CLE:Duty of Care Owed by Gambling Providers – A Comparative Analysis

Please note: This event begins at 12 p.m. 

For many people gambling is a legitimate part of their leisure and recreation activities. While most people who gamble do so in a responsible manner and enjoy gambling as entertainment, for some it is a cause of problems for themselves, their families and the community. Casinos across the world have been sued for negligence because they breached an alleged duty of care to patrons. The question of course is what duty (and the level, therein) do gambling venues in fact owe their patrons? Certain countries including Canada, the US, and Australia, amongst others, have either encouraged or required gaming entities to develop certain procedures to allow gamblers to self-exclude themselves (usually because they believe that they have a gambling problem). In this respect, self-excluded patrons who may have returned to gambling venues (e.g. casinos) and lose money have sought to bring actions against these venues including, but not limited to, for breach of duty of care. Such actions have been brought (primarily over the last 14 years) against gambling providers by self-excluded compulsive gamblers in both common law (e.g., Australia, Great Britain, the US and Canada), as well as code jurisdictions (e.g., Korea and certain European Union States including France and Germany). There are, however, mixed opinions about not only the purpose but also the effectiveness of self-exclusion policy; including that, on the one hand, the burden of self-exclusion should be on the gambler alone; and, on the other, that there should be liability of the casino is negligent in failing to self-exclude.

Speaker
Sarah Hinchliffe Faculty of Business and Economics The University of Melbourne

For registration, cost and payment details, click here.