|
|
#71
07-03-2007, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Large THEFT! Rio Hotel Las Vegas 6/29/07
Rakeking, Harrah's sucks. Take your business elsewhere and make their lives hell. Sounds like you're handling this well, but looks to me like it's a bit too well. Best of luck. Please hit them where it hurts. They really suck hard.
|
|
#72
07-03-2007, 05:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Large THEFT! Rio Hotel Las Vegas 6/29/07
[ QUOTE ]
What this tells me and they admit fault. Of course I am not going to take $750.00 dollars when $32,0000 was stolen. Please someone tell me that I am crazy that a Hotel chain such as Harrah's is better then this??? I have spoke to 2 top law firms here in Vegas and they both said that since they are offering a settlement they admit fault. [/ QUOTE ] I would ask to see the law school credentials of any lawyer who tells you this. Settlement discussions can't be used to demonstrate fault. There's good policy-based reasons for this as well >> Think about it: how would 2 parties ever discuss a potential settlement if one of them could always just get up from the bargaining table and announce "hah, the fact that you offered me anything at all demonstrates that you're admitting some culpability here so pay up the full amount." Based on what little I actually know about the situation from your post(s), it doesn't look to me like Harrah's has admitted to anything. Be sure the lawyers you contact aren't just telling you this to bolster how strong they think your case is so that you'll retain them. I'm sure it's not the first time they're dealing with a situation like this. ***For what it's worth, i'm staying in the Rio right now and went over to look at my safe and there's a big pink sticker on the front that's impossible to miss that says <font color="blue"> "LIMITS OF LIABILITY, PLEASE READ CAREFULLY -- THE LIMIT OF LIABILITY ON FORCIBLE ENTRY OF THE SAFE IS $10,000 -- IN ADDITION PLEASE REFER TO THE GENERAL LIMITATION LIABILITY AS POSTED IN THIS SUITE </font> I then went to read the posted general limitation of liability, posted right next to the safe, which talks about the $750 limit, but based on my reading of it, it looks like that $750 limit only applies to items NOT stored in the safe, and then there's that $10,000 liability limit that's posted in big pink letters right on the safe itself. That's my interpretation of it anyway, and if Harrah's is really only offering you $750, you need to inform them that some suites (like mine) have a big sticker showing a $10K limit to liability, so u should at the very least be able to get 10K back.
|
|
#73
07-03-2007, 05:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Moral of the Story
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What's the deal with the breaking in "high limit gaming area". No cameras in the hallways are one thing (more or less standard in hotels), but how was this brazen theft of 10K chips in a GAMING area not caught on film??? Something's not right here or we're missing part of the story. [/ QUOTE ] That is what C.S.I told me as they were there in the morning, there was a high limit table with glass locked chips, the thief broke the glass and got away with the chips, C.S.I. got a blood sample, that is all i know. The high limit room is closed early in the morning someone went in and broke in , they did not get their face on camera. [/ QUOTE ] A blood sample from who? There was blood on the broken glass?? I would like to know how it's possible to enter a high-limit gaming area in a LV casino and not get your face on camera. They don't turn off the cameras just because an area of the casino is closed.
|
|
#74
07-03-2007, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Moral of the Story
they dont make you look up, either
|
|
#75
07-03-2007, 05:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Large THEFT! Rio Hotel Las Vegas 6/29/07
were the wraps on the 10k stacks ripped? if not, then you are guilty! i know this because I saw it on CSI, and they said it was impossible to slip the wraps off stacks of bills, because bending a 10k stack of 100's is a superhuman feat.
|
|
#76
07-03-2007, 05:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I do not know who you talked to among LV lawyers ..... but
"I have spoke to 2 top law firms here in Vegas and they both said that since they are offering a settlement they admit fault" That seems bad advice, settlement discussions are traditionally NOT an admission of fault or liability. (It is possible that the law has changed however.)
(I practiced law in Nevada for a number of years, representing gaming licensees among others. I do not know to which firms you spoke. However, if I had to pick Las Vegas counsel, I would try Tony Cabot at Lewis & Roca or Craig Newman and Newman Daischle). The other choice would likely be David Chesnoff, Doyle's legal counsel and a poker player, but the amount may be a bit low for his rates.)
|
|
#77
07-03-2007, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Teddy, you just helped out the OP
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.
|
|
#79
07-03-2007, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Moral of the Story
[ QUOTE ]
All, Anyone saying Rakeking should not be doing everything possible to get Harrah's to get him his money back (or criticizing him for his actions) is insane. [/ QUOTE ] It didn't start until he mentioned spending 25-50k in a casino, at that point he went from "poor guy" to "stupid rich dude" and we know how people on the internet hate people with money.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
