Stalega v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise, (2019)

• Decision Date: 14 February 2019
• Docket Number: MPTC-CV-PI-2017-110
• Citation: Stalega v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise (Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Ct. 2019)
• Parties: Anita Stalega v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise
• Court: Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court

Anita Stalega v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise

No. MPTC-CV-PI-2017-110

Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court

February 14, 2019

Timothy L. O'Keefe, Esq. for the Plaintiff

Tawnii Cooper-Smith, Esq., for the Defendant

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Edward B. O'Connell, Judge.

The plaintiffAnita Stalega brings this action sounding in negligence against the defendantMashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise(“Gaming Enterprise”) for injuries she sustained while approaching a bus she intended to board outside of Foxwoods Resort Casino.Ms. Stalega claims that she slipped on a patch of ice, which then caused her to fall to the ground.She asserts that the Gaming Enterprise allowed this dangerous condition to exist near the bus depot outdoors.

The plaintiff, who was eighty-five years old at the time of the incident, was a regular patron at Foxwoods Resort Casino.She would take weekly trips to the casino by way of the Joshua Bus Lines, which would depart from a commuter lot located in the town of Glastonbury and bring its passengers directly to the casino.When the plaintiff was ready to return home, she would use this same bus line and would board the bus from the casino's bus depot, consisting of a waiting room and bays for various buses located outside of the casino.On December 18, 2016the plaintiff had adhered to this routine.She arrived at the casino by bus at approximately 3:20 in the afternoon, accompanied by her friend, Jeanette Boulanger.The plaintiff spent the day playing the penny slots until it was time for her to leave.At approximately 11:30 in the evening she was in the waiting room of the bus depot.She expected that the departure of her bus would be called at a later time, but she was alerted by another patron that her bus may have been leaving from Bus Bay 9.She then walked quickly toward the departing bus to determine if indeed it was the bus she needed to catch.In doing so, the plaintiff alleges that she slipped on ice and fell to the ground.Ms. Boulanger did not witness the plaintiff's fall.Several people came to her assistance, and she was able to stand on her own.A bus driver assisted the plaintiff into a wheelchair and then brought her inside, to the lobby.She was later transported by ambulance to Backus Hospital for emergency medical treatment.

The plaintiff asserts that because the lighting in the area in the bus depot was inadequate, she was unable to see the patch of ice that she believed had caused her fall.She also claims that the Gaming Enterprise was negligent in failing to prepare for the alleged icy conditions, which she alleges was a dangerous condition that the Gaming Enterprise had a duty to “warn or otherwise protect” her against.The defendant denies the allegations of the complaint, and by way of special defenses asserts that the plaintiff's injuries were due to her own failure to exercise due and reasonable care.

In the present matter, the plaintiff claims that the defendant breached the duty it owed to her as an invitee of its enterprise by its failure to safeguard against icy weather conditions.She alleges that the Gaming Enterprise failed and neglected to discover and repair the icy condition on its premises; failed to conduct reasonable inspections of the premises to discover said condition; failed to use reasonable care to ensure the safety of persons on its property; and failed to warn the plaintiff about the icy condition, which it knew or should have known.Essentially, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant breached the duty of care that it owed to her as an invitee on its premises, and that the icy patch constituted a dangerous condition, which was the proximate cause of the injuries she suffered.

In a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the defendant owed a duty to safeguard the plaintiff from a certain harm; that the defendant breached said duty;that the breach of said duty was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries; and that the plaintiff suffered actual damages as a result of said breach.Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation v. Castellucci & Assoc., Inc. 4 Mash.Rep. 21, 33(2002);Hazard v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise, MPTC-CV-PI-2009-120, 6 Mash.Rep.354 357-58(2016).

It is well-established in Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation case law that the Gaming Enterprise“is not an insurer of invitees to its facilities.”Senatore v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise, 4 Mash.App. 34, 38(2006).“The mere fact in and of itself that the plaintiff was injured on the premises does not constitute a lack of due care-or negligence-on the part of the defendant.”Ruffo v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise, 1 Mash.App. 3, 6, (1994).The fact that the plaintiff suffered a serious injury “is not enough for the recovery of damages.”Martello v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise, 1 Mash.App. 34, 35(1996).However, if the Gaming Enterprise“failed to comply with the degree of care which would have been exercised by a reasonably prudent casino owner under similar circumstances, a lack of due care-or negligence-would be established on the part of the defendant.”Ng v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise, 2 Mash.Rep. 138 (1997)(Ruffo, supra, at 4).

The Gaming Enterprise owes a duty to invitees like the plaintiff to keep its premises “reasonably safe” and “warn or otherwise protect the plaintiff from any dangerous condition or hazard of which it had actual or constructive knowledge, or which it might reasonably have anticipated.”Lin v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise, 4 Mash.Rep. 393, 396(2006)(citingRuffo, supra, at 6).“[A] dangerous condition should have been known to exist if it is established that the condition has existed for such a period of time and was of such a nature that, in the exercise of reasonable care, such condition and its dangerous character should have been discovered.”4 M.P.T.L. ch. 1 § 1(e).“[A] dangerous condition shall not exist solely... due to the mere existence of wind, water, ice or temperature by itself....”; however, “[n]othing in this Section shall preclude an accumulation of water snow, or ice from being found to constitute a dangerous condition when the Gaming Enterprise...