watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case

* The Board failed to require a medical examination of Mr Watson immediately following the conclusion of the contest. The local hospital was close to the boxing ring and therefore the transfer occurred very quickly and during this period of time, as far as I can ascertain, his condition was satisfactory and the insertion of an endotrachael tube was not absolutely necessary. While I do not agree with Mr Mackay's submission that Perrett v Collins provides a close analogy to the present case, I do find helpful the formulation of legal principle by Hobhouse L.J. In these circumstances the task is to look at the circumstances in which specific factors have given rise to the duty of care and to consider whether, on the facts of this case, they should also give rise to such a duty. Indirect Influence on the Occurrence of Injury. "What emerges is that, in addition to the forceability of damage, necessary ingredients in any situation giving rise to a duty of care are that there should exist between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed, a relationship characterised by the law as one of "proximity" or "neighbourhood" and that the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope upon the one party for the benefit of the other". He would thus have developed the subdural haemorrhage in the most favourable circumstances possible, short of doing so in hospital with staff around him. In this case the following matters are particularly material: 1. There is no question but that anyone with the appropriate expertise would have advised such a system whatever reservations they may have had, as had Professor Teasdale, about its ultimate utility.". In the course of his work he assesses a pupil whose lack of progress at school has been causing concern all round: to teachers and parents alike. Many of the matters considered under the heading of proximity are also relevant to the question of whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in this case. The duty will be owed to the victim of a road accident who is received by the hospital unconscious. He answered that it took something like the injury to Mr Watson to make the Committee think of changing the practice. Mr Watson suffered such an injury when he was knocked down in the eleventh round. First he submitted that the Board exercises a public function which it has assumed for the public good. The Judge was impressed with the fact that, even then, resuscitation would have been commenced at least twenty and probably thirty minutes before in fact it was. In consequence, the pupil fails to receive the appropriate educational treatment and, as a result, his educational progress is retarded, perhaps irreparably. Once resuscitation, or stabilisation has taken place, the next stage is neuro-surgery to remove the haematoma and seal any ruptured veins or arteries. The Board's assumption of responsibility in relation to medical care probably relieved the promoter of such responsibility. radio The time was now 23.08. He submitted that the Board would presumably owe the same duty to boxers who came from abroad to box and persons who were not yet boxers, and perhaps not even born, when the rules were made. England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor. They argued that if they had failed to exercise reasonable care, this was not the direct cause of the Plaintiff's injuries - the direct cause being that the aircraft had been designed in a manner that made it unairworthy. In an article on injuries in professional boxing written in 1981, Dr Whiteson stated: "My task as Senior Medical Officer is to control the medical aspects of boxing and in this to liaise closely with Area Medical Officers and with the team of medical experts which includes neurologists and orthopaedic, plastic and ophthalmic surgeons". The witness best placed to deal with the consideration, if any, given to this matter would have been Mr Whiteson. Thus in Capital and Counties v. Hampshire this Court held that a fire brigade was under no common law duty to answer a call for help or, having done so, to exercise reasonable skill and care to extinguish the fire. 54. This reasoning was followed by the House of Lords in Phelps v Hillingdon Borough Council [2000] 3 WLR 776. The psychologist sees the child and carries out an assessment. 5. The plaintiffs submitted that that which is most closely analogous is that of doctor and patient or health authority and patient. The facts of this case are not common to other sports. It would seem impossible to contend that the plaintiff would not be affected by the decisions and plans drawn up by the architect.". If any doubt arises concerning a boxer's condition then referral to a local hospital for emergency treatment or advice should be undertaken and a report sent to the Board. 40. 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. They did not have the expertise in providing such resuscitation; nor did they have the necessary equipment. He was taken on a stretcher to an ambulance which was standing by which took him to North Middlesex Hospital. It carried out this function by making and imposing rules dealing with the safety of boxers, by approving medical officers and by giving detailed guidance as to the qualifications and equipment those officers should bring to the ringside. Since the seminal case of Condon v Basi [1985] . Match. A. 17. It is worth setting out the passage of the report of the Board's expert, Dr Cartlidge, which dealt with this aspect of the case. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. At the end of December 1991 the net assets of the Board were about 352,000. The promoters and the boxers do not themselves address considerations of safety. 4. Letang v Cooper - Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 - Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd -. 78. She claimed in negligence and occupiers liability. Boxing is the only sport where this is the object of the exercise. These cases were distinguished in Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 WLR 1158. He was present at the meeting held with the Minister for Sport after Mr Watson's injuries. There was evidence that the Board's Medical Committee met regularly to consider medical precautions. . We do not provide advice. It was open to Mr Watson to provide, or to stipulate for the promoter to provide, additional medical precautions. Michael Watson suffered a near-fatal brain injury and spent 40 days in a coma after boxing against Chris Eubank, who still struggles to comprehend what happened on that fateful night "Proximity" is, no doubt, a convenient expression as long as it is realised that it is no more than a label which embraces not a definable concept but merely a description of circumstances from which pragmatically, the courts conclude that a duty of care exists.". The Court of Appeal drew a correct analogy with the doctor instructed by an insurance company to examine an applicant for the life insurance. Found Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor useful? at p.262 which I have set out above. There was no contract between the parties, but boxers had to fight under the Board's rules. There are many instances of this. Instead he argued that even if resuscitation had been used, it would have been used too late to affect the outcome. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control: Negligent Rule-Making in the Court of Appeal. (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.) iii) Those taking part in the activity, and Mr Watson in particular, relied upon the Board to ensure that all reasonable steps were taken to provide immediate and effective medical attention and treatment to those injured in the course of the activity. Later in the judgment the Judge suggested, by implication, that the Board's rules should have included a requirement that a boxer who was knocked out, or seemed unfit to defend himself, should be immediately seen by a doctor. 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. The duty of the Board and of those advising it on medical matters, was to be prospective in their thinking and seek competent advice as to how a recognised danger could be combated. Without so doing, however, the Judge concluded that for some reason no thought was given to the practicality of introducing at the ringside what he found had been a standard response, where the presence of sub-dural bleeding was known or suspected, since at least 1980. That is true as a fact. ", 126. The conduct of the activity of professional boxing carries with it, for the small body of men that take part in it, the need for the provision of medical assistance to treat the injuries that they sustain and minimise their adverse consequences. 3.5.2 For British and Commonwealth Championship contests only, or 80. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above It was also important to have a prior arrangement with the hospital with a neurological unit, and with that unit placed on standby. 42. While it might be possible to rationalise the reason for the duty by postulating that there is a general reliance by citizens upon the National Health Service to provide reasonable care in the case of a medical emergency, English law has set its face against this line of reasoning. None of the three doctors present went to his assistance until requested to do so. Thereafter the effect of delay was less important, although brain damage occurred cumulatively until death. In my judgment there is a clear distinction between the role of the Board and the role of a fire service or the police service. Similarly none of the particular difficulties which arise in relation to economic loss arise in relation to the causing of personal injury. "There is always a risk, and the pool from which professional boxers tend to be recruited is unlikely to be one with an innate or well-informed concern about safety, and one may ask why should the individual boxer not rely on the Board's arrangements? 16. [6] This was an extension to the previous duty of care under negligence, and also serves as an exception to the rule under trespass to the person that a defendant will not be liable for personal harm caused in sporting matches which the claimant consents to. Michael Watson was injured in a boxing match supervised by the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC or BBBC), which was expected . I propose to develop the relevant facts more fully in the context of each of these issues. I shall revert to the details of this when I come to consider the question of breach. The doctor does not, by examining the applicant, come under any general duty of medical care to the applicant. 45. There is a general reliance by the public on the fire service and the police to reduce those risks. 36. 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." There are features of this case which are extraordinary, if not unique. 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. Watson successfully sued the BBBC for 400,000 after being left with brain injuries following his 1991 fight with Chris Eubank. At this stage it is enough to note that the advice set out the professional expertise expected of the medical officers and details of equipment needed to perform their duties. The most obvious category of case of a duty of care to administer medical treatment to restrict the consequences of injury or illness, or to effect a cure, is that of the duty owed by a doctor or a hospital authority to a patient. In the leading speech Lord Slynn advanced the following statement of principle at pp.790-1: "As to the first question, it is long and well-established, now elementary, that persons exercising a particular skill or profession may owe a duty of care in the performance to people who it can be foreseen will be injured if due skill and care are not exercised, and if injury or damage can be shown to have been caused by the lack of care. 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. Its experience, contacts and resources exceed his own. He did so, notwithstanding, so it was alleged, that the mismatch between gearbox and propeller made the aircraft unairworthy. 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. When carrying out the assessment and advising the education authority, did the psychologist owe a duty of care to the child? Efforts continue and will continue to improve safety standards and these efforts are and were on-going prior to the Watson fight.". Watson was injured during a fight in 1991 The British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC) faces a financial crisis after losing its court battle with Michael Watson. In my view there is a quite sufficient nexus between the Board and the professional boxer who fights in a contest to which its rules obtain to be capable of giving rise to a duty in the Board to take reasonable steps to try to minimise or control whether by rules or other directions the risks inherent in the sport. [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". held at p.557: "Is this a case in which it can be said that the plaintiff was closely and directly affected by the acts of the architect as to have been reasonably in his contemplation when he was directing his mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question? Of course.these three matters overlap with each other and are really facets of the same thing. If the boxer remains unconscious, then full emergency procedures should be undertaken, the stretcher placed in the ring, the boxer very carefully transferred to it, preferably by skilled handlers and, if needs be, the other doctor should by then have rung ambulance control and have contacted the local hospital to inform them of the problem. The undertaking is to use the special skills which the doctor and hospital authorities have to treat the patient. The Board exercises its control of professional boxing through a system of eight Area Councils, subject to overall control by Stewards and Committees. In 1989 it was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee. It concludes that, if account is taken of all these areas, insurance has been of vital importance to the law of tort. It made provision in its rules for the medical precautions to be employed and made compliance with these rules mandatory.. In any event it would be quite wrong to determine the result of the individual facts of this case by formulating a principle of general policy that sporting regulatory bodies should owe no duty of care in respect of the formulation of their rules and regulations. This passage was approved by Lord Steyn when the case reached the House of Lords [1996] AC 211 at 235. "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. 70. The architect, by reason of his contractual arrangement with the building owner, was charged with the duty of preparing the necessary plans and making arrangements for the manner in which the work should be done. A Respondent's Notice was served contending that the Judge could and should have drawn an adverse inference from his failure to give evidence. A duty of care at this stage had been conceded by the Ministry of Defence, but in Capital and Counties v. Hampshire this Court commented at p.1038 that this was not surprising as the deceased was under the command of the officer concerned. I find this distinction between instructions as to duties and instructions as to how to perform duties elusive and over subtle. Cargo owners sued the classification society N.K.K. 85. [4] After recovering consciousness, he sued the BBBC, arguing that because they laid down the rules governing professional boxing that ensured his safety, they owed him a duty of care and should have ensured that he was properly and immediately treated. The following rules fall into this category: 3.8 The promoter shall procure that two doctors, who must be approved by the Area Medical Officer, attend at all promotions, one of whom must be seated at the ringside at all times during the contest. The position is directly analogous with a hospital conducted, formerly by a local authority now by a health authority, in exercise of statutory powers. that the negligence alleged fell into the category of directly causing foreseeable personal injury, both he and Swinton Thomas L.J. 51. At the hospital Mr Watson was given the conventional resuscitation procedure - that is intubation, ventilation, oxygen and an infusion of Manitol. These facts bring the Board into close proximity with each individual boxer who contracts with a promoter to fight under the Board's rules. This involved taking precautions or giving instructions for them to be taken so that the work could be done with safety. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134 was a case of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that established an exception to the defence of consent to trespass to the person and an extension of the duty of care expected in cases of negligence. 3.10 The promoter shall procure that at all promotions a stretcher is available for use near the ring. [2] The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, where a 3-judge panel consisting of Phillips MR, May LJ and Laws LJ delivered their judgment on 19 December 2000. Such treatment had been standard form in hospitals for many years prior to 1991. 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. 44. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. The Bout Agreement, which was subject to the sanction of the Board, provided that: "The bout will be conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the WBO and BBBC". It seems to me that the authorities support a principle that, where A places himself in a relationship to B in which Bs physical safety becomes dependant upon the acts and omissions of A, As conduct can suffice to impose on A a duty to exercise reasonable care for Bs safety. and Had the board simply given advice to all involved in professional boxing as to appropriate medical precautions, it would be strongly arguable that there was insufficient proximity between the board and individual boxers to give rise to a duty of care. Of these, the vast majority were semi-professional. 74. contains alphabet). I do not find this surprising. In the leading judgment Hobhouse L.J. [3] Watson spent 40 days in a coma and 6 years in a wheelchair, with doctors initially predicting that he would never walk again. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. Nor do I see why the fact that the Board is a non profit-making organisation should provide it with an immunity from liability in negligence. 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. This point was put to the Judge. "Here all that is clear is that on the balance of probabilities the Claimant's present state would have been materially better than it actually is. The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. The issue in this action is not whether the right policy was adopted but simply whether proper care was used in making provision for medical treatment of Mr Watson. Administrative, Personal Injury, Negligence, Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.135634. The relevant findings of the Judge were as follows:-. Without it, the system of personal injury compensation would not have survived. In any event I believe that this point vanishes when causation is considered. The ambulance should be prepared to go direct to the Neurological unit that had been placed on stand-by. So far as the promoter was concerned, these delimited his obligations. But it has never been a requirement of the law of the tort of negligence that there be a particular antecedent relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff other than one that the plaintiff belongs to a class which the defendant contemplates or should contemplate would be affected by his conduct. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. Mr Walker also suggested that a finding in favour of Mr Watson in this case would involve postulating that other sporting regulatory bodies, such as the Rugby Football Union, owed duties of care to the participants in their sports in relation to their rules and regulations. Thus, it has members who pay membership fees or subscriptions in return for which it provides them with facilities. Ormrod L.J. The rise in pressure inside the skull caused by the haematoma results in distortion of the brain. First, Watson is apparently the first reported case in which the English This has relevance to a number of the points discussed above. 5. 255.". When considering whether the Board owed Watson a duty of care, Ian Kennedy J. examined at some length the role played by the Board in imposing, by rules and regulations, the safety standards to be observed by those involved in professional boxing in this country. Thus Mr Watson voluntarily submitted to any risk associated with inadequacy of medical safeguards. 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. Moreover, the tendering of any advice will in many cases involve interviewing and, in the case of doctors, examining the child. Licence holders are also required to comply with the Board's policy in respect of matters not dealt with by specific rules. 12. Search for more papers by this author. He suffered severe brain damage after being injuredduring a match. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. This contention had some similarities to submissions made in relation to the Popular Flying Association in. The Board's Medical Committee had issued detailed advice to Medical Officers in relation to their duty at the ringside which was in force at the time of the Watson/Eubank fight. He distinguished the fire and police `rescue' cases on the ground that: "This was not a case of general reliance, but specific reliance. It shall be adequately lit, have an examination couch and possess hot and cold running water. Questions of what was fair and reasonable did not arise. In view of this, they said that there should have been available at the ringside resuscitation equipment and doctors who knew how to use this. Later, after referring to Lord Bridge's speech in Caparo at p.261, he said: "Thus when a case fits into a category where the existence of a duty of care and a potential liability in the tort of negligence has already been recognised, the more elusive criteria to which Lord Bridge referred for dealing with cases that go beyond the recognised category of proximity do not arise.". There are, however, authorities dealing with advice given to third parties that foreseeably resulted in injury to the person or property of claimants. 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 Regime Applying to the Contest Between Watson and Eubank. Mr Watson was put on a stretcher, which was placed on a trolley and wheeled towards the ambulance. c) The rule that if a fight is stopped by the referee or a boxer is counted out, the boxer's licence is suspended for at least 28 days and until the boxer is certified fit to box by a doctor. 47. .Cited Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee (A Charity) v Poppleton CA 12-Jun-2008 The claimant was injured climbing without ropes (bouldering) at defendants activity centre. It is not necessary for a supposed tortfeasor to have created the danger himself. It acts as a regulatory rule making body. [2001] QB 1134 was a case of the Court of Appeal of England At least 20 minutes, and probably nearer 30 minutes, could have been saved. 6. In fact, it took very much longer than a few minutes to get to the hospital, for reasons that were not identified at the trial. 79. B. Where there is a potential for physical injury, I do not believe that I have to go beyond the traditional concept of neighbourhood to find a duty where there is, as here, a clearly foreseeable danger. The claimant drank the water, and claimed damages for having consumed arsenic in it. In 1991 there were only about 550 active boxers, of which almost all were semi-professional. Mr Watson was one of a defined number of boxing members of the Board. .Cited Geary v JD Wetherspoon Plc QBD 14-Jun-2011 The claimant, attempting to slide down the banisters at the defendants premises, fell 4 metres suffering severe injury. 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. 3.9 each boxer must be examined after every contest and a report sent to the Board or Area Council concerned if necessary.

Southern Miss Message Board, Refurbished 5g Phones Unlocked, Semi Pro Football Leagues In California, Funny Love Letter To Boyfriend, Chaminade High School Endowment, Articles W