Bally’s Twin River Has No Duty of Care to Patron Followed, Robbed: Judge

A man from Massachusetts who was robbed and "violently" assaulted in August 2021 after exiting Bally’s Twin River Casino in Lincoln, RI, is unable to seek damages from the casino, a federal judge has decided. 

In a lawsuit submitted last May in the Massachusetts District Court, Edward Peduto claimed 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 into the parking lot. According to the complaint, they followed him in a car while he was driving home. 

When Peduto paused at a service station 50 miles away from the casino in North Lexington, Mass., his attackers attacked. 

The subsequent assault resulted in the plaintiff suffering from "serious and lasting" injuries along with $46,212 in medical expenses. Peduto’s complaint does not specify the amount of money taken in the robbery. 

 

Understanding of Violence 

Peduto’s attorneys contended that Bally’s Twin River and its proprietor, UTGR, violated their duty of care by “not sufficiently overseeing the conduct of individuals at the casino” and by lacking proper security measures. 

They additionally claimed that the casino possessed “actual and/or constructive knowledge of violence, including robbery,” targeting its patrons and “had reason to foresee that a visitor could experience a violent event due to being on the property.” 

Between January 2019 and the occurrence of the incident, police records indicate that there were at least eight instances of robberies targeting casino patrons near the location, with some cases involving customers being followed from the casino floor and subsequently attacked. 

The lawsuit alleged that at least 76 more violent incidents took place on the premises during that timeframe. 

 

No Predictability 

Judge Allison D. Burroughs did not find the argument persuasive. She remarked that the casino’s security cameras only recorded the potential assailants, along with other people, leaving the premises simultaneously with the plaintiff. 

At that moment, they were not engaging in any unlawful activities in the casino or the parking area, and there was nothing to indicate to anyone watching the cameras that they planned 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.