Gambler sues Casino for $1m after losing $500 during 2014 Super Bowl Weekend

It’s been almost one year since Mark Johnston lost $500,000 while gambling at Las Vegas’ Downtown Grand during the 2014 Super Bowl weekend. And not only has Johnston refused to pay the debt back, but he’s suing for twice the amount along with attorney fees.

It is unclear why Johnston thinks he’s entitled to $1 million, however, his chief problem with the incident is that Downtown Grand kept serving him drinks while he was drunk and gambling. “They served me all the drinks; they should have cut me off,” Johnston told NBC News 3. “At some point, that’s my responsibility, but the unfortunate part about it for them is, they have a more bigger responsibility than I do.”

The casino has since filed a countersuit against Johnston, claiming that he not only acknowledged the debt and drinking binge, but also tried to get more credit the following day. More recently, Downtown Grand filed criminal charges against Johnston for taking a large loan out to play casino games and not paying any of it back.

The gambler’s attorney is now trying to get the criminal charges dismissed while Johnston contends that he’s unphased over this part of the case. “They’re using them (charges) to try and extort me and scare me. I’m not scared,” Johnston said. He also believes that Downtown Grand broke Nevada law by continuing to serve him while he was already drunk.

The case remains under investigation by gaming regulators while they also keep a close eye on the lawsuit. Because of the ongoing investigation, trial proceedings, which were supposed to begin next week, have been postponed until a to-be-announced date.

This certainly isn’t the first time that a gambler has sued a casino after losing lots of money during a gambling binge. Over six years ago, Australian real estate developer Harry Kakavas sued the Crown Casino in Melbourne for A$50 million in damages after losing A$ 37 million. Kakavas, who’s barred from every casino in Australia, claimed that the Crown allowed him to keep gambling while knowing all along that he had an addiction. The High Court eventually sided with the Crown Casino, with the judge stating, “He was able to make rational decisions in his own interests, including deciding from time to time to refrain from gambling altogether. Crown did not knowingly victimise the appellant by allowing him to gamble at its casino.”