http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/18661446/vegas-beating-victim-from-aiea-sues-casino-for-negligence
mixed feelings about this one.  SO if I get attacked on a city street can I sue the local govt, for not keeping it safe?  How about suing cuz I can't carry means to protect myself?

I feel bad about that old guy, but IMHO I don't think he's got the right to sue.  Unless he wants a big brother camera inside the restrooms and an armed guard in the restroom watching him take a leak and poop, he's got nothing to stand on.

From what I remember about business law, a hotel has the highest legal duty of care to its patrons of any establishment. I don't know how far that duty extends in regards to this case but at the very least, security should've been alerted to the presence of a drugged up homeless man on the property. Especially if he took the shortest route from an entrance to the restrooms then he walked right past the cashiers where there are a ton of cameras and security guards somewhere nearby.

Does he have the right to sue? Sure, even if the case has little grounds on which to win. My guess - Boyd Gaming will settle out of court, pay for his medical expenses, and evaluate/upgrade their security procedures across all their properties.

in most casinos in vegas you are allowed to CC if you get your permit which isn't very hard since NV issues non-resident permits. you can even OC in some casinos.

All the sam boyd hotel/casinos in vegas as far as I know dont allow you to ccw or open carry. Theres a sign next to the door as you enter...

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/18661446/vegas-beating-victim-from-aiea-sues-casino-for-negligence
mixed feelings about this one.  SO if I get attacked on a city street can I sue the local govt, for not keeping it safe?  How about suing cuz I can't carry means to protect myself?

No, you can't sue the government.  Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Warren v. District of Columbia are two Supreme Court cases that both affirm that the police are under no obligation to provide protective services to any individual citizen.  Even if there was indisputable incompetence or negligence on the part of the local PD, you still can't sue them for it. 

It was inevitable for him to sue.   Ever watch a minute worth of commercials in Vegas?  Ambulance chasers were all over this.

I mean really,  he has everything to gain and nothing to loose...

Wow, I think I worked with this guy before at the airport, someone told me he was retired but was still working there because he was bored at home. It sucks that this happened.

Premises liability and duty to protect against injurious acts of third-partys usually revolve around the alleged wrongdoer's knowledge of the person(s) propensity toward violence and ability to control the conduct of third parties. A history of violence in the area in question can sometimes create a legal duty to take affirmative steps to emeliorate, remediate and/or otherwise warn people about the dangerous condition.

No, you can't sue the government.  Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Warren v. District of Columbia are two Supreme Court cases that both affirm that the police are under no obligation to provide protective services to any individual citizen.  Even if there was indisputable incompetence or negligence on the part of the local PD, you still can't sue them for it. 

As the two stated cases clearly demonstrate, the police are under no legal duty to protect you. That is why having the police have broad discretion over the issuance of concealed carry permits is such a problem. It places the citizen in a legal catch 22. The cops don't have to protect you, but they won't "let" you carry a firearm to protect yourself. It's good to know this when discussing gun and self defense rights with the "anti" crowd who all too often suggest you leave your self defense needs to the "professionals."

One of the best cases to illustrate that sentiment is the 1968 case of Riss v. New York. In that case, Ms. Riss asked for a concealed carry permit to protect herself from an estranged boyfriend who had threatened her. Of course the police denied her request telling her to call them if she needed help. Well, the ex-BF hired some folks to throw acid in her face, which blinded and scarred her for life. She sued the NYPD and lost at the appelate level. What is most interesting to me is what the dissenting judge wrote:

Linda's [Riss] reasoning seems so eminently sensible that surely it must come as a shock to her and to every citizen to hear the city argue and to learn that this court decides that the city has no duty to provide police protection to any given individual. What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense (former Penal Law, § 1897). Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.

Oh, and a minor correction: Warren v. DC is not a SCOTUS case. It is a Discrtict of Columbia Court of Appeals case ( the District's "State Supreme Court").