Federal Court Rules Bally’s Casino Not Liable for Off-Site Robbery

A federal court in Massachusetts has ruled that Bally’s Twin River Casino in Rhode Island bears no responsibility for a brutal robbery that occurred miles away from its premises. The case highlights the limits of casinos’ legal obligations and underscores the importance of personal vigilance when leaving gambling establishments.

The plaintiff, Edward Peduto, was attacked on August 29, 2021, at a service plaza in North Lexington, Massachusetts, about 50 miles from the Bally’s casino in Lincoln, Rhode Island. Surveillance footage showed that Peduto’s assailants had followed him from the casino property before assaulting and robbing him.

Massachusetts

MA Online Casinos

MA Sports Betting

Gambling Laws

MA Online Poker

MA Land Casinos

33 Casinos

All Casinos

Peduto sued the casino’s owner, UTGR Inc., for negligence, arguing that the casino owed him a duty of care because the perpetrators initiated their pursuit on casino property. However, the court dismissed his claim, ruling that the casino’s duty of care ended once he left its premises.

The court’s decision rested on two key legal principles. First, a business generally has a duty of care only within its property and in cases of foreseeable harm. Second, no duty exists to protect individuals from crimes committed by third parties unless there is a clear, immediate threat.

Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that the robbery was not reasonably foreseeable. While there had been other violent incidents involving casino patrons, Peduto’s attackers did not exhibit overtly threatening behavior on the premises. Additionally, past crimes, including eight robberies and 76 violent incidents at Twin River between 2019 and 2021, were deemed insufficient to establish a pattern that would make the attack foreseeable.

The court concluded that Peduto’s safety became his responsibility once he left casino property, reinforcing a message of personal accountability for patrons.

The ruling has significant implications for gamblers, particularly those who win large sums. Casinos are not legally responsible for ensuring patrons’ safety once they exit the property. This decision underscores the need for individuals to take proactive measures to protect themselves after leaving a gambling establishment.

For patrons concerned about personal safety, experts recommend the following precautions:

• Gamble with companions: Strength in numbers deters potential criminals.
• Secure your winnings: Avoid openly counting money or displaying valuables.
• Request assistance: Ask for a security escort to your vehicle if you feel unsafe.
• Opt for checks: For large payouts, consider requesting a check instead of cash.
• Stay alert: Be aware of your surroundings, especially when leaving alone.

If you suspect you’re being followed, change your route and head toward a populated area or police station.

The court’s ruling reinforces a simple truth: once you leave casino property, your safety is in your hands.

The Future

The Twin River case serves as a reminder of the limitations of legal protections in public spaces. While casinos may monitor activity on their premises, their responsibility ends at the property line. As gambling establishments continue to grow in popularity, patrons must prioritize their safety, particularly when leaving with substantial winnings.

Peduto’s case may not have succeeded in court, but it highlights an important lesson: vigilance and preparedness are essential for staying safe after visiting a casino.