ILNews

News Update: Justices rule in favor of casinos

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has given state casinos a double win, strengthening their rights by saying they can exclude card-counters and that problem gamblers can’t recover damages stemming from gambling losses as long as the casinos are following state regulations.

A pair of split decisions Thursday afternoon came in the highly watched appeals of Caesars Riverboat Casino v. Genevieve M. Kephart, No. 31S01-0909-CV-403, and Thomas P. Donovan v. Grand Victoria Casino & Resort, No. 49S02-1003-CV-00124.

While casinos triumphed in the dual rulings,  the state’s top jurists disagreed on how the two appeals should be resolved when it comes to the intersection of common-law rights and state gambling statutes. In one case, the court decided legislators overrode a gambler’s common-law right to recover damages because of the regulatory scheme on the gaming industry. But in the other case, the justices found that casinos’ common-law right as a business to exclude certain patrons trumps those same state regulations.

In Donovan, the Grand Victoria Casino and Resort at Rising Sun in 2006 banned Thomas P. Donovan, a retired computer programmer from Indianapolis who’s won about $65,000 playing blackjack since 1999. He sued on grounds that the casino had breached a contract and the trial court in Marion County granted summary judgment to the casino. The Court of Appeals reversed on the exclusion issue and held Donovan was entitled to a declaratory judgment that the casino couldn’t exclude him for counting cards.

The case drew statewide attention, including an opinion from Gov. Mitch Daniels during a commencement speech where he rooted in favor of Donovan because it appeared he used his intelligence and skill to win rather than luck.

But in its ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court held that businesses have a common-law right to exclude a visitor or customer, subject only to civil rights laws.

"This long-standing common law right of private property owners extends to the operator of a riverboat casino that wishes to exclude a patron for employing strategies designed to give the patron a statistical advantage over the casino," Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. wrote for the majority.

Justice Robert D. Rucker didn’t participate in the case, leaving only the four justices to decide it. Justice Brent Dickson was the sole dissenter, criticizing the court’s common-law analysis that differed from the other casino case issued the same day. He said the casinos exist in Indiana only by the recent permission of the General Assembly, and that they have a common-law duty to serve the general public.

"Permitting a casino to restrict its patrons only to those customers who lack the skill and ability to play such games well intrudes upon principles of fair and equal competition and provides unfair financial advantages and rewards to casino operators," he wrote.

Justice Dickson said the court should use the same common-law rationale as it outlined in its separate Kephart decision, in which he also dissented.

The Kephart case is out of Harrison Circuit Court and involved a Tennessee woman who lost $125,000 in a single night of gambling at what is now known as Horseshoe Southern Indiana casino along the Ohio River. The casino sued to recover the money it had lent it her, and Genevieve Kephart counter-sued on a claim that the casino had a common-law duty to protect her because it knew of her pathological gambling history and it used that to entice her with free meals and rooms, provided a car to drive her from Tennessee to Indiana to gamble and lent her credit to support her habit. The trial court declined to dismiss the case on that issue and the Court of Appeals reversed. The justices granted transfer.

In a 4-1 decision authored by Justice Rucker, the court ruled that problem gamblers have the responsibility to look after themselves and casinos can't be expected to protect them if they don't – one of those options used in this case was a voluntary exclusion program allowing compulsive gamblers to place their names on a list of patrons to be banned from casinos.

“In this case, not only does the statutory scheme cover the entire subject of riverboat gambling, but the statutory scheme and Kephart’s common law claim are so incompatible that they cannot both occupy the same space,” Justice Rucker wrote. “The existence of the voluntary exclusion program suggests the legislature intended pathological gamblers to take personal responsibility to prevent and protect themselves against compulsive gambling. To allow Kephart’s claim to go forward under the common law would shift primary responsibility from the gambler to casino.”

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Sullivan concurred while Justice Theodore Boehm concurred in result and offered an analysis of a nearly 20-year-old standard used to reach the decision, saying that the three-part test detailed in Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E. 2d 992, 995 (Ind. 1991), causes more confusion than light.

In his dissent, though, Justice Dickson described the result of this case as particularly disturbing because it goes against long-established common-law rights and he disagreed with how the majority used an “implied abrogation” standard for Kephart but came to a different decision in Donovan.

“Nowhere in Indiana’s statutory system of gambling regulation is there any provision that expressly or unmistakably abrogates Indiana’s common law requiring business operators to exercise reasonable care for the safety of their customers and subjecting them to accountability in damages for failing to do so,” he wrote.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT