No worries, I realize it can be hard to read people's intentions, and given some of the other commenters itt, I can see why

from the national law review: https://www.natlawreview.com/article...lity-risk-when

"While there has been discussion at the Federal level about granting immunity to businesses for claims that they exposed someone to COVID-19, at this time there is disagreement regarding the scope of any such immunity which could minimize the impact or delay enactment. As a result, businesses looking at re-opening now must proceed with thoughtful, educated caution in an effort to mitigate risk."

"Unfortunately, this increased risk of liability is unavoidable and will be assumed at a time when the filing of lawsuits is at an all-time high. And yet, the risk of not opening, given the attendant economic hardship, may be an even greater than the risk of a lawsuit. Because of this economic reality, there is no doubt that most businesses will accept the liability risk as a cost of doing business. While politicians are mulling over the possibility of granting business owners immunity from COVID-19 claims, business owners should, in the meantime, understand the types of claims that might be asserted and be aware of steps that can be taken to reduce the potential liability."

2. Negligence-based Claims
Negligence claims can also be asserted when a business owner owes a duty and breaches the standard of care. Negligence claims can arise where a business owner puts a visitor at risk or fails to act reasonably when the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable. There are also claims for negligent hiring if a business owner hires an individual who poses a risk to another person. Also, a business owner can be subject to claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress if someone suffers a physical injury or threat of harm and was in what the law calls the “zone of danger.” These negligence-based claims could be asserted if a customer comes in contact with an infected employee or if a business owner fails to take reasonable steps to protect visitors from exposure to COVID-19.

Yes, there will be suits filed And yes the owners of casinos and all business are aware and doing everything they can to avoid a costly case.

Correct, this is why OSHA here in the US is referencing it's General Duty Clause. It has publicly stated numerous times the covid 19 doesn't fall in their area. They put out updated guidance on April 10th. In the update they told employers not to report covid 19 days off work on the OSHA 300 report. As it is VERY hard to prove a worker contracted covid at work.

They do say:
1. "There is objective evidence that a COVID-19 case may be work-related. Such objective evidence could be a number of cases developing among workers who work closely together without an alternative explanation; and

2. The evidence was reasonably available to the employer. The Memorandum explains that reasonable available evidence includes information given to the employer by employees or information that the employer learns regarding employee health and safety during the ordinary course of managing its business and employees."

Now that basically is telling business owners that unless you have a mass outbreak in your workforce, not to worry you can't be held accountable. As long as you are doing your "general duty" and setting standards and following them.

So it will be very hard for a tourist or group of tourists to Vegas to prove a single casino gave them the virus when they will be around sooo many people at the casinos, and on the sidewalk, a cab, an uber, planes, etc...

Here is where the winning suits will arise from. If a company makes a policy and doesn't follow it... Then they will have issues in court...

Though we don't run a casino, Mr G., we do still have a couple business we kept. This is the single biggest thing we are pushing out to our general managers - If you put out a policy ENSURE THE STAFF FOLLOWS IT.

Leaving aside that OSHA and workers comp are not what I was talking about, in your scenario if a casino has employees, say security, tasked to enforce either a mask policy or social distancing among customers, "they will have issues in court" if it is not enforced ?

Wouldn't this whole thing fall under some type of "assumed risk" (if that's the right wording) scenario similar to the generic disclaimer they print on the back of baseball tickets saying by entering the park you won't sue anyone if you get blasted by a foul ball? I think casinos would have zero liability if someone comes in and gets sick.

It's not spread by touch. As long as you keep your hands clean or out of your eyes, mouth, and nose, no transmission.

what exactly do you mean by "its not spread by touch" and why are your hands relevant if not for them touching things?

They print that on tickets because they do not believe the risk is assumed without notice.

I don't think the slogan "Get Rich, or Die Trying" translates well from popular music to casino marketing or a limitation of liability clause.

Reportedly, in an NVG thread, the Hard Rock Tampa, which will require every casino patron to wear a mask, is also planning on offering 6 max poker.


So, if the industry trade-off is {4 player poker, mask optional} v {6 max poker , mask required}, which is the better offering in your view as a poker player ?

Obviously 4-max both for higher profit and no mask.

Then you better be prepared to be one amusing, fun guy if you want rec players looking for entertainment to play at your 4 person table.

I think the answer is, whatever the rec players prefer.....

Waivers and assumptions of risk are typically not a get out of jail free card for businesses. Yes in some states and some cases they can bolster defense arguments. But law suits will still be filed and the courts will still leave it up to the jury's, and the plan on both sides of the court room is that the appeals will have to go on until the Supreme Court makes the final ruling.

They will, of course, have the option to decline to hear the case and then the lower court ruling will stand.

Even if the lawmakers in DC pass a law saying a business cannot be sued, there will be suits filed saying the law is unlawful... It is just the way we are wired in the U.S.

To sum up the whole question of the thread. Yes, casinos - (any business) will see law suits filed, people can do that. Should the casino be help responsible for a guest becoming sick? Everyone has an opinion, and the courts will ultimately render the answer.

Nobody is going to recover under a claim for negligence, let alone gross negligence because they contracted coronavirus from somebody else at a casino.

You wouldn't even be able to say that masks are required under a duty of care because there isn't even a consensus on whether they do anything to prevent the spread.

If you're that scared, stay home for the next 2 years.

Nah, I'm a lawyer in Nevada. I think I'll have plenty to do rather than play 4 max poker. Maybe, you can hold a CLE class I can attend remotely to get better educated, counselor.

"Nobody" ? You're that certain ? .... Duty, breach, injury/causation and damages. You say, "impossible, balderdash, can't be done".

This isn't 1905 ... contact tracing has probably come a long way, as has casino surveillance.

"Mary Mallon (September 23, 1869 – November 11, 1938), also known as Typhoid Mary, was an Irish-born cook believed to have infected 53 people, three of whom died, with typhoid fever, and the first person in the United States identified as an asymptomatic carrier of the disease."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon#Investigation

A tort case may indeed succeed "because someone contracted coronavirus from someone else, perhaps even at a casino:

If 2020 CoVid Mary knowingly kept working in a close quarters to casino customers, because she denied getting people sick at her last job, and a casino failed to test/detect her illness or her record around clusters, you think nobody she caused to become ill could sue her and her employer and settle with their insurance carriers ?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#1ec45b822be8

"Such suits have already been filed against cruise ship operators, nursing homes, and entertainment venues. Sometimes, but not always, it will be easy to establish negligence (for example, if COVID had been publicly announced; if most others in the same industry had taken preventive steps that the defendant had not taken; etc.). Sometimes, but not always, it will be easy to establish causation (for example, some who are infected by the virus were in very closed locations such as nursing homes or cruise ships, and given our knowledge about incubation periods, it is reasonable to infer that they caught the coronavirus in that location). Sometimes, but not always, it will be easy to establish damages (it’s easy if a previously healthy person gets coronavirus and dies; it not so easy if the plaintiff never developed symptoms but is suing for “fear of coronavirus”...)."

Your Nobody will not stand the test of time.

Really doubt the run of the mill civil liability for masks vs no masks is going to make it to the Supreme Court. Unless there is a very unusual,aspect to such cases, they will be covered by existing decisions. Few if any cases will be granted certiorari.

Plus with the recent problems including at least one shooting for challenging patrons without masks, I suspect the duty for employee safety will override. A known immediate risk vs. an undetermined possible future risk.

I think tort cases are more likely to find their way to the State's appellate courts.

I really meant the thread to cover patron-caused illnesses, as casinos pretty much are requiring employees to wear masks and social distance.

Let's make 2020 CoVid Mary a poker player, who knows she is infected, but who refuses to wear a mask, despite being "encouraged" to do so by the casino. Instead of a No Shirt, No Shoes, No Mask, No service policy, the casino lets her play, let's say not discerning she is contagious or even ill.

6 days later 3 or more people she played against are diagnosed with CoVid 19, of an approximate onset date of when they played with Mary. Two of them die as a result of their illness.

(The casino down the street requires masks of all patrons, rather than just encouraging them).

Dismiss on for failure to state a claim , because its "CoVid" based ?

I get that you're concerned about coronavirus.

But even in your own hypothetical, you are the not the "reasonable man." As you stated, many are going out without masks. State authorities are allowing businesses to reopen, and the gaming commission isn't going to require patrons to wear masks. The people and the government have spoken.

Furthermore, the asymptomatic carrier from your hypo isn't going to have knowledge of their infection. Hard to prove somebody is negligent when they don't even know they have it.

And this doesn't even getting into the very obvious assumption of the risk on the part of your plaintiff. Anybody in the US has been on notice since at least the end of January of the virus in general, and the specifics for the last month or two. I don't complain when I get slammed into at rock concert, because I know that's part of the bargain. In everything we do there is inherent risk.

Now, if you want to change the scenario to one where the person has tested positive and is planting drunken kisses on unsuspecting slot attendants, you might be on to something.

As of right now, my CLEs are in-person only. There will be plenty of hand sanitizer.

That bucket could be useful if it is clean!

Whether it's counter-intuitive or not is irrelevant. The hypothesis that mitigation methods like masks and less than total quarantines are working is counter-factual - they haven't correlated with differences in disease rates.

This is also consistent with past epidemics, so perhaps it should be intuitive and actually I think it was prior to the current politicization. I recall a discussion of quarantines (can't remember what book) - "they have rapidly decreasing benefits and rapidly increasing costs".

So your original post asks about the liability of the asymptotic tourist as well as the liability of the casino. Regarding the tourist’s liability, sure, she will probably be held liable for her actions. The more important question is, as any good plaintiff’s lawyer will focus on, is can any money damages be collected from her. That answer is probably not, unless she has mega assets that can be attached. Any personal insurance she has probably wouldn’t cover her actions as your scenario states it is likely she is acting intentionally since she knows she is infected.

And that’s why the casino would also likely be a defendant in any civil case brought by the victims and the deceased’s families. Can the tourist’s conduct be bootstrapped to somehow bring liability on the casino? Who really knows.

You are correct as to why the casino would be named, but there can certainly be grounds to do so.

Whether or not a casino, which itself owes a duty of care to patrons, can be itself liable for damages presents a different questoon, no "bootstrapping" involved. If a casino patron gets hammered on free booze while gambling, then, in celebration of winning, fires a handgun randomly in the casino, killing a patron walking past, you think there is was no casino duty that could have been breached by getting guest AA hammered or allowing him to conceal carry into the casino ?

The Nevada Gaming Board is holding a public workshop online on May 26 on the issue of CoVid and Nevada casinos. The public is welcome to submit comments....

https://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdo...cumentid=16757

" BOARD DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION (Discussion/Possible Action) Discussion and possible action on matters presented or discussed during the Workshop, including the Governor and the Board’s directives to licensees regardIng COVID-19 matters and reopening plans; discussion and possible action regarding Industry Notices."

The agenda and scheduled speakers list is included.

There is a participation link in the linked notice.

No I agree there could be potential dram shop liability on the casino.

Not likely in Nevada, I should have left alcohol consumption out of the hypothetical:

NRS 41.1305 provides

1. A person who serves, sells or otherwise furnishes an alcoholic beverage to another person who is 21 years of age or older is not liable in a civil action for any damages caused by the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was served, sold or furnished as a result of the consumption of the alcoholic beverage.

"If a casino patron while gambling, in celebration of winning, fires a handgun randomly in the casino, killing a patron walking past, you think there is was no casino duty that could have been breached by allowing him to conceal carry into the casino ?"

IANAL but when you went for the casino down the street argument I would come back with .. https://www.chicagotribune.com/coron...jdi-story.html

I would say we were protecting our staff from being attacked if we tried to force a patron to wear a mask. I would institute a policy to call the police but not confront the patron. If half the casinos in Vegas did this for all the patrons entering without masks, how long do you believe the police would continue to show up in a timely fashion?