Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc.
Facts
Resorts International (D) banned Uston (P) from playing blackjack at its casino because he employed a strategy known as “card counting” which gave him an advantage over the house. Uston concedes that his strategy of card counting can tilt the odds in his favor under the current blackjack rules promulgated by the Casino Control Commission. He contends that Resorts International has no common law or statutory right to exclude him because of his strategy for playing blackjack. Uston sued and Resorts International appealed the court’s judgment in his favor.
Issue
- Does a proprietor of a place of amusement have the absolute right of exclusion that allows them to arbitrarily eject or exclude any person?
Holding and Rule of Law
- No. A proprietor of a place of amusement does not have the absolute right of exclusion that allows them to arbitrarily eject or exclude any person.
The right of an amusement place owner to exclude patrons and the patron’s competing right of reasonable access are rooted deeply in the common law. The majority rule has for many years disregarded the right of reasonable access, and has granted to proprietors of amusement places an absolute right arbitrarily to eject or exclude any person consistent with state and federal civil rights laws.
The decisions of our courts have recognized that the more private property is devoted to public use, the more it must accommodate the rights of members of the general public who use that property. The court’s approach in Schmid balanced individual rights against property owners. It is therefore analogous to a description of the common law right of exclusion.
In State v. Shack this court held that the property owner’s rights must be balanced against the rights of employees on the property to live with dignity and enjoy the rights afforded them by society. Schmid recognizes that when property owners welcome the general public in the pursuit of their own property interests, they have no right to exclude people unreasonably. On the contrary, they have a duty not to act in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. That duty applies not only to common carriers, innkeepers, owners of service stations, and private hospitals but to all property owners who are open to the public.
There is no question that a property owner may exclude those whose actions disrupt the regular and essential operations or those that threaten security. The decision to exclude is always based on the facts of the case. Under these facts Uston does not threaten the security of the casino or its occupants and he has not disrupted the functioning of any casino operations. Absent a valid contrary rule by the Commission, Uston possesses the usual right of reasonable access to Resorts International’s blackjack tables.
Disposition
Judgment for Uston.