A man from Massachusetts, who was mugged and “viciously” 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. 

Edward Peduto claimed in a lawsuit submitted last May in the Massachusetts District Court that his assailants singled him out as a target at Twin River. Surveillance footage captured the potential robbers trailing Peduto through the gaming area and out to the parking lot. According to the complaint, they followed him in a car while he was driving home. 

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

The subsequent assault resulted in the plaintiff sustaining “serious and lasting” injuries along with $46,212 in healthcare costs. Peduto's complaint does not specify the amount of money taken in the robbery. 

Understanding of Aggression 

Peduto’s legal team contended that Bally’s Twin River and its proprietor, UTGR, violated their duty of care by “not sufficiently overseeing the behavior of individuals at the casino” and by not ensuring adequate security measures. 

They also contended that the casino possessed “actual and/or constructive knowledge of violence, including robbery,” targeting its customers and “had cause to foresee that a visitor could be exposed to a violent event due to being on the premises.” 

Between January 2019 and the moment of the event, police records reveal that there were a minimum of eight robberies targeting casino customers near the location, with some incidents involving victims being trailed from the casino area and attacked. 

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

No Anticipation 

Judge Allison D. Burroughs was not persuaded by the argument. She observed that the casino's surveillance cameras only recorded the potential assailants, along with other people, leaving the location simultaneously with the plaintiff. 

At that moment, they weren't engaged in any unlawful activities in the casino or the parking area, and there was no indication for anyone watching the cameras that they planned to harm Peduto, she remarked.

"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 the case cannot be refiled.