From a judicial standpoint it sounds like the man has solid case against the casino. From a moral standpoint the man shares responsibility, obviously. However that's not really what's at issue here, it's the casino's responsibility in the affair that's at issue. As it stands, keeping a man in a gilded cage and keeping him sedated with liquor and prescription drugs, slowly seperating him from his wealth and then suing him afterwards in order to get him locked up in a real prison is a vile, reprehensible act. The casino should make amends and reinstute the man's 100 million.