Ruggiero v. State Lottery Com'n
| Decision Date | 02 May 1986 |
| Citation | 489 N.E.2d 1022,21 Mass.App.Ct. 686 |
| Parties | Jennie N. RUGGIERO v. STATE LOTTERY COMMISSION. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
John F. Boyle, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (James F. Driscoll, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., with him), for defendant.
Edward J. Quinlan (Mary E. Davey, Boston, with him), for plaintiff.
Before GREANEY, C.J., and WARNER and FINE, JJ.
Jennie N. Ruggiero, the plaintiff in this action for review of a decision of the State Lottery Commission (commission), brought under G.L. c. 30A, § 14, claims that she won a $100,000 prize in the "Instant Holiday Jackpot Game" (game). We think the commission's decision denying Ruggiero's claim to the prize ought to be upheld, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the Superior Court which set aside the commission's decision and ordered payment of $100,000 to Ruggiero.
We summarize the evidence presented at the administrative hearing before a member of the commission. In December of 1982, Ruggiero purchased two tickets to the game for $1 apiece. Each ticket has six boxes (or "packages") on the front. Also on the front are the instructions, On the back of the ticket is a form to be filled in by a person claiming to be a winner of a prize, and, in addition, the following under the heading, "RULES":
The nature of the emergency was stated to be "[p]ublic welfare and to preserve and maximize the revenue of the Commonwealth." The emergency regulations described in general how the game was to be played: the player rubs off all the spots in the six boxes. When the surface was rubbed off, printed in each box was a reference to a prize ranging from a "free ticket" to $100,000. A match of three prizes entitled the ticket holder to that prize. Among the requirements for valid tickets were the following: "The ticket must ... have exactly one Play Symbol under each of the six (6) rub-off spots ...", 961 Code Mass.Regs. § 2.31(7)(6)(a)(5), and the "Validation Numbers ... must correspond, using the Lottery's codes, to the apparent Play Symbols and Prize Amounts on the ticket." 961 Code Mass.Regs. § 2.31(7)(6)(a)(8). The regulations provided further that 961 Code Mass.Regs. § 2.31(7)(6)(b).
When Ruggiero rubbed the boxes on the ticket in question, some of the boxes contained double imprints of the prize amounts. Although "$100,000" appeared in three boxes, two of those boxes had imprints of both "$100,000" and another prize, one printed over the other. Ruggiero applied for the $100,000 prize but was notified that the ticket was determined to be defective, and she was supplied with a substitute ticket. A check by the commission with the manufacturer revealed that the disputed ticket had been misprinted. Accordingly, it was not validated as a winning ticket.
The commission found the facts in accordance with the evidence and ruled that Ruggiero was not entitled to the prize because the ticket was defective, it was not validated by the game manufacturer, and it did not comply with the applicable regulations.
Other than the record of proceedings before the commission, 1 no evidence was presented in Superior Court. Nevertheless, the judge found that the ticket was not defective, that the commission's emergency regulations were not validly promulgated under G.L. c. 30A, § 3, because they were not supported by an adequate statement of emergency, and that, even if the regulations were in force, Ruggiero was not bound by any limitation in the regulations or on the ticket because the contract was one of adhesion and she had no actual notice of the limitations.
The commission's determinations that the ticket in question, with double imprints of the prize amounts, was defective and that it failed the lottery validation requirement were supported by substantial evidence in the record. We have examined the main item of evidence, the ticket, and, not only do we view the commission's finding that the ticket was defective as not clearly erroneous, but we unequivocally would reach the same conclusion. According to the rules stated on the back of the ticket, a defective or unvalidated ticket is void. Those rules do not appear to us to be unreasonable or unfair. They appear in simple language and in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bretton v. State Lottery Com'n
...and is deemed to have reasonable notice of the pertinent regulations and rules of the game. See Ruggiero v. State Lottery Commn., 21 Mass.App.Ct. 686, 689, 489 N.E.2d 1022 (1986). See also DePasquale v. Ogden Suffolk Downs, Inc., 29 Mass.App.Ct. at 661, 564 N.E.2d 584. In its decision, the ......
-
DePasquale v. Ogden Suffolk Downs, Inc.
...). When a person places a bet, he is presumed to know the rules, and his bet is subject to those rules. See Ruggiero v. State Lottery Commn., 21 Mass.App.Ct. 686, 689 (1986). The rules are part of the bettor's contract. Ibid. See 205 Code Mass.Regs. 6.11(1) (1983). Consequently, the plainti......
-
Houghton v. Big Red Keno, Inc.
...Corp., 57 Wash.App. 802, 790 P.2d 1239 (1990); Valente v. Rhode Island Lottery, 544 A.2d 586 (R.I.1988); Ruggiero v. State Lottery Com'n, 21 Mass.App. 686, 489 N.E.2d 1022 (1986); Coleman v. Lottery Bureau, 77 Mich.App. 349, 258 N.W.2d 84 (1977). To create a contract, there must be both an ......
-
Curcio v. State Dep't of the Lottery
...on the ticket was blurred and ambiguous and the ticket failed all of the lottery's validation tests); Ruggiero v. State Lottery Comm'n, 21 Mass.App.Ct. 686, 489 N.E.2d 1022 (1986) (reversing decision in favor of plaintiff who claimed to have won a $100,000 prize on scratch-off lottery ticke......