Young v. Grand Casino of Louisiana, Inc., (1999)

• Court: Tunica-Biloxi Tribal Court
• Writing for the Court: JUDGE KATHRYN FOWLER VAN HOOF
• Decision Date: 09 March 1999
• Docket Number: 97-003
• Citation: Young v. Grand Casino of Louisiana, Inc. (Tunica-Biloxi Tribal Ct. 1999)
• Parties: GIDGET BENNETT YOUNG v. GRAND CASINO OF LOUISIANA, INC. TUNICA BILOXI

GIDGET BENNETT YOUNG v. GRAND CASINO OF LOUISIANA, INC. TUNICA BILOXI

No. 97-003

Tunica-Biloxi Tribal Court Tunica-Biloxi Nation

March 9, 1999

WRITTEN REASONS

JUDGE KATHRYN FOWLER VAN HOOF

This matter came on for hearing April 6, 1998. At the pretrial conference held August 28, 1997, the parties stipulated that plaintiff, GIDGET BENNETT YOUNG, was a patron of Grand Casino Avoyelles on or about August 15, 1995. At issue are the liability of the defendant, TUNICA-BILOXI INDIANS OF LOUISIANA, for any injuries and damages arising out of an accident occurring August 15, 1995.

At the time of trial, plaintiff was 31 years old and unemployed. She has a 7th grade education. She testified that she visited the tribal-owned casino, Grand Casino Avoyelles, on the night of her brother's wedding, following his wedding reception. She had been drinking alcohol but did not recall how much she drank. She stated that she "was not drunk" but she "was feeling good." She specifically testified that the casino incident report was probably accurate in stating that she had at least 10 beers.

The plaintiff testified that she fell in the restroom of the casino as she walked between sinks. According to the plaintiff, her "feet just came out from under" her. She did not see any water on the floor prior to the fall but she noticed that the back of her shirt had wet spots on it after the fall. She did not recall seeing any signs warning of a wet floor. She injured her left wrist and the SI joint. The accident was witnessed by a casino employee, on duty in the restroom.

The plaintiff saw Drs. Gauthier, Mayeaux and Rush following the accident. Plaintiff testified that she has not seen a physician since 1996, based on inability to pay.

Ursula Johnson, restroom attendant on the night in question, had no independent recollection of the fall. She did identify the voluntary statement she gave, Defense Exhibit 2, which indicated that she had been damp mopping in the restroom that evening. She also confirmed that Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, a "Condition of Guest" form, indicates that water was on the floor; she had no reason to dispute that fact.

As part of her job duties, Ms. Johnson was assigned to the restroom. A casino employee was assigned to relieve her during her breaks so that an employee was in the restroom at all times. During her eight-hour shift, she was to damp mop once, then dry mop. She normally waited until the end of her shift to mop the restroom. She normally left one cone at the entrance to the mopping, and would move the other cone as she was mopping in a different area. On the night of the accident she reported that there were two wet floor signs for the restroom. One was stationed by the stalls, as she mopped there first. She had not started near the front, so the signs were still located near the stalls at the time of the accident.

Clay Barron an employee of Grand Casino, was on duty as a security guard that night. After reviewing his report prepared that evening (Exhibit P3), Barron testified that he received a Call at 10:46 p.m. notifying him of the accident. He entered the restroom shortly thereafter. As noted in his report, when Barron arrived, the floor was wet from mopping. He did not see any standing water. He saw the wet floor signs located at the entrance and by the stalls. He also noted that the plaintiff had consumed alcohol. However, on the "Condition of the Guest" report, it was the EMT Robert Caldwell, who noted the plaintiff had consumed 10 beers. According to Barron, the plaintiff was apparently not "obviously drunk."

Robert Caldwell was employed by Grand Casino at the time of the accident as security as well as an EMT (emergency medical technician) for medical emergencies. He recalled the plaintiff as being alert, not excessively drunk, and complaining about her wrist hurting. However, he did not recall whether there was water on the floor when he arrived.

Carolyn Giuffrida, the sister of the plaintiff, testified that her family had gone to the casino after a wedding reception for her brother, Ronald. She did not witness the accident, but went into the restroom only as her sister was leaving. Her sister then advised her of the accident. She did not see a wet floor sign at the entrance of the restroom, and did not notice anything on the floor.

Mary Bennett, plaintiff's sister-in-law, was also present at the casino on the date of the accident. When she went into the restroom 30 minutes prior to the accident, she believed she saw 3 wet floor cones in the restroom, in contrast to all other witnesses recalling only 2 cones. After the accident she claims she saw the Grand Casino employee move one cone from the corner entrance to the stall to in front of the second wash basin. She further claimed to have almost fallen herself about 30 minutes before the accident. Although she first testified that she met Carolyn and Gidget as they were walking out of the restroom and Gidget reported she had hurt herself, she later changed her story and testified she did not see Gidget either before she went into the restroom or after she left.

LAW

With respect to slip and fall cases, there is no specific law or jurisprudence of the Federal courts or the Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe. However, the Tunica-Biloxi Code of Civil Procedure (TBCCP), Article 1, provides as follows:

In all civil cases, the Tunica-Biloxi Tribal Court shall apply the constitution of the United States Federal statutes and regulations, the charter of 1974, resolutions and ordinances of the Tunica-Biloxi Tribal Court, and to the extent where it does not conflict with the above, the laws and jurisprudence of the State of Louisiana.

Thus in the absence of a specific statute, ordinance or regulation, the Tunica-Biloxi Courts are directed to use the above laws as surrogate tribal laws. Therefore, the court will refer to the Revised Statutes of the State of Louisiana specifically LSA-R.S. 9:2800.6, which provides as follows:

Burden of proof in claims against merchants:

A. A merchant owes a duty to persons who use his premises to exercise reasonable care to keep his aisles, passageways and floors in a...