAP in order to be effective. If you wait until a lawsuit to go back and try to contact trace, the trail is cold, and it's not nearly as effective, especially for something as infectious as this. I'm assuming that we're never going to have that capability.

Even if he tests positive 10 days later, he could have contracted COVID-19 after the coughing incident.

You also have to show that he didn't get it from anywhere else in the casino. Maybe the guy picks his nose or something. Maybe that's what did it. Even if we have him on camera the whole time, even sitting near a masked, but infected person for a long time, could have given it to him.

You would also have to show that the guy who was coughed on didn't already have COVID.

Once you start accounting for all of these things: maybe the cougher didn't have it, maybe victim already had it, maybe he got it somewhere else in the casino, maybe he would have been infected through the mask, it seems like demonstrating the level of certainty that you need to is going to be tough.

Although, I'll admit that if you showed a jury a vid of a dude coughing in another dude's face, it may seem convincing enough to overlook all of these details.

Also, maybe I'm not understanding how things work, but even if the suit is against the casino, don't you still have to prove that he got it from the cough?

Assault is not required. It was an "accident" is not a defense to civil liability.

One can be held civilly liable for a negligent act, or, if egregious enough, a grossly negligent act.

You really think a mask is not useful in lowering the likelihood of P2P transmission of CoVid-19 ?

We disagree on a basic premise for discussion in that case.

I don't understand how it can be proved that a person contracted COVID from the casino. The number of people and public places I have to interact with to get to a LV casino looks something like this:

My apartment building; some form of public transportation to get to my airport (even driving there and using the long-term parking lot requires taking a shuttle to get to the terminal); the hundreds of people in my airport; dozens if not hundreds more on the plane; McCarran; and public transport from McCarran to my casino. I then have to repeat every step to get home. (Plus go to the bank and deposit the millions I won, obviously.)

Even with the incredibly restricted life I've led so far, ignoring a hypothetical casino trip, if I get sick how could I prove that it came from the grocery store, the Amazon driver, somewhere in my apartment, or the 2-3 people I've been in contact with?

I'm asking cuz I really don't know: I'm curious if there is a way to accurately contract trace (accurate enough to win a lawsuit, for purposes of this thread) in a world where general population testing is virtually nonexistent.

I'm not saying there won't be lawsuits, imo of course there will be. (Lawsuits are treated like freerolls by some people.) I also understand how if a casino did not perform up to the safety protocols required by law it could be held liable for something. I just don't see how contracting COVID can ever be pinned on the casino (or any business operator for that matter).

I believe that people are dying from the effects of this virus, and dying in great numbers.

I believe that it can be spread unintentionally by asymptomatic people.

I believe that widespread testing for the virus is necessary to make informed public health policy.

I believe that requiring a mask in an indoor public place, and social distancing, are not unreasonable measures to protect public health, at least until an effective vaccine is available.

That does not require a 100% belief in television or internet news reporting, whether on CNN , Fox ,or Infowars.

What you don't believe is possible is that "something" being a liability for failure to enforce mask requirements, unless there is a direct evidence of the transmission within the casino.

That is the crux of the matter, but I do not think a casino should bet against liability when a reasonable prophylactic measure is available and maybe even deemed a "best practice"

AFAIK I didn't say anything about what I believe or don't believe. What I said was, "I don't understand." And you haven't really helped me understand. (Or even attempted to, from what I can tell.)

If the law doesn't require people to wear masks, how is any business operator liable if they did was what the law required? And how would a casino that didn't require customers to wear masks violate "best practices" when public health officials (who presumably are a part of the decision making team in government) haven't required masks?

It is not your obligation to help me understand, but when someone asks questions in your thread and instead of attempting to answer them or at least engaging in dialogue, you contort what they wrote....

Sorry, did not mean to contort what you wrote. When you wrote you "don't understand how X could be proved", I took that to mean that, your having thought about it a bit, "you did not believe X was provable".

If gaming regulations require a casino to admit only people wearing masks, would that make a finding of casino liability more understandable ?

What if "the law", meaning case law, imposes a general duty of care by a hotel towards guests on the premises, could that general duty of care require masks be worn because strict social distancing is not provided or possible by the casino's operations ? A failure of the business to require masks may be seen as a failure to mitigate patron risk from a lack of social distancing/

By analogy, if a business has a safety limit of X number of concurrent patrons on some portion of the premises (an elevator, poker table, escalator, jacuzzi, etc) , could the business be liable for injuries caused because it allowed 3X people to enter/board ?

Negligence law. Common law. Doing that which a reasonable person or company would not do under the same or similar circumstances. Or not doing that which a reasonable person or company would do under the same or similar circumstances. Doesn’t have be a violation of a statute or regulation for liability to be found.

Fwiw, the Hard Rock casino in Tampa has announced its reopening will require all guesrs ro wear masks:

https://www.fox13news.com/news/hard-...hursday-may-21

"Other safety guidelines include:
- Temperature checks for all guests and team members prior to entry. Any guest or team member with a temperature above CDC guidelines will not be allowed entry.
- A requirement that all guests wear masks or cloth face coverings that meet CDC guidelines, without exception. Masks will be provided to guests, as needed."

OTOH, MGM does not plan to require guests to wear masks:

"Temperature checks would be conducted on employees upon entering the facility, but not guests.

All MGM employees would be required to wear a mask while working and guests will be encouraged to wear a mask".

https://www.fox5vegas.com/coronaviru...5917dad42.html

We shall see what prevails as the "best practice" for the casino industry re customer masks.

Eldorado (EDI) is reopening three casinos in Louisiana. From their press release it appears that they will ask patrons to wear masks and gamble responsibly and not drink too much.

The same Eldorado that is buying Caesars ?

But if a state sets out regulations and guidelines for what a business needs to do to safely reopen, and what customers need to do to safely pratronize it, they are essentially setting the standard for how a reasonable person should act. So I can’t see how a business or customer who is complying with these regulations could or should be held liable if someone is unintentionally infected.

Yep. Hopefully it was obvious that I made up the bit about responsible gambling and drinking.

That would be my starting position, yes. One interesting thing about the 1918 flu pandemic was that it served as a fabulous natural experiment for testing all sorts of public health interventions. Since no one knew what to do (we didn't isolate the flu virus until '33 and figure out it wasn't a bacteria until '35) people tried EVERYTHING. Masks, shutdowns, ventilation, moving everything outdoors, moving everything indoors, medical isolation, quarantine, hygiene campaigns, closing evil business X (dance halls were a favorite), consuming alcohol, prohibiting alcohol and so on. Many of these of course carried the force of law.

Of all those interventions, only ONE had any clear effect on mortality: the total isolation of a community of healthy people which of course was impossible in any large community, but several small ones managed it. Some interventions spread the deaths out slightly in time.

So no, I wouldn't expect masks to do much because historically they didn't and no one's put forward a rationale for why it would be different now. Thus far we've seen little to no correlation between public health policy and various metrics of disease either within the US or across countries. So the pattern continues to be no pattern.

It should also be noted that the procedure being used for masks bears no resemblance to the medical hand washing/gloving/masking procedures. Those are in place for a reason and their absence is telling.

What we have is concern theater - show me you care!

Yes, no doubt everyone is using the same construction and material in masks as in 1918.

What with all this hand sewing of masks, I'm not even sure what you're suggesting? Presumably construction runs the range of commercially available fabrics.

Let's be honest here. No one who actually thought

a) getting COVID-19 was a big deal likely to cause serious harm or death
and
b) COVID-19 is caused by a virus spread by respiration and touch

would ever consider going into a casino right now as a conventional customer. Casino chips (and cards) are so obviously bad if you're actually worried about the disease. Possibly someone might do it as an employee or winning player if their alternatives are bad enough. But for the vast bulk of players, the very fact they're there means they don't buy a).

I can't think of a better place to catch a virus than a casino.

My brief foray's into labor law show that it is almost impossible to PROVE where someone picked up a sickness. We had a case where employees were directed to clean spilled sewage from our equipment (electric utility). Both employees came down with hepatitis and filed industrial injury claims.

The claims were denied, as were the appeals, because they couldn't prove they got hepatitis at work.

Also regarding surveillance, we have all radio transmissions recorded on the company servers. Whenever we had a grievance regarding disciplinary action for malfeasance and the tapes would clear our guy, the company would say they 'couldn't recover the recording'. when the tapes went in their favor they could always come up with them. Since the casinos own the surveillance is a subpoena for the tapes regarded as a 'motion to shred'.

If Costco can require masks why can't casinos? They can also afford to buy the best N95 ones on the market and give them out.

What you describe asa "starting position" seems counter-intuitive, given that this is a respiratory disease, which reportedly gains hold in the upper respiratory tract. You don't catch this by stepping on a rusty nail and have it spread to your lungs ...

My colleagues from Costa Rica tell me that the incidence of infection there is low, so far .... something borne out by reported statistics. the number of new cases is below recoveries and is is dropping steadily, almost daily for three weeks.

You may see a pattern emerge in States here where new cases have been dropping, like Nevada, but the effect of loosening restrictions will lag a couple of weeks. I expect a poor outcome and a pattern of increase, hopefully, my expectation will be proven incorrect.