SW Legal studies in Business

Casino Not Liable to Patron Who Fell on Freshly Mopped Bathroom Floor
Description

Tribal court held that a tribal-owned casino was not liable for negligence to a patron who slipped and fell on a bathroom floor in the casino that had just been mopped. Since an attendant was visible holding a mop, the patron was on notice of the danger.

Topic Torts
Key Words

Negligence; Slip-and-Fall; Casino

C A S E   S U M M A R Y
Facts

Caruso was gambling at the Foxwoods Casino owned by defendant Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise. When he went to use the restroom, he noticed an attendant with a mop in his hand. Caruso slipped and fell on an area that had just been mopped. He suffered injuries and sued the casino for negligence for failing to place warning signs or to put cones around the just-mopped area. The casino defended that Caruso was injured by his own negligence, in that he failed to be watchful of his surroundings.

Decision

Judgment for casino. Caruso saw an employee holding a mop. He had to know that a mopped tile floor could be slippery. That is common knowledge. So Caruso should have proceeded with greater caution. The danger was open and obvious, so the presence of a warning sign does not change the outcome. No liability is imposed on the casino.

Citation Caruso v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise, 2010 WL 323079 (Mash. Pequot Tribal Ct., 2010)

Back to Torts Listings

©1997-2010 South-Western Legal Studies in Business, A Division of Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.