All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da92438 Decided August 21, 2014【Damages】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Whether the principle of “self-responsibility” is applicable to legal relations surrounding casino use between the casino operator and customer (affirmative); Whether the casino operator’s duty to protect or to exercise due care for the benefit of a casino customer is acknowledged (negative in principle), and exceptional cases in which a casino operator may be found to have violated its duty owed to its customer to protect or to exercise due care [2] Whether the regulatory provisions on casino operation limiting the betting amount per round can be viewed as aimed at preventing the property loss of individual casino customers (negative) [3] In a case where casino customer A’s son B requested of C corporation to ban A’s access to the casino premises, but soon withdrew the request even before A was added to the list of banned individuals, and C corporation allowed A onto the casino premises, where A bet money in excess of the cap on betting amount by using the so-called “soldiers” as proxy, the case holding that C corporation did not owe a duty to ban A’s access because it is difficult to view that there was a legitimate request for an access ban, and even if C’s employees violated the rules on betting limits, it does not constitute a violation of the duty to protect A |
|
