Louis v. Mohegan Tribal Gaming Auth., (2024)

• Docket Number: GDTC-T-18-133-FAM
• Decision Date: 28 August 2024
• Citation: 7 G.D.R. 114
• Parties: THONY LOUIS v. MOHEGAN TRIBAL GAMING AUTHORITY
• Court: Mohegan Gaming Disputes Court

1

7 G.D.R. 114

THONY LOUIS v. MOHEGAN TRIBAL GAMING AUTHORITY

No. GDTC-T-18-133-FAM

Mohegan Gaming Disputes Court

August 28, 2024

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 partiesthe 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.

James M. Harrington, Esq. and Joseph T. Coppola, Esq. for the Plaintiff

Anthony J. Natale, Esq. for Defendant

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

FULL TEXT, Manfredi, J.

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

...