In August 2025, the High Court decided that a casino complex was liable for the injuries sustained by a child who was electrocuted by an exposed live electrical wire near the ice rink located at the complex. The casino complex was found to be guilty of gross negligence.
The incident occurred during the festive season at the casino complex when the child, whilst holding on to a metal railing at the ice rink, made contact with an exposed live electrical wire that had been left unsecured following the removal of a Christmas tree installation. The child sustained visible electrical burns and was treated onsite by paramedics before being taken to an emergency medical center for further medical care.
The child’s claim was based on the casino complex’s failure to ensure that the area where the incident occurred was safe for public use.
During the evidence at the trial, it emerged that, while the Christmas tree had been removed by an external contractor, the casino complex’s employees retained the responsibility for disconnecting the power supply. The court accepted the evidence that no steps were taken by the casino complex’s electrical department to ensure the area had been made safe after the dismantling of the Christmas tree. The electrical department received a WhatsApp instruction from the casino complex’s management to disconnect the electrical supply and ensure the area was safe. However, there was no follow up and no inspection completed by management to ensure that the area was safe.
Although the casino complex admitted negligence and accepted that it owed a duty of care toward the public, it denied that its conduct amounted to gross negligence. It relied on indemnity notices displayed on the premises that exclude liability for negligent conduct. The court held that the indemnity notices could not absolve the casino complex from liability for conduct amounting to gross negligence.
The court reiterated that gross negligence arises when conduct departs from the standard of the reasonable person to such an extent that it can only be categorised as extreme. Gross negligence can be described as a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which has or is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property or both. The magnitude of the risk is also a factor taken into consideration when determining whether the conduct amounts to gross negligence.
The court found that the exposed live electrical wire posed an obvious and foreseeable risk to the public, particularly children, in an area known to attract significant foot traffic and where the presence of water increased the hazard. The conduct of the electrical department was reckless as they failed to give due consideration to the consequences of disregarding their duty to disconnect the electrical supply and ensure the area was safe. The failure of management to follow up on safety instructions and secure the site amounted to a complete disregard for basic safety obligations.
The court decided that the casino complex had acted with gross negligence and was vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees in failing to ensure the area was made safe despite being aware of the risk. In the circumstances, the casino complex was liable for the claim.
The decision serves as a reminder that a defendant cannot rely on disclaimer notices as a defence for conduct that amounts to gross negligence.