Duty of Care and Casino Security: Judges Ruling on the Bally’s Twin River Incident

A federal court in Massachusetts has ruled that Bally’s Twin River Casino in Lincoln, Rhode Island, holds no duty of care toward a patron who was robbed and assaulted after leaving the casino premises. This decision raises serious questions regarding the casinos obligations concerning overall casino security and the effectiveness of its protection protocols for patrons both on and off the property. The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Edward Peduto, who claimed he was targeted while on casino grounds.

Incident Overview

In August 2021, Peduto alleged he was followed and attacked by assailants shortly after leaving the casino. Security footage indicated that these individuals had observed him inside the gaming establishment before tailing him to a service station located approximately 50 miles from the casino.

• Severe Injuries: The brutal attack resulted in Peduto suffering from serious injuries that incurred medical expenses amounting to $46,212.
• Legal Claims: His lawsuit contended that Bally’s Twin River had neglected its responsibilities by failing to ensure adequate monitoring and security to protect its patrons.

Judge’s Findings on Duty of Care

Judge Allison D. Burroughs dismissed Peduto’s claims, reasoning that the attack’s occurrence at a distance from the casino negated any responsibility the casino might have for the incident. She emphasized that the risk of harm must be foreseeable and within the casino’s control for a duty of care to exist.

Burroughs explained, “The facts of the attack, while regrettable, are far removed from the rare circumstances under which Massachusetts courts have identified a duty of care for property owners regarding third-party criminal actions.”

Previous Incidents and Security Practices

Peduto’s legal team argued that Bally’s Twin River had prior knowledge of violent events occurring near its premises, citing at least eight robberies of patrons and numerous instances of violence leading up to the attack.

• Security Measures: Despite these claims, the judge noted that there was insufficient evidence suggesting that the casino could have predicted or prevented the crime.
• Surveillance Footage: The surveillance footage showed the assailants leaving the casino without committing any unlawful acts within the premises, undermining the argument for a breach of duty.

Conclusion

This ruling serves as a landmark case regarding a casino’s duty of care for patrons and highlights the complexities involved in legal accountability in such environments. Moving forward, both patrons and casino operators may need to re-evaluate their understanding of safety responsibilities to prevent similar incidents.