seemorenuts 0 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Problem Gambler Sues Casino for $20 Million It would be funny if she could win this suit.Post what you think would happen in BizarroLand if she won (google Bizarro, and Superman, if you are under 35 years of age).What kinds of warnings would you get, how would you be treated in a casino?Duty of care.Make me laugh.How many of us have played poker 3 days straight before? She's played 5, and I don't think or know if it was poker.Maybe she could have played for 2 years in a row with this! Link to post Share on other sites
jjgoldy5 0 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 LOL... she's going to win the suit and head straight for the high limit section Link to post Share on other sites
solderz 0 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 This lady is a completely and utter douche. What kind of fuck nut considers driving into oncoming traffic as a means to kill themselves? Yay, I'm goin out so I am taking some woman and her child in a minivan with me. Hope she dies before this trial starts. Link to post Share on other sites
MyPlayIsRAB 0 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 any chance i could sue deerfoot casino for the $35 i lost at roulette a few days ago? i had won 220$ 2 hours before and couldnt stay away from the table. even though i netted aprofit, im sure i could book a case and say i was a problem gambler? Link to post Share on other sites
Nimue1995 1 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Another "It's not my fault that I'm stupid lawsuit". But unfortunately there is a precident of sorts with the laws regarding bars serving alcohol to obviously intoxicated people. But since no such law exists for casinos I think it will be tough for them to make a case. But I've been wrong about these things before. I thought the McDonald's hot coffee suit would get laughed out of court. Link to post Share on other sites
Kaveros 0 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 A woman played for a week straight in star "shitty" city, collapsed and died at a craps table. Link to post Share on other sites
mtdesmoines 3 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Another "It's not my fault that I'm stupid lawsuit".Filed by an attorney. Yes, she is an attorney. Or, at least, was. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentButDeadly3 0 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 This lady is a completely and utter douche. What kind of fuck nut considers driving into oncoming traffic as a means to kill themselves? Yay, I'm goin out so I am taking some woman and her child in a minivan with me. Hope she dies before this trial starts.No shit, why the hell would you do this? Even if you don't kill them you at least injure them severely. Retards.....$20 says she's whored herself out before for $ Link to post Share on other sites
Acid_Knight 2 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 What kind of fuck nut considers driving into oncoming traffic as a means to kill themselves? Yay, I'm goin out so I am taking some woman and her child in a minivan with me. Hope she dies before this trial starts.I LOL'd Link to post Share on other sites
seemorenuts 0 Posted March 12, 2008 Author Share Posted March 12, 2008 Someone who is familiar with the relevant cases could offer an opinion as to whether or not this is winnable.I'm guessing that the best defence is that a person waives this expectation (duty of care) when he/she walks into a casino; whereas the bar/drunkenness comparison is not applicable.Any lawyers out there that want to post? Link to post Share on other sites
Jeepster80125 0 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 They'll settle, it's not even a matter of winning versus losing. Her game was blackjack. She was receiving high roller treatment, including paid for limo service to and from the casinos, and she was even allowed to bring and keep her dog at her side while she played. Link to post Share on other sites
onlyme386 0 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 $20 says she's whored herself out before for $she's a lawyer, this is the worst bet ever Link to post Share on other sites
makeyourself 0 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 in the uk today we had this similar gem. A guy lost £2m ($4m) in 6 months and is planning on trying to sue william hill bookmakers for the money... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/20/gamblingobv the update is that the case was thrown out today and i think the judge said something along the lines of: 'well you had such a problem even if william hill did take your bets over the phone after you excluded yourself elsewhere, you had such a problem you would have gone else where and lost the money'.hopefully this will be the last of these nutjobs thinking they can blame others for what they have done. there is a reason not everybody is a professional gambler and people have jobs... people have to lose for others to win... Link to post Share on other sites
rjkdb8 1 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I thought the McDonald's hot coffee suit would get laughed out of court.The McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit is such a bad example of a frivolous lawsuit....so strange that it has become the classic example in the minds of so many. Link to post Share on other sites
HollywoodAFD 0 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 They'll settle, it's not even a matter of winning versus losing. Her game was blackjack. She was receiving high roller treatment, including paid for limo service to and from the casinos, and she was even allowed to bring and keep her dog at her side while she played.Wrong. Completely wrong.Not in a million years would they settle.That would open up such a stream of settlements it would be the end of casino gambling. Link to post Share on other sites
dlingdling 0 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 The McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit is such a bad example of a frivilous lawsuit....so strange that it has become the classic example in the minds of so many.Exactly. It wasn't "ouch, the coffee's too hot." It was third degree burns, eight days in the hospital and two years of treatment. Link to post Share on other sites
TheCinciKid 0 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I posted the following in the original thread about this matter...and I still feel the same way. I really hate this shit. Newsflash lady...the casinos aren't responsible, YOU ARE. This idiot has a ****ing law degree and she can't figure out that casinos are in the business of taking people's money??? It's their job to try to take everything she has. It's HER responsibility to quit if she can't afford it, not theirs to stop her. When will Americans learn to take responsibility for their own actions instead of always trying to find someone else to blame?!! This shit makes me sick./end rant*climbs down off soapbox* Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 any chance i could sue deerfoot casino for the $35 i lost at roulette a few days ago? i had won 220$ 2 hours before and couldnt stay away from the table. even though i netted aprofit, im sure i could book a case and say i was a problem gambler?These two thinbgs cancel out any chance of being taken seriously when used in the same sentence.she's a lawyer, this is the worst bet everMaybe, but this is the best post of the week. Link to post Share on other sites
seemorenuts 0 Posted March 12, 2008 Author Share Posted March 12, 2008 in the uk today we had this similar gem. A guy lost £2m ($4m) in 6 months and is planning on trying to sue william hill bookmakers for the money... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/20/gamblingobv the update is that the case was thrown out today and i think the judge said something along the lines of: 'well you had such a problem even if william hill did take your bets over the phone after you excluded yourself elsewhere, you had such a problem you would have gone else where and lost the money'.hopefully this will be the last of these nutjobs thinking they can blame others for what they have done. there is a reason not everybody is a professional gambler and people have jobs... people have to lose for others to win... That judge made a common error, the issue of responsibility still exists even if other places are 'negligent' ... Link to post Share on other sites
rjkdb8 1 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 That judge made a common error, the issue of responsibility still exists even if other places are 'negligent' ...Allow me to preface this comment by stating that i am unfamiliar with UK law, but i think youre incorrect. Generally, the elements of negligence are: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages. If the court determined that the plaintiff would have suffered the injury regardless of the conduct of the defendant, then the element of causation has been negated, notwithstanding that fact that the defendant bookmaker may have owed a duty to the plaintiff. In the US, the general test for proximate causation is the "but for" test. If the plaintiff would have suffered the same injury even in the absence of the alleged negligent conduct, then the claim fails. Link to post Share on other sites
rjkdb8 1 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Exactly. It wasn't "ouch, the coffee's too hot." It was third degree burns, eight days in the hospital and two years of treatment.Indeed. i think that the case makes a poor example of a frivolous lawsuit primarily because of the conduct of the defendant, but the magnitude of the plaintiff's injuries is certainly relevant to that determination. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentButDeadly3 0 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 she's a lawyer, this is the worst bet everCorrection: She WAS a lawyer.She's probably at the Rhino as we speak. Link to post Share on other sites
Jeepster80125 0 Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Uh oh.Different lawsuit, horrible result. Who is going to start taking this guy's meds?Jackpot Justice Gets New MeaningBy Ted FrankJackpot justice refers to the problem of courts that reward trial lawyers with outsized judgments unrelated to any actual damages. But a recent case in Minnesota gives a whole new meaning to "jackpot justice."Gary Charbonneau claims that Parkinson's disease drug Mirapex caused him to become a compulsive gambler. Perhaps--the Food and Drug Administration has found a correlation, though correlation is not causation.All drugs from aspirin on up have side effects; doctors prescribe them because the benefits outweigh the costs.And lots of people are compulsive gamblers without taking Mirapex; Charbonneau gambled before he took Mirapex; doesn't claim to have become a compulsive gambler until four years after he started taking the drug; and admits that he continued to be a compulsive gambler for months after he stopped taking it.This is, Charbonneau says, the fault of Boehringer Ingelheim, the manufacturer. If only BI had included more warnings, he wouldn't have lost money gambling. (Yet Charbonneau's doctor never testified that he would have taken Charbonneau off of the drug had the manufacturer told him more.) Indeed, as the first medical reports of a possible correlation came out, BI added warnings to the label, and Charbonneau's doctor kept prescribing the drug.But trial lawyers make their living telling stories, and a jury bought this one. They awarded $204,000 to reimburse Charbonneau for his gambling losses, much of which came from illegal Internet gambling. (One doubts that any lucky gamblers are offering to turn over their winnings to drug companies. Heads I win, tails don't count.)Worse, the jury threw in $175,000 for "pain and suffering" and $7.8 million in punitive damages: Apparently, selling a drug that helps people with Parkinson's is something egregious to be punished. Charbonneau finally hit the jackpot.All drugs from aspirin on up have side effects; doctors prescribe them because the benefits outweigh the costs. There can always be "more" warnings, and can always be accusations that the additional warnings weren't sufficient.After all, if the doctor knew the patient was going to have a side effect, she would not have prescribed the drug, so the warning must not have been good enough. The manufacturer can solve the problem only by taking every drug off the market, making everyone worse off. Thus, the Food and Drug Administration says that courts should not permit such "failure-to-warn" lawsuits. Lawsuits can destroy the effectiveness of warning labels.If every manufacturer defensively includes a boxed warning for every possible side effect to avoid the risk of punitive damages, doctors will have no way of knowing which ones are the serious warnings and which aren't. (As it is, does any consumer read the giant packet of fine print that comes with a prescription drug?)Overwarning can be catastrophic: When lobbyists for trial lawyers hoping to help pending lawsuits successfully pushed the FDA to add boxed warnings to anti-depression drugs alleging a possible correlation between teen suicide and the drugs, use of the drugs dropped substantially--and teen suicide went up. (Turns out depressed teens can be suicidal. Who knew?)But trial lawyers want to be able to sue manufacturers and punish them with jackpot verdicts even when drug companies comply with the FDA standard.The Supreme Court will hear a case this November, Wyeth v. Levine, which may decide whether FDA regulations "pre-empt" failure-to-warn lawsuits over drugs.As even Clinton appointee Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out in a February 8-1 Supreme Court decision about medical devices, if we are to have meaningful safety regulation, those standards should be determined by federal regulators, not by untrained juries who hear only the sad stories of side effects in hindsight without considering the larger policy issues.But the Supreme Court won't have the last word. Some in Congress want legislation to forbid pre-emption. Such a law would be bad policy that puts trial lawyer profits ahead of safety.Ted Frank is a resident fellow at AEI. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Fck this stupid bitch.Society is becoming more and more full of people who cannot take responsibilty for their own actions. Disgusting. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Wow. My favorite part is where she says being addicted to gambling is worse than being addicted to crack. Like, really?? Have you ever tried being a crackhead before? Staying awake for five days straight living on nothing but snickers and oj would be like a week of royalty for a crackhead. What a whooooor. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now