Oklahoma Casinos and Sovereign Immunity
Griffin, while attempting to enter an Indian casino, stepped into a flower bed and fell. She sued the casino for negligence in state court. The casino claimed it was immune from suit in state court, as a sovereign, and that Griffin would have to sue in tribal court. The court disagreed. It found that under the State-Tribal Gaming Act and The Model Tribal Gaming Compact, the tribe has granted limited consent to be sued by patrons in courts of competent jurisidiction. State district courts are courts of competent jurisdiction.
The gaming compact mandates liability insurance coverage for the benefit of the public, prohibits the liability insurer from asserting tribal immunity, prescribes the procedure for casino patrons to claim damages, and expresses the tribe’s consent to suit. Claims against tribes are limited to amounts set forth in the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, and the presuit procedures found there must be followed for claims by patrons against tribes. The Compact further requires tribes to carry insurance, and prohibits the insurer from asserting tribal immunity.
We believe that suits against tribes will increase as more and more casinos are built, especially since more and more casinos are making alcoholic beverages more readily available to their patrons.
See, Griffith v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola;
Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises, (state district courts are courts of competent jurisdiction);
Dye v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola; (state district court may determine tort claims arising in Indian casinos against tribes or tribal enterprises)
