You Gotta Love This Guy

Jimmy L. Vance of Kentucky is suing Caesars Indiana, claiming the casino got him extremely drunk and then forced a $75,000 credit line on him, which he quickly gambled away on craps and black jack.

Vance apparently agreed to repay the $75,000 within 28 days, but his checks to cover the debt bounced like a bunch of keno balls, and Caesars filed an initial suit to collect. Our hero, however, would have none of that, turning the tables on those nasty old casino officials with a counter-suit.

Seems our lovable, besotted gambler feels he was taken advantage of.

"They kept serving me till I was totally intoxicated. In fact, I don't remember losing all the money," said Vance, a developer from Corbin, Ky.

Well if you ever wanted an example of a sympathetic character, old Jimbo certainly fits the bill. I mean, who among us hasn't received a collection notice for 75 grand and not been able to remember spending the money? Boy, if I had a nickel for every time that's happened to me . . .

Vance's lawyer, Larry Wilder, is another lovable character in this play. He's cited "dram-shop" laws to support his case. If you're not familiar with them, dram-shops are laws that make taverns liable for damages if they serve an intoxicated customer who then leaves the premises and harms himself or others. And Wilder maintains that's what happened to his client.

Whoa! Did you see that sleight of hand? If the judge in the case isn't careful, that slick, big city lawyer's going to have him for breakfast.

I'm just kidding. I'm sure the judge knows that a casino is nothing but an enormous, brightly colored tavern, and that even though Vance didn't leave the premises, his losing $75,000 was harmful to various outside parties, including several liquor stores, a handful of porn shops, and the prostitution community at large. Dram-shops are the exact laws to cite in support of this case. As dram-shop cases go, Vance's incident is a textbook example, just like The Da Vinci Code is a textbook example of accurate, well-written history.

Wilder claims the casino is responsible for Vance's losses and that Caesars violated state law by "serving him alcohol while he was drunk, impairing his ability to enter into a contractual agreement".

Asks Wilder rhetorically:

"Does Indiana, where gambling is now encouraged and permitted, have any duty to expect its gambling boats not to serve (patrons) when they become blind, running drunk?"

Okay, so Vance had a lapse in judgement one night and drank too much. But should his own lawyer speak that way about him in a court of law? Well, it appears that Vance doesn't mind. In fact, that's another aspect of his character that makes him so lovable.

Vance has stated that he's lost at least $500,000 over the years at Caesars, and he's aware that people might think he's "getting what he deserves by gambling while knocking back cocktails for hours on end". But he insists that when he's had too much to drink on occasional trips to Atlantic City, the casino bosses refused to let him continue gambling.

Now here's a guy that's in a good place with his vices. He enjoys a cocktail or twenty, and by golly he likes to gamble. But like any of us would, he puts his trust in the casinos to recognize when he's had too much and to cut him off. And who wouldn't? Casinos are our friends. They have no real interest in separating us from our money, do they? It's all wholesome entertainment and nothing more, right? If we can't trust casinos to help us make good judgements, my god, who can we trust?

Clearly Caesars Indiana has dropped the ball on this one, and I can only hope that Vance's lawsuit to get out of a gambling debt they forced on him can restore the good name of casinos forever.

I can hope, but I wouldn't bet on it.