|
|
#82
07-03-2007, 06:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Moral of the Story
Wonder how pissed off everyone would be if his money was stolen from his FT account and not the RIO.
|
|
#84
07-03-2007, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Moral of the Story
Dude harrah's really does have awful security. I dont know about the rio at all but the harrah's in indiana are awful, and their security/surv. team is terrible. One case they saw a guy try to steal a ticket from a slot machine. They knew which machine and what time it occured and still could not find the person on the camera's.
In one instance they had a flood in the first floor parking garage 3 years ago and have still not fixed the cameras. So you could just go to first floor parking garage and steal everything without being on camera. They pay surveillance 11 dollars an hour and they work 14 hour shifts, do you really think they are getting the top people in the field. Security is even worse. They are a bunch of retard wanna be cops that cant stick their thumb up their asses. I am suprised they dont get robbed more often. I think it would be quite easy with the crack security force they have. Security at harrah's is the second lowest paid position on the property behind the people that clean bathrooms. No one is going to work there that can do anything else. The cameras they are are not even stationary. They move around and cant film everything at once.
|
|
#85
07-03-2007, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Large THEFT! Rio Hotel Las Vegas 6/29/07
[ QUOTE ]
... Don't give legal advice when you have no idea what you're talking about. The disclaimer will only hold up if a court finds that it was reasonable to expect the guest to read it before using the safe. Since it was nowhere near the safe, I don't think a jury/judge will be buying that argument. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 2. If a reasonable person would expect the safe to be secure, then RIO may be at fault for not providing the expected level of security. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not going to criticize anyone for law school analysis, since I'm not capable of any more than that myself--but, I think some people are acting like this is a bailment ("casino took responsibility for my money) (which my property class didn't do), and I don't think it qualifies as such, does it? On negligence, I guess there is some potential liability for security, but is there any basis to attribute greater liability for in-room safe contents than for security of all the rest of the room? And then if maintenance was adequate and technology was state of the art and standard in the industry, you're not going to win on negligence. Again, the idea that the casino somehow had custody and assumed liability for the money's safe return (ie, bailment), I don't think applies--as it would at the cashier's cage... . If someone smashed in the window of your motel and robbed you, the owner and manager won't be liable. That said, I feel sick about your loss, and feel really uncomfortable with how I'm supposed to care for my valuables (like laptop) when I travel. [ QUOTE ] 3. I came back to my room not long after session 1 or 2 to get my camera, opened my room and noticed my safe was open and in lock position, [/ QUOTE ] Could this mean that you operated the lock (ie, made the latch turn) but failed to have the door all the way closed? The simplest story was that housekeeping saw the safe ajar when they were in there, had a peek, and decided that one or two years' income for an undocumented worker was worth the shot.
|
|
#86
07-03-2007, 06:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Teddy, you just helped out the OP
[ QUOTE ]
IF Rio posts warnings/limitations on other rooms' safes, but NOT on the OP's room safe, then that is a big point in his favor ..... 1. Possible, in the absence of such a posting, there is no limit, or, 2. Failure to post the limit was itself a negligent act. Again, he should seek competent legal counsel, and I've suggested three names. [/ QUOTE ]Great points. As a former Nevada attorney, and one of the few bright spots in this thread, what is your opinion on how much of a public fuss he should be making? Should he be making apperances on Letterman, or should he keep quiet and give Harrah's the hope of buying his continued silence? PS Dids, please ban yourself for making that damned oversize picture.
|
|
#87
07-03-2007, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Moral of the Story
It would not surprise me at all if the maid was in on robbing you. I mean she had clear access to your room and has been around enough safe's to probably know how to open them. She also knows there is no cameras.
Even worse she is apparently crying, making it look like she is very sad that you lost your money. It looks too obvious though, at least to me, that she is trying to make it look like she is so upset you lost money to deflect blame from her. I don't know many women or maids that would cry if someone they didn't know lost 32k.
|
|
#89
07-03-2007, 06:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Teddy, you just helped out the OP
I would think MGM/Mirage could be of assistance -- perhaps with legal counsel, or in finding the right media channels to blow this up if Harrah's doesn't do right by you. wouldn't hurt to have an informal chat with your MGM/Mirage host...
|
|
#90
07-03-2007, 06:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Teddy, you just helped out the OP
[ QUOTE ]
LOL at letterman or the general public caring about this in the slightest. if it broke 100,000 he might have a small chance [/ QUOTE ]You don't think Letterman would book him? Maybe Springer? Judge Judy? OP mentioned something about "if 2000 of my friends emailed Harrah's..." and someone else said he should stop posting. I'm trying to decide if I agree with that. Harrah's may figure it's worth $32K to keep this quiet, but if they start getting a bunch of emails from poker players and diamond star members, they may figure the damage is done and refuse to pay.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
