A compulsive gambler is suing a betting chain for losses of $4m because he was allowed to place bets after he asked to be barred.
Greyhound trainer Graham Calvert, 28, from Tyne and Wear, north east England, wants William Hill bookmakers to pay back the money on the grounds they failed in their duty of care…
Mr Calvert telephoned William Hill in June 2006 to ask them to close his account after he realized he had a gambling problem…
However, two months later he was able to open another account with the bookmakers, one of the largest in England. He went on to place several bets…
Mr Calvert is now heavily in debt and says his life is in ruins. His marriage collapsed after his wife left him taking their two young children with her.
He is suing the bookmaker for the $4 million he lost after he asked to be barred.
I’m betting on the bookies.
idiot
If there aren’t any laws broken then… too bad.
Cheers
I KNOW! He should ask for a government bailout!Is there any difference between him and the people that Bet on their ARM mortgage? THEY want a bailout.
mug
Looks like the American habit of refusing to take responsibility for ones own actions is spreading.
On an episode of Boston Legal this year they had a story where a gambler sued the casino. Is this life imitating art? (ok, maybe calling Boston Legal “art” is a stretch)
Natural selection in action?
#6
How can you say he took responsibility when he didn’t stop gambling? He told them to close the account and they did. He then opened a new one! Just because you declare an addiction it doesn’t excuse you from further consequence.
#6, Mister Uncle Ben,
I’m with you on this one.
The man admitted he was addicted. He tried to stop the behavior. Addiction is a well recognized behavior with little treatment outside of group therapy. Very few addicts actually succeed on stopping on their first try. This is not secret information and ALL businesses that deal with potential addictive behavior should be aware of the significance and repercussions.
By the betting house not stopping business with him, they facilitated a problem for their own gain. They do have a duty of care which they ignored.
This “personal responsibility” thing is crap. Simply because it is an excuse to shift blame to where you can’t see it. We don’t blame the heart attack victim because he was born with a faulty heart. We don’t blame the cancer victim because his cells turn on his body. We don’t blame the malaria patient because a mosquito bit him. So why blame a person because they have a disposition to an addictive habit?
BTW, there is a whole physiology to addiction I’m not getting into.
Uncle Ben and Catshit==you guys are so wrong. AFTER his addiction was cured, he approached the gambling games with cool detachment ready to win all his lost money back. He just had a run of bad luck, that all. If he had been permanently banned, how could he have recouped his losses?
You guys are just too short sighted.
So he asked to be barred from gambling. They did it. HE asks to be reinstated and gamble again. They did it. WTF does this guy want. well other then money.
If this precedent holds, the drunk could sue his favorite beer company and the tub-o-lard could sue her favorite fast-food joint.
The root problem is that stupidity is legal.
If a fool and his money are soon parted….
how do fools get so much to start with?
yea…. good luck with that.
Even if the betting company refused his business, he would have just taken it online, or underground. There is always someone who would be willing to take his money.
I don’t think he’d be complaining if he was 4 million in the black
Human beings always blame other human brings for their problems. Noooooo, it’s never their own fault.
#11, bobbo,
AFTER his addiction was cured, …
There is no “cure” for addiction. There are only treatments with varying degrees of success.
#13, Savantish,
the drunk could sue his favorite beer company
Actually, many drinking establishments have been successfully sued for selling drinks to someone they knew was intoxicated.
The root problem is that stupidity is legal.
Yes. So is greed. Common law does not allow you to take advantage of someone who does not know the difference. So, if the bookie knew the guy had a gambling problem and continued to take his money, that means they ignored their duty of care. They were pretty stupid to ignore their duty of care.
#15, Ron,
Even if the betting company refused his business, he would have just taken it online, or underground.
Then they wouldn’t be the ones being sued. Because, however, they did take his business, they knowingly harmed him.
#17, Hopper,
Human beings always blame other human brings for their problems. Noooooo, it’s never their own fault.
Do you blame Asbestos cancer patients for their own problems too? How about Juvenile Diabetes, isn’t that their fault? Or severe nut allergies? Hey, why stop there, why not make a blanket statement about those people that didn’t take the day off on 9/11?
My point is that sometimes it is other peoples fault because they knowingly contribute to the problem. This man recognized he had a problem and tried to deal with it. I can’t answer for British support for addictions, but from all the bitching about British health care, it is quite probable his assistance was minimal.
When he informed the bookie he had a gambling problem, they should have banned him for life. Instead, they reinstated him. They had a duty of care NOT to assist him in harming himself. As an example, most jurisdictions prohibit the sale of alcohol to alcoholics because of this duty of care.
Does anyone know what happened to this case?
Wanted to add that I doubt he would’ve won it. I mean how are they supposed to keep track of all new people joining. For all we know he re-registered using a new computer, IP, everything.
They closed his account as he requested. Say for example we asked for our Facebook to get closed and we deleted it as don’t want to use, tough luck if we then go and create a new one and starting doing things again.