Legal Question in Business Law in California

Number one, since you are (presumably) not a tribe member and the casino presumably isn't on an Indian reservation, I think ordinary civil law will apply, rather than any Indian law principle of sovereign immunity, or the like. Taking it from there, the question of the casino's liability may depend upon whether (a) they had significant reason to believe that their guests faced a substantial threat of break-ins to parked cars, and/or (b) they took reasonable precautions such as lighting, patrols, etc. If the casino took precautions and/or had little or no reason to suspect that break-ins might occur, it could win. Another possible factor could be whether you carelessly left valuable property in plain view. I don't think, based on the given facts, that winning a lawsuit is a slam dunk, although you might, depending upon the above factors. Finally, I'm inclined to think that the presence or absence of signs is not really an important factor in whether the casino is liable for your losses or not. I'll be interested to see whether you get any answers with a different viewpoint.

I agree with Whipple entirely on this one. Premises liability is dependent entirely on the property owner knowing there is a hazard and failure to take reasonable steps to prevent it or to warn about unpreventable hazards. Sign companies lead property owners to think that by posting signs disclaiming liability they get some kind of protection. The truth is disclaimer signs do zero to reduce liability, but the flip side is true too. The absence of signs does nothing to increase or create liability.