Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
My Brother's Keeper: Gambling; Personal responsibility v duty of care
Topic Started: Friday, 15. February 2008, 00:42 (177 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

BBC and others report the case of a compulsive gambler suing a bookmaker for £2m losses - because they should not have allowed him to bet. See BBC News and Timesonline for more details. Legal commentators on the Radio2 programme I heard were taking this very seriously; if the case is won then the door will be open to sue public houses for selling drinks to alcoholics. It's also been suggested out that on the same grounds, overweight people could sue Asda and Tesco for selling them unsuitable food.
Is this (as I believe) just another example of someone unwilling to accept responsibility for his own actions and looking to find a scapegoat, or is the "duty of care" claim justifiable?

KatyA
Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
KatyA
Feb 14 2008, 11:42 PM
if the case is won then the door will be open to sue public houses for selling drinks to alcoholics.

It certainly used to be an offence to serve alcohol to a person if the licensee or staff knew that person was an alcoholic.

Alcoholics and drug addicts harm other people, by being violent or behaving in an offensive manner. Gambling addicts damage their families, by keeping them short of money, and they damage businesses, by being unable to pay their bills, so I do think suppliers of goods and services that appeal to addicts have a moral responsibility. However I think the addict has a cheek to sue, because he himself must share the responsibility.

What next? Will forum moderators be sued by cyber addicts who post so much on forums that their wives or husbands lose their tempers and make their lives a misery?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I think it is an offence to serve someone who has obviously already had too much to drink, but that law seems to be seriously under utilised. Licensees and staff rightly have a duty of care and there should be prosecutions. Perhaps a few of the families involved should come forward to seek compensation from the licensee for the emotional damage caused by his failure to exercise a duty of care. (That'll be the day)
In the case of the gambler, one wonders if this would have happened if he'd won instead of losing £2m.
I'm going to join the compensation culture- Is there a lawyer willing to take on my case - I'm distressed because I didn't win the lottery and lost £1.50?

KatyA
Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
KatyA
Feb 15 2008, 12:24 AM
I think it is an offence to serve someone who has obviously already had too much to drink, but that law seems to be seriously under utilised.

It is an offence. Also it is an offence to supply drink to an alcoholic, even when the person is sober.

Police go out into night club areas and arrest drunks. How many licensees are arrested and charged?

In the case of the man suing the bookie, how could the bookie know what the customer could afford? He gambled away £2 million. Some people can lose £2 million and survive. Some cannot afford to lose £2 because that would result in their families going without. Unless the plaintiff was in debt to William Hill's how would they know he was in difficulty? It will all come out in court. I wonder if the plaintiff looks upon the case as a bit of a gamble?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

The man is suing because he alleges the bookie broke its own rules. In a bid to help gambling addicts the big companies allow people to register for "self-exclusion" schemes. The idea is that in saner moments the addict registers and then when he has the compulsion to bet the system will not allow him to do so. He argues , as I understand it, that despite registering, the company continued to take his bets.


John
Goto Top
 
redman
Member Avatar

Here's a case in Canada that you might find interesting. Not the same as the gambling case, but it has similarities.

Saskatchewan woman wins legal battle against drug dealer

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 | 09:25 AM ET
A Saskatchewan woman who says she nearly died from an overdose of crystal meth is claiming a legal victory over the man she claims sold her the street drug.

CBC News
De Maria numquam satis.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Thanks Redman. In view of this precedent many publicans throughout the UK will shortly be hearing from my legal team.

John
Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

My BMW encourages me to break the Speed Limit; do you think I ought to sue them?

It occurred to me that the Plaintiff might himself be running a book on the outcome of the case!
Derekap
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
William Hill Terms and Conditions
 
34. RESPONSIBLE GAMING/GAMBLING

For those customers who wish to restrict their gambling, we provide a voluntary self exclusion policy, which enables You to close Your Account or restrict Your ability to place bets or game on the William Hill Websites for a minimum period of six months. You can ask that the restriction lasts for a longer period.

If You require any information relating to this facility please speak to our customer service team on 0800 085 6296. If we believe that Your gambling will cause You financial or personal difficulties then we reserve the right to close Your Account.

We will use our reasonable endeavours to ensure compliance with self exclusion. However You accept that we have no responsibility or liability whatsoever if You continue gambling and/or seek to use the William Hill Websites and we fail to recognise or determine that You have requested self exclusion in circumstances which are beyond our reasonable control. For example including but not limited to You opening a new account, gambling in an LBO or over the telephone rather than over the internet or using a different name or address.

The National Association for Gambling Care Educational Resources and Training (GAMCARE) provides information, advice and counselling to individuals, their family and friends who have concerns about problem gambling. The Helpline number for GAMCARE is 0845 600 0133.

William Hill are committed to supporting  Responsible Gambling initiatives.

These Terms of Use were introduced on 22 August 2007.


The plaintiff claims that he did apply to be excluded from placing bets with William Hill, and one newspaper at least, says he claims the bookmaker was in breach of contract by failing to act upon his request.

Gambling addicts are sick, they need support when they are ready to seek it. I know a woman in her late seventies whose life became unmanageable due to gambling addiction. She used to restrict herself very small daily bets, until she received unsolicited mail that fooled her into thinking she was in line for winning vast amounts. Things got out of hand. She was in arrears with fuel and rent, and her phone was cut off. Living alone, in poor health, she was worried sick and ended up very depressed. She was so addicted that gambling became more important than having a decent meal.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bob made a reference to gambling on another thread which proptted me to rummage throught the files and come up with this thread. To start the ball roling again this is an extract from the Catechism.

Quote:
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Article 7
THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT


2413
Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.
2414
The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason—selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian—lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord."194



Goto Top
 
PJD


"Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others."

Again - it's in the Catechism; and it's common sense.

Everyone should have a copy in my opinion - I mean the full one.

PJD

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Locked Topic