Stacy Stevens v. MTR Gaming Group, Inc., 788 S.E.2d 59

Plaintiff Stacy Stevens, as personal representative of Scott Stevens' estate, sued MTR Gaming (Mountaineer Casino) and IGT after Scott, an admitted compulsive gambler, spent family funds at the casino and later died by suicide.
Complaint alleged VLT (video lottery terminal) software and hardware were designed with algorithms that foster compulsive play, alter brain functioning, and prevent players from walking away; casino allegedly facilitated addiction through inducements and credit.
Pleaded claims: negligence (failure to deny access), premises liability, products liability (defective design and failure to warn), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful death.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the federal district court certified three West Virginia law questions to the WV Supreme Court.
Key legal context: West Virginia extensively regulates video lottery terminals (VLTs); the State approves machine hardware/software, operates the lottery, sets payout percentages, and funds a Compulsive Gambling Treatment Fund and an exclusion list for gamblers.
The WV Supreme Court concluded legislative scheme and regulatory framework provide the exclusive remedies for compulsive gambling-related harms and that no common-law duty to protect compulsive gamblers exists for casinos or VLT manufacturers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether casinos/manufacturers owe a duty to protect patrons from compulsive gambling caused by VLTs	Stevens: defendants knew or should have known of Mr. Stevens’ gambling disorder and owed a duty to intervene or exclude him	MTR/IGT: imposing such a duty conflicts with comprehensive statutory scheme and would impose unbounded burdens on casinos/manufacturers	Held: No duty exists; negligence claims for harms caused by compulsive gambling cannot be maintained against casino or manufacturer
Whether VLTs and their software qualify as "products" for strict liability purposes	Stevens: VLTs and software are products and can be defectively designed or lack adequate warnings	Defs: State controls and specifications may preclude product-defect liability; regulatory scheme governs VLTs	Not answered (moot): court declined to address because lack of duty resolved case; noted that devices built/operated to state specs are not defective as a matter of law
Effect of decedent’s suicide as intervening cause under Moats	Stevens: suicide may not bar recovery if special relationship or causation established	Defs: suicide is a supervening act absent special relationship; legislative scheme forecloses such duty here	Not answered (moot): court refused to reach Moats question because no duty exists to compulsive gamblers

Light v. Allstate Ins. Co., 203 W. Va. 27, 506 S.E.2d 64 (1998) (standard: de novo review of certified questions)
Sewell v. Gregory, 179 W. Va. 585, 371 S.E.2d 82 (1988) (duty analysis centers on foreseeability of harm)
Robertson v. LeMaster, 171 W. Va. 607, 301 S.E.2d 563 (1983) (duty arises where conduct creates unreasonable risk and actor should realize it)
Parsley v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 167 W. Va. 866, 280 S.E.2d 703 (1981) (no negligence action without a duty)
Morningstar v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 162 W. Va. 857, 253 S.E.2d 666 (1979) (strict liability requires product not reasonably safe for intended use)
Sayre v. Stevens Excavating Co., 163 W. Va. 324, 256 S.E.2d 571 (1979) (contractor operating within state specs may be immune from liability)
Moats v. Preston County Comm’n, 206 W. Va. 8, 521 S.E.2d 180 (1999) (suicide generally a supervening act absent a special relationship)
Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Kephart, 934 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. 2010) (statutory exclusion programs and pervasive regulation indicate legislature opted to place responsibility on gambler, precluding common-law duty)