Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> A MAN WHO LOST HALF A
MILLION DOLLARS AT A LAS VEGAS
CASINO NOW SUING TO GET HIS
MONEY BACK.
MARK JOHNSON CLAIMS HE WAS
BLACKOUT DRUNK WHEN HE HIT THE
BLACK JACK TABLE AT THE DOWNTOWN
GRAND CASINO SUPER BOWL WEEKEND.
HE TOOK OUT FOUR LINES OF CREDIT
TO LINK $500,000 AND LOST IT
ALL.
BUT THE CASINO WAS COMPING HIS
DRINKS.
DOES THAT MEAN IT'S THEIR FAULT?
HE THINKS SO.
HERE TO DEBATE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE
ATTORNEY LISA AND DEFENSE
ATTORNEY AND FORMER PROSECUTOR
DAVID SCHWARTZ.
GOOD MORNING TO BOTH OF YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> I HAD TO BRING IN MY ITALIAN
ROOTS AND GET BACK THERE.
>> IT ALL WORKS.
>> THIS IS EVERYBODY TALKING,
RIGHT, 'CAUSE IT'S ABOUT
PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY VERSUS
LIABILITY REALLY WHEIT COMES
TO THE CASINOS.
SO LISA, LET ME START WITH YOU.
THIS GUY WALKS IN.
HE WAS APPARENTLY DRINKING
BEFORE ALLEGEDLY, COMES INTO THE
CASINO, WITHDRAWS ALL THIS
MONEY, LOSES IT, WHO IS AT
FAULT?
>> IN THIS CASE, IT'S THE
CASINO.
>> WHY?
>> NEVADA STATE LAW SAYS IF
YOU'RE VISIBLY INTOXICATED, YOU
CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN GAMBLING
AND THEY CAN'T SERVE YOU.
IN THIS CASE, THEY OBVIOUSLY
SERVED HIM AND THEY OBVIOUSLY
ALLOWED HIM TO GAMBLE AND NOT
ONLY WITH HIS OWN MONEY, WHICH
THIS IS A GENTLEMAN WHO HAS A
HISTORY OF GAMBLING.
HE SAID I LOST 500,000, 800,000.
BUT IT'S ONLY HIS OWN MONEY.
HE NEVER BORROWED MORE THAN
$25,000.
SO FOR THEM TO LEND HIM $500,000
AND FOR HIM TO LOSE IT WHILE HE
IS RECEIVING DRINKS, OVER 20
DRINKS WERE SERVED TO HIM, AT
SOME POINT IN TIME, YOU HAVE TO
SAY, DIDN'T SOMEBODY IN THE
CASINO LOOK AT THIS GENTLEMAN
WHO WAS DROPPING HIS CHIPS,
SLURRING HIS WORDS, AND COULDN'T
HOLD HIS CARDS AND SAY, MAYBE WE
SHOULD CUT YOU OFF BECAUSE IF HE
WAS WINNING $500,000, I THINK IT
MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT SCENARIO.
>> OKAY.
SO WHAT'S YOUR CALL ON THIS?
>> BLAME IT ON THE CASINO.
IT'S A FURTHERANCE OF THIS NANNY
STATE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO LIVE
IN.
FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE TO TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN
ACTIONS.
THE OPERATIVE WORD IS VISIBLY.
WAS HE VISIBLY INTOXICATED?
THAT'S THE QUESTION OF FACT.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE VIDEO
SURVEILLANCE.
WE HAVE TO SEE.
CERTAINLY THERE IS POTENTIAL
LIABILITY HERE.
BUT THINK ABOUT THE FLOOD GATES
THAT ARE GOING TO OPEN UP IF WE
ALLOW EVERY PERSON WHO IS DRUNK
OR ON DRUGS TO SUE THE CASINO
BECAUSE THEY LOST.
THIS IS A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT
THAT COULD BE SET HERE AND I
BELIEVE THE CASINO WILL BE
VICTORIOUS IN THE END.
>> ARE YOU SAYING WHAT'S AT RISK
IS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY GONE
AWRY, YOU CAN WALK IN AND SAY,
THEY MADE ME DO IT.
HOW MANY DRINKS IS INTOXICATED
BASED ON THE PERSON AND CAN THEY
GO BACK ON THAT VIDEO AND SAY,
AT THIS HOUR, HE SEEMED THIS
DRUNK, THEREFORE, WE ONLY OWE
HIM THIS MUCH MONEY?
>> OF COURSE.
AND LET'S NOT FORGET, THIS IS A
GENTLEMAN THAT WENT TO THE
WINDOW, WENT TO ENGAGE IN THIS
TRANSACTION, TO BORROW MARKERS.
SO THEY VIDEOTAPE EVERYTHING IN
A CASINO.
MORE THAN LIKELY THEY VIDEOTAPE
THESE TRANSACTIONS.
AT 2:00 A.M., HE BORROWS
100,000.
THEN A COUPLE HOURS LATER, 50
AND THEN ANOTHER 50, FROM A
GENTLEMAN WHO IS A KNOWN
GAMBLER.
>> THAT'S NOT ABNORMAL.
WE HAVE TO SEE HOW HE APPEARED.
DID HE APPEAR DRUNK?
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
YOU CAN'T ALLOW THE FLOOD GATES
TO OPEN UP IN A SITUATION LIKE
THIS.
>> YOU CAN ALLOW THE PROCESS TO
WORK.
>> IF THE CASE EVER WAS TRIED, I
HAVE A FEELING THE JURY WOULDN'T
BE TOO SYMPATHETIC.
>> IT IS A QUESTION OF FACT.
IT WILL NEVER GET TO THE JURY
BECAUSE FOR $500,000, ALREADY I
THINK THE CASINO IS LOOKING AT
IT AND SAYING, THIS MIGHT BE A
PROBLEM FOR US.