Court: Casinos, bars aren't responsible after drunken patrons leave

CARSON CITY – A tavern or casino owner who evicts a rowdy drunk customer does not have a duty to prevent a later injury, the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled.

It rejected the appeal of Fabian Santiago, who at age 17 was drinking with his two step uncles at Buffalo Bill’s Resort and Casino in Primm in March 2005.

They were disorderly, getting in face-offs with other guests, punched one guest, and kicked and knocked on hotel room doors. Security officers ordered them to leave the property.

The trio went to their car and one of the uncles, Manuel Garibay, drove out of the casino at about 80 mph, authorities said. He mistakenly believed a frontage road was the freeway and the vehicle rolled.

Fabian suffered severe spinal injuries and his guardians filed suit against the casino and the parent, Primadonna Company, which was a part of then-owner MGM Mirage. It accused the hotel of acting negligently when it evicted the three from the property and allowing Fabian to be a passenger in a car driven by his intoxicated step uncle.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice James Hardesty, said “We conclude that the eviction was reasonable as a matter of law.”

Hardesty said “…we conclude that a proprietor does not, as a matter of law, have an affirmative duty to prevent injury to an intoxicated patron subsequent to an eviction.”

It upheld the rulings of District Judge Elizabeth Gonzales, who granted a summary judgment in favor of casinos and the decision of Judge Stewart Bell not to grant attorney fees and costs to the clubs who maintained the suit was frivolous.

Fabian maintains the three were going to leave the hotel and “sleep it off” in their vehicle. Manuel Garibay, who did not have a valid driver’s license, told the other uncle, Daniel Garibay, he was sober enough to drive.

The accident left Fabian a quadriplegic.

In another ruling, the court rejected the appeal Leland Ozawa, who claims he was improperly dismissed as a part-time pilot for Vision Airlines in Las Vegas for organizing other pilots to get more money for attending training sessions.

Ozawa was an “at will” employee and the airlines can dismiss that class of a worker with or without cause as long as it does not offend the state’s public policy, the court said.

It said Ozawa had an “alternative remedy” of filing suit in federal court, which deals with these types of issues.

“Accordingly, because Ozawa had an adequate remedy, we affirm the district court (Judge Charles Thompson’s) order granting summary judgment on his claim for tortuous discharge.”

Ozawa asked the Supreme Court to recognize an exception to the “at will employee” law to protect these workers’ jobs when they seek to better their compensation or working conditions.