Oh Craps: Casino Patron Who Slipped on Dice Is Out of Luck

Posted on January 19, 2012 by David Melancon

Patricia Richardson was visiting Boomtown Casino when she slipped and fell on a die on the floor. The accident occurred while Richardson was walking by the craps table and talking to her brother. Richardson filed suit against the casino operators, alleging that she sustained injury as the result of the fall – Richardson v. Louisiana-1 Gaming, et al. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Richardson could not show that they had breached their duty of care. Defendants also argued that they did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the die on the floor before Richardson’s fall. The trial court granted defendants’ motion on the grounds that Richardson assumed the risk. The trial court reasoned that casino patrons have a heightened duty to look for dice on the floor near a dice table.

On appeal, Richardson argued that the assumption of risk doctrine had been abolished in Louisiana. She also asserted that there was an issue of fact as to whether the accident was foreseeable. The appellate court agreed with Richardson that the assumption of risk doctrine had been abolished in Louisiana. But the court upheld the ruling of the trial court on the ground that the damage-causing condition had not existed for a period of time before Richardson fell. In doing so, the appellate court relied on the undisputed testimony of the games supervisor at Boomtown, Jada Muhammad. Muhammad testified that the die was thrown by another player, bounced off the table, and landed on the floor. Richardson stepped on the die immediately after it hit the floor. Because Richardson stepped on the die just after it landed, the court reasoned that the defendants did not have constructive notice of the condition as required under La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2800.6 (pdf). Thus, Richardson could not prevail on her negligence claim.

Take-Away: A premises owner is not liable where the condition that causes the plaintiff’s injury does not exist for some period of time before the occurrence.

This article was co-authored by Camala Capodice, a member of Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore LLC.

Tags: , ,

Casino Fight Does Not Result in Jackpot in Court

Posted on November 9, 2010 by Ed Trapolin

On July 8, 2005, Deidre Morales and her husband, Brian Morales, visited the Boomtown Casino in Harvey, Louisiana. While playing a nickel slot machine, Ms. Morales won the jackpot. Either Ronette Thompson or her boyfriend, who were at the casino with Ms. Thompson’s mother and father, had played the same nickel slot machine before Ms. Morales hit the jackpot. As she was waiting for the attendant to arrive to pay her, Ms. Morales was confronted by Ms. Thompson and an argument began. 

After the slot machine attendant, Aja Washington, arrived to make payment, Ms. Morales reportedly asked Ms. Washington to call security or to tell Ms. Thompson to “shut up.” Ms. Washington told Ms. Morales to ignore Ms. Thompson and moved Ms. Morales into the aisle. At this point, a fight began between Ms. Morales, Ms. Thompson, and Ms. Thompson’s father – Stewart Thompson. Security immediately reported to the scene of the fight, broke it up, and called the police.      

The Morales' filed suit against Boomtown, Ms. Thompson, and Mr. Thompson. They claimed, in relevant part, that Boomtown was responsible for Ms. Morales’ damages because: (1) the slot machine attendant, Ms. Washington, did not prevent the fight from occurring; (2) Ms. Washington did not evaluate the risk to Ms. Morales; and, (3) Boomtown’s surveillance and security teams did not prevent the fight. Boomtown responded by filing a Motion for Summary Judgment. Boomtown argued that it did not have a legal duty to prevent the “unexpected and spontaneous criminal acts” of the Thompson’s and that it acted reasonably by providing security to protect Ms. Morales. The Morales countered that the fight was reasonably foreseeable and that Ms. Washington should have called security when asked by Ms. Morales.   

After the judge heard the arguments of each side and reviewed the videotape of the incident at Boomtown, he ruled in favor of Boomtown and dismissed the Morales’ suit. The Morales appealed, arguing that there were genuine issues of material fact that prevented summary judgment, including whether the fight was reasonably foreseeable, whether the attendant should have recognized the danger and called security, and whether the Boomtown employees were properly trained to prevent the attack. 

On review, the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the Morales’ suit. The Court reasoned that, generally, businesses do not have a duty to protect patrons from criminal activity of others, but are under an obligation to protect patrons when the criminal acts are reasonably foreseeable. The predictability and severity of the risk determines the duty owed by the business owner. The appellate court agreed that Boomtown did not have a duty to protect Ms. Morales, because the Morales’ failed to produce evidence to prove that the fight was reasonably foreseeable   

In fact, there was a two to three minute span of time between the slot machine attendant’s arrival and the fight. Even Ms. Morales testified that she did not know that Ms. Thomson was going to touch her until she approached her and pushed her. She also testified that she asked the attendant to call security or to tell Ms. Thompson to “shut up.” In response, the attendant moved Ms. Morales into the aisle and told her to ignore Ms. Thompson. The attendant confirmed that she also had no reason to expect that a physical fight would occur and security arrived on the scene within seconds.      

Take-Away: Business owners must take reasonable steps to protect their patrons from reasonably foreseeable injuries or physical altercations, but are not guarantors of safety in unpredictable situations.

This article was co-authored by Kerri Kane, an associate at Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore LLC.

Tags: , ,