Bally’s Twin River Has No Duty of Care to Patron Followed, Robbed: Judge
A man from Massachusetts who was "brutally" attacked and robbed in August 2021 after leaving Bally’s Twin River Casino in Lincoln, RI, is not entitled to damages from the casino, according to a federal judge's ruling.
Edward Peduto claimed in a lawsuit lodged last May in the Massachusetts District Court that his assailants recognized him as a target at the Twin River. Surveillance footage captured the attempted robbers trailing Peduto through the gaming area and out to the parking lot. According to the complaint, they followed him in a vehicle as he headed home.
While Peduto was at a service station 50 miles away from the casino in North Lexington, Mass., his attackers attacked.
The resulting assault caused the plaintiff to suffer “serious and lasting” injuries along with medical expenses of $46,212. Peduto’s complaint does not refer to the amount of money taken during the theft.
Understanding of Violence
Peduto’s attorneys claimed that Bally’s Twin River and its owner, UTGR, violated their duty of care by “not adequately overseeing the conduct of individuals at the casino” and by not offering sufficient security.
They also contended that the casino possessed “actual and/or constructive knowledge of violence, such as robbery,” directed at its customers and “had grounds to foresee that a patron could be exposed to a violent event due to visiting the location.”
Between January 2019 and the incident, police records indicate that there were at least eight robberies targeting casino customers near the location, with some instances involving victims being tracked from the casino floor and attacked.
The lawsuit alleged that at least 76 more violent incidents took place on the property during that same timeframe.
No Anticipation
Judge Allison D. Burroughs was not persuaded by the argument. She observed that the security cameras of the casino only recorded the potential attackers, as well as other people, leaving the location concurrently with the plaintiff.
At that moment, they weren't engaging in any unlawful activities in the casino or the parking area, and there was nothing that would indicate to anyone watching the cameras that they meant to harm Peduto, she mentioned.
"Fundamentally, the existence of a duty of care depends upon the foreseeability of a risk of harm that the defendant has an ability to prevent,” Burroughs noted.
“The facts of the attack, while regrettable, are far removed from the rare circumstances under which Massachusetts courts have found that owners owed patrons a duty of care to prevent third-party criminal conduct, given that the attack occurred approximately fifty miles from Defendant’s premises, well away from Defendant’s security or control,” she wrote.
Burroughs approved the casino’s request to dismiss the case without prejudice, indicating that the issue is resolved and cannot be refiled.