A federal judge has ruled that Bally’s Twin River Casino in Lincoln, Rhode Island, and its owner, UTGR, cannot be held liable for the robbery of a patron who left their property. The decision has stirred conversations about the extent of businesses’ responsibility for customers’ safety once they leave the premises.
The Case That Sparked Debate
The incident dates back to 2021 when Edward Peduto, a gambler, was robbed after leaving Bally’s Twin River Casino. Peduto claimed that the perpetrators targeted him at the casino, trailed him as he drove to Wakefield, Massachusetts, and struck when he stopped at a service plaza in North Lexington, about 50 miles away.
Peduto’s legal team argued that the casino failed to provide adequate security measures. According to them, the lack of proper monitoring and insufficient security staff allowed criminals to target patrons within the casino and follow them. They contended that Bally’s should have anticipated such risks and acted to prevent harm, even off-site.
Despite these arguments, the court ruled against Peduto, stating that Bally’s was not responsible for incidents that occurred off their property.
What the Judge Said
U.S. District Court Judge Mary McElroy’s decision centered on the legal limits of a business’s responsibility. She pointed out that casinos are not required to police activities beyond their premises.
The judgment highlighted the following points:
- Bally’s fulfilled its obligation to maintain safety within its property.
- The casino cannot reasonably be expected to monitor patrons’ movements once they leave.
- Extending liability in such cases would create an unmanageable precedent for businesses.
Legal experts say this ruling reinforces the principle that businesses are accountable only for what happens under their direct control.
Casinos and Security: What’s Reasonable?
The case has reignited discussions about how much security is “enough” for businesses, particularly those that deal with large cash transactions like casinos. While some argue that establishments have a moral duty to go above and beyond, others believe there are practical limits.
Key questions in this debate include:
- Should casinos monitor patrons who win large sums of money?
- Is it reasonable to hold them accountable for off-site incidents?
- How far does their responsibility extend legally and ethically?
A 2020 study by the National Council on Problem Gambling reported that crimes tied to casinos often involve patrons being targeted for their winnings. However, determining liability remains a gray area in such cases.
The Industry’s Perspective
Bally’s and other casino operators have pointed to existing security measures, which typically include surveillance cameras, on-site security personnel, and policies to report suspicious activities. But extending protections beyond their properties would require significant resources and potentially open the floodgates to lawsuits.
For patrons, the decision emphasizes the need for vigilance. Law enforcement officials suggest the following tips to stay safe:
- Avoid displaying large sums of cash.
- Be aware of your surroundings, especially when leaving casinos or other high-stakes venues.
- Report any suspicious behavior immediately.
Bally’s spokesperson declined to comment on the specifics of the case but reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining a secure environment for guests.
