Bally’s Twin River Winner’s Robbery Lawsuit Rejected

A man who was brutally robbed after a 2021 winning streak at Rhode Island casino Bally’s Twin River (pictured) has had his lawsuit rejected by a Massachusetts judge. 

The plaintiff, Edward Peduto, won an undisclosed but significant sum of money at the Bally’s casino in Lincoln in August 2021. He then left the venue to drive the 60 miles back to his residence in Wakefield, Massachusetts. 

However, around 50 miles into the journey, Peduto stopped at a service station in Massachusetts. It was there that the robbers, who had followed from the casino, launched their attack. The thieves brutally beat Peduto and stole his casino winnings. He was left with severe and permanent injuries, as well as $46,212 in medical bills, the lawsuit said. 

In May 2024, Peduto sued Bally’s Twin River over the incident. The lawsuit alleged negligence on behalf of the casino, as half a dozen similar violent robberies occurred outside or near the casino in the years leading up to Peduto’s case. 

However, a judge this week decided in favor of Bally’s. U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs said that the robbery occurred too far from the casino for it to be reasonably expected to have intervened at any point.

The Robbery

Peduto was robbed on August 29, 2021, at a service station in North Lexington, Massachusetts, some 50 miles from Bally’s Twin River.

The lawsuit said that Bally’s security cameras captured the suspects watching him win and then following him from the casino afterward. It also said that the casino would have been aware of the dozens of violent robberies that occurred outside or nearby its venue in the years prior to Peduto being attacked.

At the service station, Peduto was brutally beaten and his winnings were stolen. The attack left him with $42,000 in medical bills and permanent injuries, the lawsuit said. 

It alleged negligence on the part of Bally’s Twin River for not doing more to inform patrons that violent robberies had been occurring, and for not monitoring surveillance adequately to see when winners were being followed out of the casino.

Lawsuit Rejected 

However, Burroughs rejected both of those lines of reasoning in her eight-page decision. 

The judge ruled that because the robbery happened 50 miles away from the casino, its duty of care (if it had one) could not reasonably be extended that far from the venue. 

Burroughs also said that gambling at a casino with large amounts of cash was a decision made by the plaintiff, and he should have been aware of those obvious risks regardless of whether the casino made steps to warn him. 

She also pointed out that Bally’s says it got an independent security contractor to review the footage of the plaintiff leaving the casino. The contractor concluded casino security did not have sufficient evidence that the eventual robbers were following the plaintiff, or otherwise acting suspiciously, at the time they departed the casino. 

“It is unclear what, if anything, Plaintiff is claiming Defendant could or should have reasonably done or foreseen to prevent the attack while Plaintiff was at or near the casino.” Burroughs wrote.

“As such, Plaintiff’s harm was not reasonably foreseeable to the Defendant, and Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count I is GRANTED,” the judge concluded.

Interestingly, Burroughs noted that homeware store chain Home Depot was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit, but was then never mentioned in filings again. She ruled that it was likely submitted erroneously and did not give the retailer’s alleged involvement any further consideration.

The rejection may have consequences for other ongoing and similar U.S. lawsuits against casinos by gambling winners who were followed from a casino and robbed.