"French Court of Cassation Ruling: Liability of Casinos Towards Persons Prohibited from Gaming"
Download
Read an extract
Themes
Casino liability, tort liability, gaming law, Court of Cassation, delictual liability, faulty abstention, exclusion measure, gaming rooms, compulsive gamblers, damage compensation, legitimate interest, causal link, reparable prejudice, gaming establishment liability, person prohibited from games, national list of excluded persons, gaming addiction, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court judges, liability for damages, fault of casino, absence of preventive measures, gaming regulation, problem gamblers protection, civil chamber, judgment of rejection, convergence of court decisions, illicit situation, voluntary victim, damage caused by gaming.
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 4
Abstract
Unlock the legal insights into casino liability for failing to prevent banned individuals from gaming. Discover how a landmark Supreme Court decision establishes the certain interest to act of persons prohibited from games against casinos, holding them accountable for damages due to faulty abstention. This ruling protects vulnerable individuals, such as compulsive gamblers, by emphasizing the casino's responsibility to enforce exclusion measures effectively. Learn how this decision extends existing case law on compensation for damages caused by illicit situations and understand the three fundamental elements of liability: fault, damage, and causal link. Dive into the details of this significant judgment and its implications for the gaming industry.
Extract
[...] This solution will then enable gaming establishments to be more vigilant in the future regarding the entry of persons banned from gaming into their premises. It is also in this sense that the company is educational: it shows establishments the path to follow and their responsibility is highlighted. On the other hand, the decision is protective for compulsive gamblers, who, despite their request to the administrative authority to be banned from entering gaming rooms, are not courageous enough not to access them. [...]
[...] The fault generating a recoverable prejudice In civil law, any fault caused must be repaired. In this case, the prejudice caused to the victim is indeed reparable. The liability of the defendant is established, the court therefore orders compensation, the perception by the victim of damages and interest. On this point, the judges highlighted and emphasized a distinction based on the payment of the winnings: If the person prohibited from playing accesses a gaming room and wins a sum of money despite the presence of the prohibition, they cannot assign the casino for payment of the winnings. [...]
[...] The question that arises in this case is the following: Can a person prohibited from games assign a casino in damages on the basis of delictual liability when it has not taken the necessary measures to make an exclusion measure effective? The second civil chamber of the Court of Cassation issued a dismissal judgment on June answering in the affirmative. Preliminarily, they noted the absence of a request by the applicant for the payment of sums won in the game and the absence of measures taken by the company to limit access to the room for people banned from gaming. [...]
[...] This solution, although new, extends the case law of the Court admitting compensation for damage caused as a result of an illicit situation to which the victim went voluntarily (Civ Feb 1992). The second civil chamber of the Court of Cassation therefore largely goes in the sense of the victim. This solution is all the more logical as there is, on this point, a real convergence between the position of the Court of Appeal and that of the Supreme Judges, the latter having even gone so far as to take up the words of the Rennes Court of Appeal. [...]
[...] The Court of Appeal of Rennes rendered its decision on 12 May 2010. It judged that the applicant was not deprived of a legitimate interest in acting inasmuch as, in this case, a faulty abstention by the company was characterised. This faulty abstention generated a recoverable prejudice. The judges of the facts therefore highlighted the fault of the Casino due to their absence of practices specific to prevent access to the gaming rooms of people prohibited. A cassation appeal is then lodged by the company. [...]
