Re: Update on gambler claim (he loses)
- From: "The Todal" <deadmailbox@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:55:40 -0000
"Richard Miller" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:w06HaNMZ0$2HFwiG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <6lfnt3dfi37j41d2qhjmd5db3flu8n6ka1@xxxxxxx>, Cynic
<cynic_999@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:20:48 +0000, Richard Miller
<richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think Mr Hood needs to get a lawyer to explain the ruling to him.
The
judge's comment above *is* a finding that they had a duty of care to
him
and that they breached it. William Hill escaped because the judge
concluded, incontrovertibly in my view, that Mr Calvert would have
lost
the money one way or another regardless of any steps William Hill
took.
That is an unreasonable assumption.
What is unreasonable about inferring that someone with a serious
gambling problem will lose money gambling even if some agencies decline
to take his bets?
The judge cannot assume he would have lost the money anyway.
But he did.
And I see no good reason for him not to have done so.
Hmmm. Would it similarly be OK to decide that a hospital failed in
its duty of care to a patient by using a dirty needle and infecting
the patient with AIDS, but the patient loses their case against the
hospital on the grounds that they are promiscuous and would therefore
have contracted AIDS sooner or later anyway?
No. And the reason that this is not a sensible analogy is that our gambler
is complaining that he should have been protected from the consequences of
his own stupid behaviour. In your hospital example, the harm is directly
caused by the hospital.
You seem to have developed rather a liking for straw men recently, Cynic.
This never used to be like you.
It's not entirely a straw man argument though. I'm not convinced that
"stupid behaviour" is a fair description of what is in fact an addiction.
And a betting shop is a place which encourages its customers to fritter away
their money, not a place where they try to cure people from gambling.
It may be relevant to consider the Savage case. A psychiatric patient
leaves an open psychiatric ward and jumps in front of a train - the question
for the court to decide is whether the hospital was in breach of a duty of
care to protect her from doing such a thing.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1375.html
The Court of Appeal has said that the claim is arguable and can proceed to
trial.
In the Calvert case, it will be interesting to see on what basis the judge
decided that the claimant would have lost his money regardless - perhaps on
the basis that there are so many ways of betting, it would be impossible to
stop him from doing so merely by banning him from a handful of betting
chains. The transcript is not yet available. It's a bit like saying "even
though the psychiatric hospital failed to stop this lady from walking to the
station and falling under a train, the claim fails because she would
probably have found some way of topping herself before long".
.
- References:
- Update on gambler claim (he loses)
- From: Tommo
- Re: Update on gambler claim (he loses)
- From: Richard Miller
- Re: Update on gambler claim (he loses)
- From: Svenne
- Re: Update on gambler claim (he loses)
- From: tim \(not at home\)
- Re: Update on gambler claim (he loses)
- From: Richard Miller
- Re: Update on gambler claim (he loses)
- From: Cynic
- Re: Update on gambler claim (he loses)
- From: Richard Miller
- Update on gambler claim (he loses)
- Prev by Date: Re: Shannon suspect - what could be his defence?
- Next by Date: Re: I note that no one is mentioning Jim Bates this morning!
- Previous by thread: Re: Update on gambler claim (he loses)
- Next by thread: Re: Update on gambler claim (he loses)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
