Key point
- A duty of care can arise from an assumption of responsibility via a relationship that is akin to contract
Facts
- D bookmaker failed to implement a self-exclusion agreement requested by C
- C faced massive losses of $2mil after gambling with the bookmaker
- C sued D for negligence for failing to prevent his losses
Held (Court of Appeal)
- D was negligent, but there was no causation as C would have lost his money gambling elsewhere
Lloyd LJ
Duty of care: yes
- The bookmaker’s assurances to C that account will be closed, which was tantamount to a contract except for the absence of consideration, amounted to a voluntary assumption of responsibility
- The voluntary assumption of responsibility in turn gave rise to a duty to implement the exclusion
Breach of duty: yes
- By failing to implement the self-exclusion there was a breach of duty of care to help C control his betting
Causation: no
- However, there was no causation as C would have made bets with other betting agencies anyways and suffered the same losses