Duff v. Harrah South Shore Corp.

Opinion

PARAS, J.

This wrongful death action is brought by the surviving wife and son of Robert Duff, who committed suicide after losing money at the Nevada gambling casinos owned by defendants. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint after demurrers to the first amended complaint were sustained without leave to amend.

The first amended complaint alleges that in 1967 “plaintiff, Phyllis Duff and decedent, Robert Duff, cancelled all of the check cashing accounts that they had with each of the .. . defendants,” but that in 1970, “these check cashing accounts were reopened.”

[805]

The complaint further alleges:

“That in reopening said check cashing accounts, the decedent and the plaintiif, Phyllis Duff, entered into a contract in writing with the defendants, and each of them, which contract specified that specific limits would be placed upon the individual check cashing account of the decedent at each place of business of the defendants and that said limits were purposely placed at a low amount so that the decedent would not be tempted to spend more money gambling than these limits which he had set for himself and which limits were accepted in writing by the defendants, and each of them.

“That the defendants, and each of them, agreed in writing to enforce the limits which the decedent had placed upon himself and which limits were accepted by the defendants, and each of them.

“That because of the relationship which arose between the decedent and the defendants, and each of them, as a result of said contract, the defendants, and each of them, had a duty towards the decedent to protect the decedent by not allowing him to cash more checks than the limit which he had placed upon himself.

“That on or about December 3, 1972, the defendants, and each of them, did for their own gain and benefit, breach the duty owed to the decedent by allowing decedent to cash checks far in excess of the limits which he had placed upon himself and that decedent gambled and lost all of the money from the checks he had cashed.

“That the decedent, at the time of his breach of duty . . . was unemployed and did not have sufficient funds in the bank to cover the checks which he had cashed.