ILNews

Justices hear compulsive gambling arguments

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State gaming regulations prohibit a compulsive gambler from even filing a lawsuit against a casino, a New Albany attorney told the Indiana Supreme Court today.

Justices are considering a case that asks whether casinos have a common law duty to protect compulsive gamblers from themselves, and whether casinos are required to refrain from trying to entice those people into their establishments. The case is Caesars Riverboat Casino LLC v. Genevieve M. Kephart, No. 31A01-0711-CV-530, and today's arguments follow a split Indiana Court of Appeals decision from earlier this year where the majority decided the gambler couldn't recover from a private negligence action against the riverboat casino. Judge Terry Crone dissented because he believed the common law duty should be imposed because the casino likely knew of her condition.

The Nashville, Tenn. woman had filed a private negligence claim against the Ohio River casino she'd visited in March 2006, when she lost $125,000 that had been borrowed from the casino in a single night. She claimed the casino knew about and took advantage of her compulsive gambling history, enticing her with free meals and drinks, hotel rooms, transportation, and entertainment to get her in to gamble.

In arguing before the state's highest court this morning, Caesars' attorney Gene Price from New Albany told justices that the state's extensive gaming regulation set up through the Indiana Gaming Commission provides the only relief Kephart is entitled to, and she shouldn't be allowed to proceed with her claim.

Kephart's attorney, Terry Noffsinger of Evansville, argued that private causes of action are not precluded by the state's regulatory scheme. He said the law is meant to protect those who are sick, and that this type of behavior shouldn't be considered "marketing" allowed by the state statute and gaming regulations.

Justice Robert D. Rucker wondered about how a new policy might go past the compulsive gambler to impact cases involving intoxicated gamblers, or even compulsive shoppers who buy too much at stores and then say the establishment should have known better. He and other justices asked about the comparisons to Indiana's dram shop law, which says that bartenders have a duty to not serve intoxicated patrons or alcoholics. They also wondered if the casino regulation would extend to food poisoning or a slip and fall, which Price said it wouldn't.

When Justice Brent Dickson asked about whether casinos had any duty to provide reasonable care to customers, Price responded," It has a duty to obey the regular framework, and there are steep fines associated with that. That's where the remedy lies here for Ms. Kephart."

The case is one of first impression nationally, as there is no existing caselaw resulting from compulsive gamblers who were victorious on claims that a casino wrongly targeted them, Noffsinger said in response to a question from Justice Rucker. One federal District court in New Jersey held this, but the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals later overturned it, Justice Rucker said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT