A woman lost $125,000 at Caesar's on the Ohio River and wrote bad checks to cover the losses. When the casino sued her, she countersued, saying the casino knew she had a compulsive gambling disorder and that by inviting her to the riverboard and paying for her hotel, it "unfairly enticed her to gamble."
But Caesar's attorney Gene Price said that the casino staff intervenes when a customer appears to have a problem and participates in a state-mandated voluntary exclusion list on which Kephart did not appear.
"Every business attempts to target people who they think are susceptible to their products or services," Judge Terry Crone observed at one point as the judicial panel questioned attorneys from both sides. He later asked Price if the gambling industry should be held to stricter standards than other businesses if it were found to be dangerous.
Interesting question. I have no sympathy for the woman -- whether she's gambling or suing someone else for her own weaknesses, she's looking for that big score in life, a big payoff with little or no effort. That's delusional thinking. As for the casino being "dangerous," it's mostly a danger to the individuals who can't control themselves. It's like a fast-food restaurant -- people who can't stop eating Big Macs harm themselves, not me. A bar is more dangerous -- people who can't stop indulging there get into their cars and can harm others. Should bars be required to keep a list of alcoholics who might stop in?
Having casinos in the state is dangerous to our collective moral character, but that's a different matter.