7 G.D.R. 103 Anh Que Duong v. Mohegan Tribal Gaming Auth., (2024)

• Docket Number: GDTC-T-18-103-FAM
• Decision Date: 12 April 2024
• Citation: 7 G.D.R. 103
• Parties: ANH QUE DUONG v. MOHEGAN TRIBAL GAMING AUTHORITY
• Court: Mohegan Gaming Disputes Court

1

7 G.D.R. 103

ANH QUE DUONG
v.
MOHEGAN TRIBAL GAMING AUTHORITY

No. GDTC-T-18-103-FAM

Mohegan Gaming Disputes Court

April 12, 2024

SUMMARY

Plaintiff sought damages under the Mohegan Torts Code for injuries sustained in a fall at the Seasons Buffet at Mohegan Sun. Although she had passed over the area where she fell numerous times without noticing anything on the floor, she testified that after she fell she noticed a light colored unknown fluid on the floor, and did not know how long it had been there. Although the documentary evidence indicated that the Defendant had notice of a spill at 2:50 p.m. and sent someone to investigate, by the time the responding person arrived a chair had been placed over a greasy spot on the floor, leading the Gaming Disputes Court, Manfredi, J., to conclude that the Plaintiff had already fallen. The Court held that the Plaintiff had not met her burden of proof to establish either constructive notice, or that if it had actual notice of the condition, the Defendant took immediate steps to investigate and correct the defect.

Christopher P. Anderson, Esq. for the Plaintiff

Michale A. Anderson, Esq. for Plaintiff

Robert A. Rhodes, Esq. for the Defendant

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

FULL TEXT, Manfredi, J.

This matter was tried before the Court on November 16, 2023. Plaintiff's Complaint dated February 5, 2018 alleges that she fell and sustained certain injuries while a business invitee at the Season's Buffet at the Mohegan Sun Casino on February 6, 2017 due to an accumulation of liquid on the floor. It further alleges that the Defendant, its agents, servants or employees spilled the liquid on the floor or failed to remove it, clean it up, warn of it, or barricade the area, although it knew or should have known of it.

Defendant's Answer and Special Defenses denied the allegations of negligence, and in turn alleged contributory or comparative negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.

FACTS

Plaintiff did not testify in person during the trial and the parties stipulated that her deposition of July 15, 2022 would be admitted in lieu of live testimony. There were no witnesses presented during trial. All evidence other than photographs and a video recording of the incident was documentary consisting of incident reports and medical records and bills.

The evidence thus considered established that the Plaintiff had visited and been a patron at the Casino many times prior to the date of the incident alleged in the complaint and had visited the Season's Buffet several times before.

2

In fact, the Plaintiff had been employed as a dealer at the Mohegan Sun Casino from approximately 1997 until 2000. She left her employment because the traveling distance was too far.

On the day in question, she was 57 years old and was visiting the Casino with her husband, as she had done on many occasions. Prior to going to the buffet, she had played...