watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case

In the second case he reached the following conclusions of principle at p.766: "In my judgment a school which accepts a pupil assumes responsibility not only for his physical well being but also for his educational needs. The patient is then artificially ventilated through this tube with oxygen. He claimed that the Board had been under a duty of care to see that all reasonable steps were taken to ensure that he received immediate and effective medical attention and treatment should he sustain injury in the fight. This contention had some similarities to submissions made in relation to the Popular Flying Association in. More significantly, he would not be in a position to know whether the provisions that the Board required to be put in place represented all that it was reasonable to provide for his safety. In order that, when complete, the aircraft can obtain first a provisional and then a full certificate of airworthiness, the assembly of the aircraft has to be supervised and checked by an inspector. Each case involved the performance by the local authority of duties imposed under statute for the benefit of children. In such circumstances A's conduct can accurately be described as the assumption of responsibility for B, whether `responsibility' is given its lay or legal meaning. An example of the ongoing review of safety standards was the Board's decision, in August 1991, that: "In future three Board Medical Officers would be appointed when a major contest was taking place. Thus the Board was a body with special knowledge giving advice to a defined class of persons in the knowledge that it would rely upon that advice in the defined situation of boxing contests. that the negligence alleged fell into the category of directly causing foreseeable personal injury, both he and Swinton Thomas L.J. Even absent such an express requirement, it seems to me that if the protocol had been in place, the doctors present should have been aware of the desirability of examining Mr Watson's condition in the circumstances that had occurred, whether or not the rules expressly required this. rejected the submission that any negligence on the part of Mr Usherwood was only an indirect cause of the crash. The principles alleged to give rise to a duty of care in this case are those of assumption of responsibility and reliance. In other words, as there were no circumstances which made it unfair or unreasonable or unjust that liability should exist, there is no reason why there should not be liability if the arrival of the ambulance was delayed for no good reason. True it is that, in the absence of a statutory power or duty, the authority could not offer such a service. Where a patient is brought unconscious to hospital as a result of intra-cranial bleeding, the practice is first to apply a process described as resuscitation or stabilisation. In an opinion read by Phillips MR, the court upheld Kennedy's decision, noting that it "broke new ground". The child's parents will seldom be in a position to know whether the psychologist's advice was sound or not. There was no contract between the parties, but boxers had to fight under the Boards rules. 62. I do not believe there is any difference in principle between giving advice about safety and laying down rules to provide for safety. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, who noted that the BBBC had a duty not only to ensure that injuries did not occur, but that injuries were properly treated. Likewise, in Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134 the defendant was found to owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff boxer who had suffered more significant injury b.. Request a trial to view additional results 1 firm's commentaries Heading The Ball: Part Of The Game Or An Industrial Disease United Kingdom Mondaq UK If it was held liable it might withdraw from its work, or have to pass on the cost of increased insurance to the detriment of small aircraft operators. 115. That, however, did not prove to be the position. Held: A body which had responsibility for licensing and setting conditions for the boxing matches was liable in negligence when, having assumed responsibility for the boxers medical care, the standards it set were inadequate. He had in fact sustained a brain haemorrhage and, after returning to his corner, he lapsed into unconsciousness on his stool. In Caparo v Dickman at p.617 Lord Bridge considered a series of decisions of the Privy Council and the House of Lords in relation to the duty of care in negligence and summarised their effect as follows:-. The aircraft crashed and the Plaintiff sustained personal injuries. 117. The diagnosis is hopelessly wrong. The position is directly analogous with a hospital conducted, formerly by a local authority now by a health authority, in exercise of statutory powers. In the leading judgment Hobhouse L.J. England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor. The claim was based upon the alleged negligent failure of the defendant to enforce disciplinary regulations against drunkenness so as to protect the deceased against his own known proclivity for alcohol . Similarly, in the case of the advisory teacher brought in to advise on the educational needs of a specific pupil, if he knows that his advice will be communicated to the pupil's parents he must foresee that they will rely on such advice. The relevant allegations of negligence can be summarised as follows: * The Board failed to inform itself adequately about the risks inherent in a blow to the head; * The Board failed to require the provision of resuscitation equipment at the venue, together with the presence of persons capable of operating such equipment. The evidence certainly supports the proposition that it was Mr Watson's injuries, and the subsequent advice given by Mr Hamlyn, that caused the Board to change its practice. Considerations of insurance are not relevant. Most boxers recover very quickly having been knocked down and counted out and most, in fact, are fully conscious, if somewhat dazed, by the time the count reaches ten. 104. In contrast the injuries which are sustained by professional boxers are the foreseeable, indeed inevitable, consequence of an activity which the Board sponsors, encourages and controls. So far I have not dealt with the question of reliance by Mr Watson on the exercise of care by the Board. The Board, however, arrogates to itself the task of determining what medical facilities will be provided at a contest by (i) requiring the boxer and the promoter to contract on terms under which the Board's Rules will apply and (ii) making provision in those Rules for the medical facilities and assistance to be provided to care for the boxer in the event of injury. The Board exercises its control of professional boxing through a system of eight Area Councils, subject to overall control by Stewards and Committees. Any such inspector has to be approved by the association". "As a general rule a sufficient relationship will exist when someone possessed of a special skill undertakes to apply that skill for the assistance of another person who relies upon such skill and there is direct and substantial reliance by the plaintiff on the defendant's skill. The Board controlled every aspect of that activity. The BBBC had a series of rules on the medical coverage needed for boxing matches, which required two doctors to be present at all times. He said that a report had identified the risks. "The fact that it was a person who foreseeably would suffer further injuries by a delay in providing an ambulance, when there was no reason why it should not be provided, is important in establishing the necessary proximity and thus duty of care in this case. The General Medical Council clearly states that a doctor must offer help when off-duty, if an emergency arises. Serious brain damage such as that suffered by Mr Watson, though happily an uncommon consequence of a boxing injury, represented the most serious risk posed by the sport and one that required to be addressed. Watson v British Board of Boxing Control: QBD 12 Oct 1999 A governing body of a sport, had a duty to insist on arrangements for sporting events, held under its aegis, to ensure proper access to medical aid. It is said, rightly, that in general such professional duty of care is owed irrespective of contract and can arise even where the professional assumes to act for the plaintiff pursuant to a contract with a third party: Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145; White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207. He held that anyone with the appropriate expertise would have advised the adoption of such a system. The settlement of Watson's case against the. Mr Watson should have been resuscitated on losing consciousness and then taken directly to the nearest hospital with a neurosurgical capability, which should have been standing by to operate without delay. The professionals were employed or retained to advise the local authority in relation to the well being of the plaintiffs but not to advise or treat the plaintiffs". a) Requirements as to protective covering for the ring floor and the corners (Rule 3.4). It is to make regulations imposing on others the duty to achieve these results. The BBBC had a series of rules on the medical coverage needed for boxing matches, which required two doctors to be present at all times. * Enter a valid Journal (must 106. Michael Watson was a boxer who, on 21 September 1991, fought Chris Eubank under the supervision of the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC), the British professional boxing governing body. Applied Barrett v Ministry of Defence CA 3-Jan-1995 The deceased was an off-duty naval airman. This care was insufficient, and as such Watson was in a coma for 40 days, and spent 6 years in a wheelchair. This reasoning was followed by the House of Lords in Phelps v Hillingdon Borough Council [2000] 3 WLR 776. The Judge did not find that the lapse of time between Mr Watson becoming unconscious and Dr Shapiro being called to assist was critical. They did not have the expertise in providing such resuscitation; nor did they have the necessary equipment. Lord Oliver at p.633 also emphasised the difficulty of using the three requirements as a practical guide to the existence of a duty of care. It was open to Mr Watson to provide, or to stipulate for the promoter to provide, additional medical precautions. Lord Mustill reached the same conclusion in R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 at p.265, where he gave the following description of professional boxing: "For money, not recreation or personal improvement, each boxer tries to hurt the opponent more than he is hurt himself, and aims to end the contest prematurely by inflicting a brain injury serious enough to make the opponent unconscious, or temporarily by impairing his central nervous system through a blow to the midriff, or cutting his skin to a degree which would ordinarily be well within the scope of Section 20. There had been a number of similar cases in the 1980's. The phrase means simply that the law recognises that there is a duty of care. Herbert Smith, London. Match. 30. It is always better to err on the side of caution and even if a boxer has recovered sufficiently to leave the ring unaided, if and when he returns to the dressing room he exhibits any sign of persistent concussion or admits to any persistent headaches, visual disturbance or vomiting he should be immediately transferred to the local hospital where the expert advice of Neurologists and Neurosurgeons can be obtained. Thus boxers, promoters, managers, referees, time-keepers, trainers, seconds, masters of ceremonies, match-makers, agents for overseas boxers, ringmasters and whips all have to be licensed by the Board to perform their particular functions and become, when granted their licences, members of the Board. iii) that the breach of duty alleged did not cause Mr Watson's injuries. In the event Mr Walker did not put this pleaded Ground of Appeal at the forefront of his argument. In an open letter to BMA delegates, written some time in the 1980's, Dr Whiteson, the Chief Medical Officer to the Board, wrote "The British Boxing Board of Control is justifiably proud of its reputation of being in the vanguard of the protection of professional boxers." This concludes my consideration of cases dealing with the assumption of responsibility to exercise reasonable care to safeguard a victim from the consequences of an existing personal injury or illness. Each emphatically concluded that it was. 81. 25Watson v British Board of Boxing Control Ltd [2001] QB 113419, 20 it was claimed that had Watson received immediate resuscitation he would not have been as badly brain damaged, the Court agreed saying that because the Board were in sole charge of safety arrangements there was sufficient proximity for the board of control to owe a duty of care 49. He inferred that professional boxers would be unlikely to have an innate or well informed concern about safety. 89. 503 at p.517, per Lord Justice Cotton). 96. The Board contended that this was unjustifiable, since it would require Rules which in effect instructed doctors as to how to perform their duties. "The postulate of a simple duty to avoid any harm that is, with hindsight, reasonably capable of being foreseen becomes untenable without the imposition of some intelligible limits to keep the law of negligence within the bounds of common sense and practicality. Subsequently they were incorporated in the Rules by an addition to Regulation 8. [7] Paying the compensation granted to Watson, which was eventually reduced to 400,000, led to the BBBC selling their London headquarters and moving to Wales. This submission involves considering the timing of events and the Judge's findings in relation to the impact of these on causation. This sequence can result in cumulative damage to the brain, leading sooner or later to death. He would thus have developed the subdural haemorrhage in the most favourable circumstances possible, short of doing so in hospital with staff around him. The claimant drank the water, and claimed damages for having consumed arsenic in it. The undertaking is to use the special skills which the doctor and hospital authorities have to treat the patient. Match. 123. Stabilise the patient's condition by maintaining an air way and maintaining ventilation. Accordingly, I am left in no doubt that the Board was in breach of its duty in that it did not institute some such system or protocol as Mr Hamlyn was to propose. The Articles of Association of the Board provide that its objects include: "To promote and safeguard the interests of members of the company in the United Kingdom and throughout the world including members' (being boxers) interests in boxing contests and tournaments.including..the encouragement. In that case a doctor phoned for an ambulance to take to hospital urgently a patient who had suffered an asthma attack. 293.". The witness best placed to deal with the consideration, if any, given to this matter would have been Mr Whiteson. In the event those same procedures could not have been begun before 23.25 at the earliest, to allow some time for an examination after the claimant's recorded time of arrival at the North Middlesex. 3.5.1 A Referee shall officiate inside the boxing ring to score the contest and act as sole arbiter of the Rules of Boxing except for British and Commonwealth Championship contests, or other such contest that the Stewards in their absolute discretion deem appropriate. 4. The essence of Mr Watson's case is that there should have been a system under which such equipment would not merely be available, but used immediately in the event of a brain injury. English case law has developed, with various twists and turns, in the problematic field of factual causation. The subject matter of the advice and activities of the professionals is the child. The most material part of this reads: "The Senior Medical Officer shall arrange for full and adequate resuscitation equipment (including intubation and ventilation equipment) to be available at the ringside of the venue. expounded the relevant principles of law in the following passages: "A minimum requirement of particularity and contemplation is required. Treatment that should have been provided at the ringside. Nothing that I have heard persuades me that there was any impracticality, whether in terms of manpower or in cost to the promoters, in the Board having included such a requirement in their rules. 21. They also argued that it was not fair, just and reasonable that the PFA should be liable to negligence. A boxer member of the Board would not be aware of the details of all these matters. That case involved four further claims by children against local education authorities for, among other things, negligently failing to address their special educational needs. Search for more papers by this author. 79. Try and prevent and/or treat raised intracranial pressure. 51. 39. It can also result in disturbance of the processes of breathing so that insufficient air is taken into the lungs to ensure adequate oxidation of the blood. His answer was that he was sure that these things were discussed but he could not remember. Mr Watson collapsed unconscious within a minute or so of this. I think that the Judge was right. The defendant in each case was a local authority. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE Case No: QBENF1999/1137/A2, (1) BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL LIMITED, (2) WORLD BOXING ORGANISATION INCORPORATED, (Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of, Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street, Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, Mr C Mackay, QC and Mr Neil Block (instructed by Myers Fletcher & Gordon) appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Claimant. [5] Phillips noted that the BBBC had taken control of medically supervising the sport, and that the duty of care was not just to avoid injuries, but "to ensure that injuries already sustained are properly treated". 75. 37. The evidence of the expert witnesses called on behalf of Mr Watson was that the first ten minutes after loss of consciousness were critical. These are explored in the authorities to which I have referred earlier. Only full case reports are accepted in court. On the findings of the judge it was delay which caused the further injuries. The onlookers derive entertainment, but none of the physical and moral benefits which have been seen as the fruits of engagement in many sports.". The facilities include a scheme which enables members to construct and fly their own light aircraft. That regulation has been provided by the Board. ii) The Board assumed responsibility for determining the details of the medical care and facilities which would be provided by way of immediate treatment of those who received personal injuries while taking part in the activity. 2. 122. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . The Board was involved in an activity which gave it, not merely a measure of control, but complete control over and a responsibility for a situation which would be liable to result in injury to Mr Watson if reasonable care was not exercised by the Board. Secondly, to identify any categories of cases in which these principles He could have been treated on the spot, and had an endotrachael tube inserted, been ventilated and thereafter transferred directly to a Neurosurgical Unit where CT scan facilities were available. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Alexandrou v Oxford (1933), Maguire v Harland & Wolff PLC (2005), Calvert v William Hill (2008) and more. He did so, notwithstanding, so it was alleged, that the mismatch between gearbox and propeller made the aircraft unairworthy. 84. Search for more papers by this author. can also be found in Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134 in which Lord Phillips MR's advice on dealing with analogous cases was to first identify the principles relied upon as giving rise to a duty of care in the present case. The final point taken by the Board was that they did not receive advice in relation to the desirability of ringside resuscitation until after Mr Watson's injuries. A. These considerations lead to the final point made by Mr Walker in the context of proximity. 428 Nield J. drew a distinction between a casualty department of a hospital that closes its doors and says no patients can be received, in which case he would, by inference, have held there was no duty of care, and the case before him where the three watchmen, who had taken poison, entered the hospital and were given erroneous advice, where a duty of care arose. There are a number of problems with this submission. The agreed time of reception at the hospital was 23.22. In his Witness Statement Mr John Morris, General Secretary of the Board said "The Board believes as I do, that the safety of the boxers is of great importance and takes precedence over commercial and other interests". (Compare also Clay v AJ Crump & Sons Ltd [1964] 1 QB 533 in which an architect had complete control over whether a dangerous wall was left standing and Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd [2001] QB 1134 in which the Board had control over the medical services provided at boxing matches.) Moreover, the tendering of any advice will in many cases involve interviewing and, in the case of doctors, examining the child. As Mr Morris accepted, by reason of its control over boxing the Board was in a position to determine, and did in fact determine, the measures that were taken in boxing to protect and promote the health and safety of boxers. The Board assumes the, 89. The Board professes - I do not for one moment question its sincerity - its lively interest in his safety. 125. Since 1929 the Board has been and continues to be the sole controlling body regulating professional boxing in the United Kingdom. The present case can only be decided on the basis of an intense and particular focus on all its distinctive features, and then applying established legal principles to it.". Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. It seems to me that the authorities support a principle that where A places himself in a relationship to B in which B's physical safety becomes dependent upon the acts or omissions of A, A's conduct can suffice to impose on A, a duty to exercise reasonable care for B's safety. (pp.27-8). All these matters lead me to conclude that the Judge was right to find that the Board was under a duty of care to Mr Watson. Whenever they accept a patient for treatment, they must use reasonable care and skill to cure him of his ailment.". It has the ability to require of promoters what it sees as good practice. 3.10 The promoter shall procure that at all promotions a stretcher is available for use near the ring. In the first case, he held at pp.761-2: "The claim is based on the fact that the authority is offering a service (psychological advice) to the public. Michael Watson was injured in a boxing match supervised by the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC or BBBC), which was expected . It was the evidence of Mr Watson's experts that, while brain damage of the type I have described is cumulative, what happens in the first ten minutes is particularly critical. But the fact that the carrying out of the retainer involves contact with and relationship with the child cannot alter the extent of the duty owed by the professionals under the retainer from the local authority. It is not sufficient for the doctor to be in the vicinity of the ring as in the case of an emergency the speed of the doctor's reactions in treating this are all important. "Until he collapsed, I would hold that the deceased was in law alone responsible for his condition. The Board next drew attention to evidence that a member of the public having sustained brain damage in a road accident would not expect to receive from the ambulance attending the scene the resuscitation service which the Judge held should have been available at the ringside.

Colin Kaepernick Net Worth 2020, Jennifer Wickliffe Robb, How To Control Set Top Box With Lg Tv Remote, Marge Cooney Donahue Obituary, Willa Fitzgerald Look Alike, Articles W