watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case

2. This has left him paralysed down the left side and with other physical and mental disability. The child's parents will seldom be in a position to know whether the psychologist's advice was sound or not. The General Medical Council clearly states that a doctor must offer help when off-duty, if an emergency arises. The child was in a singularly vulnerable position. Dr Whiteson did not give evidence. PFA was not a commercial undertaking. This stated that the Board was accepted as being the sole controlling body regulating professional boxing in the United Kingdom and stressed the importance that the Board place on ensuring the safety of boxers. Once this proximity exists, it ceases to be material what form the unreasonable conduct takes. I personally don't think that the decision to follow option B as opposed to option A had any material affect upon Watson.", The Medical facilities provided to Mr Watson at the ringside, 102. This reasoning was followed by the House of Lords in Phelps v Hillingdon Borough Council [2000] 3 WLR 776. 1 result for "watson v british boxing board of control 2001" hide this ad. The Board's assumption of responsibility in relation to medical care probably relieved the promoter of such responsibility. . The precise nature of the company's constitution is not covered by the evidence. They also argued that it was not fair, just and reasonable that the PFA should be liable to negligence. The purpose of his assessment was to enable him to give expert advice to the education authority about the child. 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. (Vowles v Evans and the Welsh Rugby Union Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 318), governing bodies for failing to provide in their rules for appropriate medical provision at ringside in a boxing match (Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134), . The defendant appealed against a finding of 25% responsibility in having failed to warn climbers that the existence of thick foam would not remove all . It is not necessary for a supposed tortfeasor to have created the danger himself. "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? 13. It would seem impossible to contend that the plaintiff would not be affected by the decisions and plans drawn up by the architect.". In that case a doctor phoned for an ambulance to take to hospital urgently a patient who had suffered an asthma attack. While this may not be true of the volunteer who offers assistance at the scene of an accident, it will be true of a body whose purpose is or includes the provision of such assistance. If, which I doubt, this conclusion represents any step beyond what is already settled law, I am fully persuaded it is a proper one to take.". In 1990 Mr Watson had been involved in litigation with his manager, in which the Board had filed an Affidavit. As for the argument that the local authorities were vicariously liable for negligence on the part of those giving them advice, Lord Browne-Wilkinson held at pp.752-3: "The claim based on vicarious liability is attractive and simple. I confess I entertain no doubt on how that question should be answered. The Board had given notice that he would be called as a witness and submitted the witness statement from him. 133. 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:-. 66. Throughout, the child was very dependent upon the expert's assessment. The board lost its. The Judge summarised his findings on the facts as follows:-. The authority was to act on that advice in deciding what course to adopt in the best interests of the pupil with a learning difficulty. The relevant findings of the Judge were as follows:-. No one can take part, in any capacity, in professional boxing in this Country who is not licensed by the Board and, at the same time, a member of it, for the two are essentially synonymous. 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 concern of the Board for the physical safety of boxers is reflected in many of the Board's rules and regulations. The leading case in terms of the duty of care owed by governing bodies in UK law is Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134, where the governing body was held to be liable for the horrific injuries suffered by Michael Watson in his boxing bout with Chris Eubank. In 1991 its income was some 314,000 of which some 51,000 represented licence and application fees and about 224,000 `tournament tax', which I understand to represent a small percentage of the takings at boxing tournaments. In other words, he could have been resuscitated on site and then transferred for more specific care. Ian Kennedy J. equated the formulation of rules and regulations with the giving of advice and these decisions are of relevance in this context. . This sequence can result in cumulative damage to the brain, leading sooner or later to death. This argument was allied to Mr Walker's submission that the Judge should not have found that the rules should have required immediate medical attention to be given to a boxer where his physical condition led to the contest being stopped. In these circumstances there is no close proximity between the services and the general public. It was foreseeable that the claimant could suffer personal injuries if there was delay. It is a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that personal injuries already sustained are properly treated. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control[2001] QB 1134was a case of the Court of Appeal of England and Walesthat established an exception to the defence of consent to trespass to the personand an extension of the duty of care expected in cases of negligence. The Board has argued that until this accident no-one had suggested that they should institute this protocol. 503 at p.517, per Lord Justice Cotton). 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. The patient can then be taken straight to the nearest neurosurgical unit. A Respondent's Notice was served contending that the Judge could and should have drawn an adverse inference from his failure to give evidence. 92. Despite this statement, Ian Kennedy J. suggested that where there was a potential for physical injury there was no need to go beyond the test of foreseeability in deciding whether a duty of care existed, relying on Perrett v. Collins [1998] 255. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . The Board contended that this was unjustifiable, since it would require Rules which in effect instructed doctors as to how to perform their duties. Next Mr Walker argued that the Board did not create the danger of injury or the need for medical assistance. In Caparo v Dickman the Court recognised a duty of care owed by auditors to all the members of a company. The propeller was mismatched to the gearbox. In Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 K.B. This contention had some similarities to submissions made in relation to the Popular Flying Association in. In the leading judgment Hobhouse L.J. These cases were distinguished in Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 WLR 1158. 86. 67. Next the Board argued that the presence of an ambulance, with resuscitation equipment, should have satisfied the Judge that this aspect of medical care was adequately provided. 85. 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. The patient is then artificially ventilated through this tube with oxygen. Thus a person may be liable for directing someone into a dangerous location (e.g. The hospital should be requested to confirm that a Neuro-Surgeon would be on stand-by. 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. The acceptance of the call in this case established the duty of care. The Judge held that it was the duty of the Board, and of those advising it on medical matters, to be prospective in their thinking and to seek competent advice as to how a recognised danger could best be combated. There was also an ambulance standing by which had resuscitation equipment and a paramedic who knew how to use this. 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. 111. 15. In answer to a claim by the workman, the architect argued that his only duty was the contractual duty that he owed to the owners of the building. Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE Case No: QBENF1999/1137/A2 COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (THE HON MR JUSTICE IAN KENNEDY) Tuesday 19th December 2000 THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS LORD JUSTICE MAY LORD JUSTICE LAWS Respondent/Claimant The statutory obligations in relation to certifying airworthiness was designed, at least in substantial part, for the protection of those who might be injured if an aircraft was certified as being fit to fly when it was not. 1, 43-44, where he said: "It is preferable, in my view, that the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories, rather than by a massive extension of a prima facie duty of care restrained only by indefinable `considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed.". It acts as a regulatory rule making body. 3. The Judge held that on these facts Mr Watson was entitled to recover for his injuries in full, relying on the authorities of McGhee v The National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1; Wiltshire v Essex A.H.A. Obviously a full report should then be sent to the relevant Area Council or Board and the sooner this is done, from a medical view point, the better.". Match. A boxer who suffered brain damage following a title fight in London alleged that the Board which regulates boxing had been negligent in not providing a better level of ringside medical care. Hobhouse L.J. if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[320,100],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_5',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Cited by: Cited Binod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council CA 20-Feb-2004 The defendant council had carried out research into a water supply in India in the 1980s. The rise in pressure inside the skull caused by the haematoma results in distortion of the brain. A doctor, an accountant and an engineer are plainly such a person. Mr Watson's case, in essence, was that there should have been a different regime in place - Mr Walker described it as an intensive care unit at the ringside. Nor has it been a requirement that the defendant should inflict the injury upon the plaintiff. 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. Each emphatically concluded that it was. The material passages of this advice were as follows:-. 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. 6. 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. 31. In Clay v. Crump & Sons Ltd [1964] 1 QB 133 a building worker was injured when a wall collapsed on him. 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. James George, James George. On the evidence I consider that the Judge was entitled to find that, even if resuscitation had not been commenced until after help was summoned, it would probably have resulted in a significantly better outcome for Mr Watson. 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. First published on Wed 5 Oct 2022 07.44 EDT The murky business of boxing was thrown into a fresh crisis when the promoter Eddie Hearn refused to accept a ruling by the British Boxing Board. The fight was terminated at 22.54. 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. Had the Board said nothing, it might not be liable, but once it gave advice by setting rules, it came to be responsible. Search for more papers by this author. Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 7. The board, however, went far beyond this. I think that the Judge was right. 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. Moreover, since the professionals could foresee that negligent advice would damage the plaintiffs, they are liable to the plaintiffs for tendering such advice to the local authority Like the majority in the Court of Appeal, I cannot accept these arguments. A primary stated object of the Board was to look after its boxing member's physical safety. 120. Held: There is a close link between the tests in law for proximity . The judgment is attacked root and branch. In my judgment the Judge was entitled to conclude that the standard of reasonable care required that there should be a resuscitation facility at the ringside. The comparison drawn by Mr Walker between the Board and a rescuer is not apt. It trades under the name of the "Popular Flying Association" and it appears that either its main role or one of its main roles is to run that association. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. If his condition was satisfactory, he could have been transferred for resuscitation to hospital, there have his condition stabilised and thereafter be transferred to a Neurosurgical Unit for more definitive investigation and treatment. He was brought in by the education authority to assist it in carrying out its educational functions. Order: Appal dismissed with costs on the issues of liability and causation here and below, those costs to be assessed forthwith on to Legal Services Assessment; 18,000 in Court to be paid out in part satisfaction of those costs forthwith; detailed assessment on standard basis; Legal Services Commission taxation; application for permission to appeal to House of Lords refused. 110. In an opinion read by Phillips MR, the court upheld Kennedy's decision, noting that it "broke new ground". 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. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. It examines the ability of insurers to influence legislation relevant to the tort system. . Mon 8 Oct 2001 12.23 EDT Michael Watson will receive no more than 400,000 compensation in settlement of a damages claim worth up to 2.5m. He rejected it, holding that the standard to be expected of an ambulance dealing with every kind of medical emergency was not the same as the standard to be expected from those making provision for a particular and serious risk which was one of a limited number likely to arise. These make it necessary: i) to identify the principles which are relied upon as giving rise to a duty of care in this case. I turn to the law. 113. 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.". Many sports involve a risk of physical injury to the participants. 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. A boxer member of the Board would not be aware of the details of all these matters. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. 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) A requirement that a boxer must be medically examined before being granted a licence, together with a list of medical conditions that preclude the grant of a licence. Lord Woolf M.R. The witness best placed to deal with the consideration, if any, given to this matter would have been Mr Whiteson. In 1991, a world title fight between Michael Watson and Chris Eubank took place in London under the BBBC Rules. 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. True it is that, in the absence of a statutory power or duty, the authority could not offer such a service. Its experience, contacts and resources exceed his own. 11. If authority is needed for this approach, it is to be found in the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Perrett v Collins [1998] 2 LL.L.Rep. Thus the. so-called requirements for a duty of care are not to be treated as wholly separate and distinct requirements but rather as convenient and helpful approaches to the pragmatic question whether a duty should be imposed in any given case. They did not have the expertise in providing such resuscitation; nor did they have the necessary equipment. Letang v Cooper - Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 - Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd -. The position is directly analogous with a hospital conducted, formerly by a local authority now by a health authority, in exercise of statutory powers. Lord Steyn stated:-, "Since the decision in Dorset Yacht Co. v The Home Office [1970] AC 1004, it has been settled law that the elements of foreseeability and proximity as well as considerations of fairness, justice and reasonableness are relevant to all cases whatever the nature of the harm sustained by the plaintiff..". See Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 and Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145. [3] Watson spent 40 days in a coma and 6 years in a wheelchair, with doctors initially predicting that he would never walk again. It was also important to have a prior arrangement with the hospital with a neurological unit, and with that unit placed on standby. I turn to consider the extent to which there are categories of cases, in which a duty of care has been held to exist, or alternatively held not to exist involving these features. [1988] 1 AC 1074 at 1090; and Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] 1 AC 750 at 783. In support of that proposition Mr. Walker relied upon, 79. "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. 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. Center circle: In the center circle, jot down the name of your stated goalin this case, Create an Audio Educational Program. It was open to Mr Watson to provide, or to stipulate for the promoter to provide, additional medical precautions. It much have been in the contemplation of the architect that builders would go on the site as the whole object of the work was to erect building there. The Board professes - I do not for one moment question its sincerity - its lively interest in his safety. Michael Watson MBE, born 15 March 1965, is a British former professional boxer who competed from 1984-1991. 4. 48. There was no contract between the parties, but boxers had to fight under the Board's rules. 3.5.2 For British and Commonwealth Championship contests only, or Mr. Usherwood was the person who was carrying out this role in relation to Mr. Collins' assembly of this aircraft. This care was insufficient, and as such Watson was in a coma for 40 days, and spent 6 years in a wheelchair. 50. 53. He had in fact sustained a brain haemorrhage and, after returning to his corner, he lapsed into unconsciousness on his stool. The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. There he arrived in the scanning room at 00.30 on 22nd September. 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. Once the defendant had become involved in the activity which gives rise to the risk, he comes under the duty to act reasonably in all respects relevant to that risk. "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.". 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. These facts produced a relationship of close proximity between the Board and those of its members who were professional boxers. The ambulance took him to North Middlesex Hospital, which was less than a mile away. These cases establish that where A advises B as to action to be taken which will directly and foreseeably affect the safety or well-being of C, a situation of sufficient proximity exists to found a duty of care on the part of A towards C. Whether in fact such a duty arises will depend upon the facts of the individual case and, in particular, upon whether such a duty of care would cut across any statutory scheme pursuant to which the advice was given. Against that judgment the Board now appeals. 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. The first challenge to the Judge's finding on breach of duty was that he applied the wrong test. This Court held that the Ministry of Defence had been under no duty of care to prevent the deceased from abusing alcohol to the extent that he did. There was a contrast with a fire or a crime, where an unlimited number of members of the public could be affected and the damage could be to property or only economic. for the existence of a duty of care were present. 43. A little later he said "As Chief Medical Officer, my approach has always been that preventative controls are the key to making a physically hazardous sport as safe as possibleour interest in preventative controls covers the whole gamut of professional boxing.". To my mind it is difficult in such a situation to profess a concern for safety and to deny a duty such as I have described. Lord Browne-Wilkinson answered this question in the affirmative. But at the same time it countenances and gives its blessing to contests where the safety arrangements are those of its making. However, should this not be so, then the boxer's gumshield should be removed, an adequate airway established and the boxer put on his left side so that should he fit or vomit he will not obstruct his airway. CLUE. 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. 117. Subsequently they were incorporated in the Rules by an addition to Regulation 8. 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. radio In Caparo Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, and in many subsequent cases, the House of Lords and this Court have approved the approach to the development of the law of negligence recommended by Brennan J. in the High Court of Australia in Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 60 A.L.R. i) that it owed no duty of care to Mr Watson; ii) that if it owed the duty alleged, it committed no breach; and. "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.