A federal court in Massachusetts has ruled that a Bally’s Casino in Rhode Island is not liable for the assault and robbery of a patron after he left its premises. The plaintiff, Edward Peduto, was attacked by a group of assailants who were caught on security cameras following him out of the casino parking lot.
Although the attack took place far from the casino property, Peduto argued that previous similar attacks on casino visitors made the danger foreseeable, and the casino owed him a duty of care. However, the judge disagreed, emphasizing that the incident occurred far from the casino’s control.
Casinos are typically responsible for guests’ safety on the premises, but not after they leave. Because those guests often arrive and leave with large sums of cash, the drive to and from the casino can be particularly risky.
The ruling underscores the importance of cashless gaming technology, which many casinos are in the process of adopting as a payment option. The move to digital transactions can reduce the need to carry cash, making players less vulnerable to such crimes.
Assault Took Place Miles From The Casino
The plaintiff, Peduto, alleged that on August 29, 2021, he was followed and robbed after leaving Bally’s Twin River Casino in Lincoln. He alleged the attackers followed him from the casino to a service plaza in North Lexington, Massachusetts, about 50 miles away. There he was brutally assaulted and robbed.
Peduto sued the casino’s owner, UTGR Inc., for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress for failure to provide adequate security. He claimed the casino’s security camera captured the attackers following him. The plaintiff cited at least eight robberies and 76 other violent accidents occurring at or near Bally’s involving customers. Some of them were also followed from the casino and then assaulted. Because of these accidents, the plaintiff alleged his assault was foreseeable. Because of that, he alleged the defendant failed to provide appropriate duty of care.
In response, UTGR argued that because the assault was not at or near its premises. So, it could not foresee it and had “no reason to suspect the assailant’s ill intentions.” Because of that, the defendant argued it didn’t owe Peduto duty of care under the law.
Judge Doesn’t Find Proof That Bally’s Was Responsible
To succeed in a negligence claim, the plaintiff needed to prove that the defendant owed him a duty of care. Also, that it breached that duty, a link between the breach and the plaintiff’s damages and actual damages. Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that Bally’s owed no such duty to Peduto because the attack happened miles away from the casino’s property. In the court document, Burroughs indicated:
With regard to a business, although business owners can, in some circumstances, owe a duty to patrons ‘to use reasonable care to prevent injury to [them] by third persons,’ this duty is generally limited to patrons at or near the premises, and, even then, only to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm.
The judge ruled the plaintiff failed to present facts that would establish the defendant owed him a duty of care. The distance of 50 miles from the casino’s premises was well beyond the reach of the defendant’s security or control. The judge added that it’s unclear what the defendant could or should’ve done to foresee and prevent the attack. While security cameras captured Peduto and the attackers leaving the casino, there was no evidence to suggest the assailants had exhibited threatening behavior on the premises. Therefore, Bally’s could not have reasonably anticipated the attack.
Moreover, the judge deemed that prior incidents do not create an obligation for businesses to protect customers from harm by third parties once they voluntarily leave the premises when there were no signs of foreseeability.
Cashless Technology Enhances Casino Safety and Convenience
Casinos have long been prime targets for criminals due to the large amounts of cash in their daily operations. Historically, cash has been the preferred payment method, driven by factors like credit card fees and privacy concerns. However, shifting consumer preferences and the impact of COVID-19 have prompted many operators, such as Boyd Gaming, to adopt cashless gaming solutions. Payment options such as prepaid cards and PayPal provide patrons greater convenience and peace of mind.
The benefits go beyond convenience. Incidents like the one involving Peduto highlight a common risk: players leaving casinos with significant cash are often vulnerable to theft or assault. Cashless gaming is one way to reduce casino crimes. The players can load their winnings onto their preferred method and walk away without fearing someone will steal their cash and possibly assault them.
In addition to physical and financial safety, cashless gaming also promotes responsible gaming. When a player enters a casino with cash, tracking their spending could be difficult. Even if they’ve self-excluded, players can go to the ATM, withdraw as much as they want, and continue gambling. By reducing the availability of unrestricted cash, cashless payments give players and operators better tools to manage play responsibly.
About the Author
