--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2024 WL 4113577 (Mohegan Gaming Trial Ct.)
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
Mohegan Gaming Disputes Trial Court.
 
Thony LOUIS
v.
MOHEGAN TRIBAL GAMING AUTHORITY
 
7 G.D.R. 114
|
GDTC-T-18-133-FAM
|
August 28, 2024

 

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Manfredi, J.

SUMMARY

The Plaintiff sought damages under the Mohegan Torts Code for injuries he claims to have sustained when he slipped at a buffet at Mohegan Sun Casino. By agreement of the parties, the case was bifurcated, and the issue of liability was tried to the Gaming Disputes Trial Court, Manfredi, J. Plaintiff testified that he did not know what, if anything, he slipped on, and video imaging did not reveal any spillage on the floor or any spills from the numerous persons seen walking through the area where Plaintiff fell. A security supervisor called to the scene minutes later did not observe any substance on the floor other than a broken plate and green beans that had been carried by the Plaintiff at the time of his fall. The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of any claimed “liquid foreign substance” on the floor, and consequently, Plaintiff’s claim of negligence for failing to provide warning signs also failed in that it was not proved that any hazard existed. Judgment rendered for the Defendant.

This case was initiated by a complaint dated August 21, 2018. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff sustained personal injuries as a result of a fall at the Season’s Buffet located in the Mohegan Sun Casino on December 2, 2017.

Plaintiff claims that he fell on an “accumulation of a liquid foreign substance” while he was walking around the buffet which caused him to fall and lose his footing. The allegations of the complaint include claims that Defendant had actual knowledge of “multiple prior falls in the area;” and a list of negligence claims including that Defendant:

a. failed to remedy the unsafe condition which it either created, knew existed, and/or should have discovered with reasonable inspection;

b. knew or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable care that the dangerous condition existed, but failed to adequately remedy the condition, alert patrons to the condition, or prevent patrons from using the wet floor;

c. failed to warn the plaintiff of the unsafe condition then and there existing;

d. failed to employ a warning sign or any other form of visual aid to alert the plaintiff as to the dangerous condition;

e. failed to employ a proper inspection schedule to find such dangers;

f. failed to provide a safe and continuous walkway free of hazards;

g. failed to provide and maintain a clean and dry walkway through the premises;

h. operated a self-service operation which created an increased likelihood of the defect which caused the plaintiff to fall but failed to take adequate steps to prevent and/or remedy the same;

i. failed to install rubber mats, carpeting, or other anti-slip flooring in front of the stations despite having actual knowledge of prior instances of persons slipping and falling in that specific area and around the buffet generally;

j. and otherwise failed to take reasonable and proper precautions to avoid the probability of harm to invitees using the defendant’s premises, including the plaintiff.

The case was bifurcated pursuant to a joint motion of the parties which was granted on February 6, 2024 and the matter was tried as to liability only to the court on March 4, 2024 and March 18, 2024.

 

DISCUSSION:

This case was brought pursuant to the Mohegan Torts Code which defines negligence as:

“Conduct that falls below the standard established by law or custom for the protection of others against under reasonable risk of injury or harm. The standard of conduct to which a person must conform to avoid being negligent is that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. Where applicable, the rule of actual or constructive notice shall be applied to determine negligence; negligence shall not be deemed to arise from the mode of operation.”

Mohegan Tribe Code Section 3–52 states that the law to be applied by this court is the law set forth in the Mohegan tribal ordinances or regulations; the Connecticut General Statute’s, and; the Connecticut common law, insofar as the state laws and cases do not conflict with any of the Mohegan law.

The law of premises liability as developed in Connecticut has been adopted by this Court, except for the mode of operation as noted above. In discussing premises liability this Court has stated:

“As noted in Connecticut Law of Torts, 3rd Ed., Wright, et al., Section 49, the possessor of the land owes a duty to invitees to inspect the premises and is liable for defects which would be discovered by a reasonable inspection. However, “even an invitee must show that the defect has been present for a sufficient period of time so that the land possessor has had the opportunity to discover it.”

Additionally, there is a duty to give proper warning to an invitee of a dangerous condition known to the possessor, or which the processor should have discovered upon a reasonable inspection.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT:

The Plaintiff has lived in Bridgeport, Connecticut since 1982 and been involved in various businesses over the years including real estate, a grocery store, a laundromat, and a limousine service. He has also worked as a driver for CT Limousine and Peter Pan. He is now retired.

He has been to the Mohegan Sun Casino many times for gambling, games and shows.

On December 2, 2017 he arrived at the Mohegan Sun between two and three A.M. He was feeling well and had no issues walking. He went to the buffet between two and three P.M. After getting seated he went to the buffet line and got food. On his way back to his seat he slipped and fell. He does not know what, if anything, he slipped on.

He had a tray in his hand when he fell and hit his head. After his fall he had his eyes closed. He saw no warning signs before he fell and was not able to see the floor once he was put onto a stretcher.

The Court viewed Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2- a 20-minute video of the area of the fall. The video showed lots of foot traffic in that location prior to the fall, including people with plates and trays, and employees with trolleys. The Court viewed the video carefully and saw no visible spillage on the floor and saw no spills from any of the people walking through the area. The floor appeared clear, clean and dry in that area throughout the video.

It did appear that Mr. Louis’ right foot slipped when he fell, but there was nothing on the floor at that location which the court could discern that could have caused the fall.

On the date of the fall Michael Smee was a security supervisor and was dispatched to the scene within minutes after Mr. Louis’ fall. Mr. Smee filed an incident report and also testified at trial. When he got to the scene, he observed green beans and a broken plate on the floor to Mr. Louis’s right side, but no other substance on the floor. The beans and plate were what Mr. Louis was carrying at the time he fell. Mr. Smee noted that the soles of Mr. Louis’ shoes were leather and very smooth without any tread.

 

CONCLUSION:

It is a basic principle of civil law that the burden of proof is upon the Plaintiff to prove each and every element of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case the elements include: that Plaintiff was lawfully on the Defendant’s premises; that the premises were unsafe due to the existence of a defect in the premises such that the Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect; and that very defect was the cause of Plaintiff’s fall and subsequent injuries. See, Connecticut Law of Torts, (3rd Ed.,) Wright, et al., Section 49.

Here the claim is that there was a “an accumulation of a liquid foreign substance” on the floor which Defendant knew of or should have known of, and that despite such knowledge Defendant failed to take any reasonable actions to prevent Plaintiff’s fall.

However, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to prove by any evidence that there was a “liquid foreign substance” on the floor prior to Plaintiff’s fall. Mr. Louis could not identify any substance that he claimed caused his fall- he did not see any. The video did not reveal any substance on the floor prior to the fall, and an inspection of the area showed only the green beans and broken plate in the area after the fall. There was simply no evidence of any substance that might have caused Mr. Louis to slip and fall.

Additionally, there was no evidence regarding Plaintiff’s claims of negligence relating to signs or floor mats. Indeed, no signs were needed or were appropriate as there was no evidence of any foreign substance on the floor. Although, Plaintiff claimed negligence in relation to the self-service operation.

All Citations
--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2024 WL 4113577