Ejection vs. Duty of Care

The Core Argument: Ejecting the Patron Does Not Eject the Liability

Security teams often operate under a “Remove the Threat” mandate. When a patron becomes belligerent due to intoxication, the standard protocol is often immediate removal. However, from a Dram Shop perspective, placing a visibly intoxicated person alone in a parking lot or on a busy street creates a “Foreseeable Zone of Danger.”

If the casino served the alcohol that rendered the patron incapacitated, they cannot simply “dump” that liability onto the sidewalk.

1. The “Dump” Theory: Negligence in Motion

Attorneys refer to this as a “Dump Case.” It occurs when security escorts a guest out the back door and leaves them without a sober ride.

• The Violation: The casino has a “Duty of Care” not to subject patrons to unreasonable risks. By ejecting a person who cannot walk straight or follow instructions, the casino is proximately causing the subsequent injury (whether the patron wanders into traffic, falls, or attempts to drive).

• Expert Analysis: We review the Security Incident Report and Body Cam Footage (if available) to determine the patron’s level of impairment at the moment of ejection. If they were too drunk to stay, they were likely too drunk to leave alone.

2. Security Protocols vs. Alcohol Safety

There is often a disconnect between the Gaming Floor (who wants the player to stay) and Security (who wants the drunk player gone).

• The Breakdown: Did the bartender cut the patron off? Or did Security simply react to a behavioral outburst?

• The Standard of Care: A proper “Safe Ejection Protocol” requires the casino to:

  1. Assess the level of intoxication.

  2. Attempt to locate a sober friend or relative on-site.

  3. Call a cab or rideshare (and verify the patron gets into it).

  4. If the patron refuses, contact local law enforcement for a “welfare check” rather than abandoning them.

3. The Parking Lot as a Liability Zone

Many injuries occur in the minutes immediately following an ejection.

• Scenario: A patron is kicked out at 2:00 AM. They stumble into the parking garage, cannot find their car, and are struck by another vehicle or assaulted.

• Legal Leverage: We argue that the casino’s duty extended to the property line. By failing to ensure the patron left the premises safely (i.e., in a vehicle with a sober driver), the casino failed to mitigate the risk they created by over-serving alcohol.

Conclusion for Attorneys

If your client was injured after being kicked out of a casino, the ejection itself may be the act of negligence. We analyze the Security Dispatch Logs and Surveillance Timestamps to prove the casino chose a “quick fix” over a safe resolution.