Required

What Are the Legal Responsibilities of Casino Owners in Premise Liability Claims?

What Are the Legal Responsibilities of Casino Owners in Premise Liability Claims?

For casino proprietors, ensuring the safety of their patrons isn’t just a matter of good business; it’s also a legal imperative. This legal obligation is embedded in the doctrine of premises liability.

A Deep Dive into Premises Liability Claims

Premises liability arises when someone is injured on another’s property due to negligence. For casinos, this often translates to slip-and-fall accidents or inadequate security, leading to harmful encounters. To prevail in a premises liability case, plaintiffs need to effectively highlight four foundational elements, as established in the case of  Humphries v. New York-New York Hotel & Casino

  • Duty: This refers to the casino’s responsibility to ensure the safety of its patrons.
  • Breach: Demonstrates that the casino failed in its duty.
  • Proximate Causation: Establishes a direct link between the breach and the injury.
  • Damages: Quantifies the injury in terms of financial loss or physical/psychological harm.

Relevant Legislation and Case Insights

In Nevada, the combination of common law, i.e., case law and specific statutes, guides the responsibilities of casino owners.  For instance, pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) Section 651.015, there’s an obligation on casino proprietors to show due care in shielding their customers from crimes committed by third parties within their premises. If there’s a foreseeable threat of criminal activity, necessary precautions should be in place. According to that statute,  a judge can weigh evidence of prior similar wrongful acts when determining the presence of a duty. This was highlighted in the case of Estate of Smith ex rel. Smith v. Mahoney’s Silver Nugget, Inc. In this case, a fatal shooting of a patron by another was deemed unforeseeable since there were no prior similar incidents, rendering the casino not liable for the shooting.

Foreseeability and Prior Incidents

A critical facet of these claims hinges on the concept of foreseeability. For an injury to be actionable, the harm must have been foreseeable. This doesn’t solely rely on a specific prior notice of a potential altercation but also on establishing a pattern of similar incidents and the innkeeper’s knowledge of them. This was reflected in both Humphries v. New York-New York Hotel & Casino and Smith v. Coast Hotels and Casinos, Inc..

Furthermore, when evaluating whether prior wrongful acts resemble the current incident, courts look at multiple factors, including the location of the act, the level of violence, and specific security concerns. Such determinations are pivotal for establishing the foreseeability of the act.

In Conclusion

The landscape of premises liability, especially in casinos, is intricate. While the obligation of casino owners is clear, nuances arise in individual cases, making it vital for plaintiffs to build a robust case demonstrating the elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages. Equally, it’s crucial for casinos to be cognizant of their responsibilities, keeping abreast of previous incidents and maintaining vigilant security measures to prevent potential liabilities.

If you have experienced a personal injury at a Las Vegas casino, call Shook & Stone to see if they can help you obtain the compensation you deserve for your damages and injuries. Don’t hesitate to call a lawyer today at (702) 570-0000.