## Facts

- Mark Merrill, a self-identified compulsive gambler, sought to hold Trump Indiana, Inc., operator of a riverboat casino in Gary, Indiana, liable for allowing him to gamble.
- In 1996, after treatment for compulsive gambling, Merrill wrote the casino requesting that he be evicted if he returned to gamble.
- The casino placed Merrill’s name on an internal “eviction list,” which was voluntary and not required by statute or regulation at the time.
- Merrill alleged an oral agreement between his treatment clinic and the casino under which the casino would exclude him, but discovery showed no such contract was formed.
- In 1998, Merrill relapsed, gambled at the casino, and incurred substantial losses; he later committed bank robberies to obtain money and was convicted.
- Merrill filed a diversity action seeking over $6 million and asserting fraud, constructive fraud, strict liability, breach of contract, negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
- The district court dismissed the constructive fraud and strict liability claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and later granted summary judgment to the casino on the remaining claims.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Indiana law, a casino owes a legal duty to prevent a compulsive gambler from gambling or to enforce a patron’s request for self-exclusion.
2. Whether allowing Merrill to gamble despite the self-exclusion request could constitute willful and wanton misconduct under Indiana law.
3. Whether Merrill produced evidence of an enforceable agreement or other basis supporting his contract and fraud-related claims.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal and summary judgment for Trump Indiana on all claims.
- The court held Indiana law imposed no duty on the casino to protect Merrill from his own gambling or to enforce his unilateral self-exclusion request.
- Because no duty existed, Merrill’s negligence claim failed as a matter of law.
- The court also rejected willful and wanton misconduct, concluding the record could not support that heightened standard in these circumstances.
- The court upheld rejection of contract and fraud-based theories because Merrill failed to show an enforceable agreement or other legally sufficient basis for liability.

## Legal Principles

- Under Indiana law, negligence requires a legally recognized duty; whether a duty exists is a question of law.
- Indiana law does not recognize a general duty requiring a business to prevent an adult patron from engaging in lawful conduct to avoid self-inflicted economic or psychological harm.
- A voluntary, internal customer-exclusion practice, without statutory mandate or contractual undertaking, does not by itself create an enforceable tort duty to exclude a patron.
- A unilateral request for exclusion does not create a binding contract absent mutual assent and consideration.
- Willful and wanton misconduct requires more than negligence; it involves conscious indifference or reckless disregard, and it cannot be established where the asserted obligation is not recognized as a legal duty on these facts.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that, in the absence of a statute or enforceable agreement, Indiana law did not impose on the casino a duty to bar a compulsive gambler from gambling based on the gambler’s self-exclusion request, and it affirmed judgment for the casino on negligence, willful misconduct, and related theories.


Merrill v. Trump Ind., Inc., 320 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2003)