watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case

What it does do does at least reduce the dangers inherent in professional boxing. considered the question of whether it was fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care. 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. They have not succeeded. 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 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.". I now come to the second special feature of this case - the fact that the Board is not charged with having failed itself to provide appropriate medical treatment, but with having failed to impose rules and regulations which would have ensured that others did so. By the time he received resuscitation in hospital he had sustained permanent brain damage which such treatment would have prevented. The hospital should be requested to confirm that a Neuro-Surgeon would be on stand-by. 68. 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. The Judge summarised his findings on the facts as follows:-. At the North Middlesex Hospital he was intubated, that is an endotrachael tube was inserted, and he was given oxygen. 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. 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. 93. 11. 14. He would thus have developed the subdural haemorrhage in the most favourable circumstances possible, short of doing so in hospital with staff around him. Mr Watson received resuscitation and neuro-surgery in hospital in circumstances that I shall describe when I come to deal with causation. There are also reasons of public policy for not imposing a duty of care to individuals in relation to the performance of their functions. I have not heard evidence to the effect that the Board or its medical advisers had before this incident considered, and for some reason decided not to follow, what may not unfairly be called this protocol. Applied Barrett v Ministry of Defence CA 3-Jan-1995 The deceased was an off-duty naval airman. The physical safety of boxers has always been a prime concern of the Board. One issue in each case was whether, on these facts, it could be argued that the local authority had been either directly or vicariously, in breach of a duty of care owed to the child under common law. As part of the health service it should owe the same duty to members of the public as other parts of the health service. The Judge's findings in relation to breach of duty appear from the following passages in his judgment: "The standard response where the presence of subdural bleeding is known or suspected has been agreed since at least 1980, which is to intubate, ventilate, sedate, paralyse, and in Britain at least, to administer Manitol. Contracts between boxer and manager and boxer and promoter have to be in standard form, providing expressly that the parties will observe the Board's rules. This has left him paralysed down the left side and with other physical and mental disability. 63. This contention had some similarities to submissions made in relation to the Popular Flying Association in. The Board assumes the, 89. 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. In Barrett v. Ministry of Defence [1995] 1 WLR a naval rating drank himself into a state of insensibility at the Royal Navy Air Station where he was serving. 108. I turn to the distinctive features of this case. In the event, without explanation, he was not tendered as a witness and objection was taken to the use of his witness statement. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. The principles alleged to give rise to a duty of care in this case are those of assumption of responsibility and reliance. 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 . Herbert Smith, London. LAWS204 - Torts - Negligent Ommissions Flashcards | Quizlet It is supplied to amateur flyers in a kit form which they can then assemble for themselves. In addition to the two doctors required by the rules, there was, on the direction of the Board, a third medical officer present. In an opinion read by Phillips MR, the court upheld Kennedy's decision, noting that it "broke new ground". 129. The doctors required by the rules to be present at a contest had to be doctors who had been approved by the Board. It was accepted that, if the survey had been negligent the loss of the cargo was a foreseeable consequence. 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. He received only occasional visits of inspection by the duty ratings. 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. 66. It seems to me that this is almost implicit in Mr Walker's argument that to issue such a requirement expressly, was to instruct a doctor as to how to perform his duty. The claimant was seriously injured in a professional boxing match governed by rules established by the defendants rules. None of the three doctors present went to his assistance until requested to do so. b) The rule that a Licence may be suspended or withdrawn if, in the opinion of the Board or an Area Council, the licence-holder is not medically fit to box (Rule 4.9(b)(I)). Use our proprietary AI tool CaseIQ to find other relevant judgments with just one click. 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.". The ambulance took him to North Middlesex Hospital, which was less than a mile away. These cases turned upon the assumption of responsibility to an individual. It was Mr Walker's submission that there was no reliance. The doctors who were actually present were not aware of the desirability of immediate resuscitation of a victim with a brain haemorrhage. Had the ambulance been, in fact, just as satisfactory, this would have meant that the absence of a Rule requiring such a facility would have had no causative effect. Mr. Walker advanced five arguments in support of the proposition that there was insufficient proximity to give rise to a duty of care on the facts of this case. If such head teacher gives advice to the parents, then in my judgment he must exercise the skills and care of a reasonable teacher in giving such advice. It is not clear why the ambulance took so long to reach the hospital. Since 1929 the Board has been and continues to be the sole controlling body regulating professional boxing in the United Kingdom. iii) that the breach of duty alleged did not cause Mr Watson's injuries. Mr Watson collapsed unconscious within a minute or so of this. "The role of Medical Officer at a Professional Boxing Tournament is a very important one and requires an adequate working knowledge of sports medicine, the diagnosis and treatment of acute medical conditions and a working knowledge of the training and dietary requirements of a Professional Boxer and Athlete. In 1989 it was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee. 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. It was open to Mr Watson to provide, or to stipulate for the promoter to provide, additional medical precautions. Mr Watson was the third boxer on whom Mr Hamlyn had operated for similar injuries. On his initiative a meeting took place with the Minister for Sport, two of Mr Hamlyn's colleagues, the Board's Chief Medical Officer, Dr Whiteson, and other board officials on 16th October 1991. The decision is of interest for several reasons. Michael Watson faces 400,000 compensation limit - The Telegraph 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. The position as to the selection of doctors for a contest that prevailed in 1991 was as follows. BBC SPORT | OTHER SPORTS | Boxing board loses appeal Once this proximity exists, it ceases to be material what form the unreasonable conduct takes. 45. In a nutshell, his case was that the resuscitation treatment that he received at the North Middlesex Hospital should have been available at the ringside, but was not. Resuscitation equipment should be at ringside along with person(s) capable of using it". 133. In the leading judgment Hobhouse L.J. 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. The subject matter of the advice and activities of the professionals is the child. Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor - Casemine Dr Shapiro examined Mr Watson and put a Brookes Airway into his mouth to maintain his airway. observed that there was no evidence of any of the asserted potential effects of a finding of negligence against PFA. The Judge did not find that the lapse of time between Mr Watson becoming unconscious and Dr Shapiro being called to assist was critical. After the operation Mr Watson was taken to the intensive care unit where he arrived at 04.45. Lord Browne-Wilkinson answered this question in the affirmative. He did so, notwithstanding, so it was alleged, that the mismatch between gearbox and propeller made the aircraft unairworthy. The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. 130. At the third stage, questions of `proximity' and of what is `fair, just and reasonable' have to be considered. 13. 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. Sharpe v Avery [1938] 4 All E.R. 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. In theory the medical officers at a contest would be appointed and paid by the Promoter from the body of approved doctors. I find this distinction between instructions as to duties and instructions as to how to perform duties elusive and over subtle. In such a case the authority running the hospital is under a duty to those whom it admits to exercise reasonable care in the way it runs it: see Gold v Essex County Council [1942] 2 K.B. I confess I entertain no doubt on how that question should be answered. the British Boxing Board of Control was found to . The medical room should be situated in close proximity to the boxer's dressing rooms and be reasonable accessible to and from the ring. 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. He went on to hold that, in relation to the child abuse cases, the statutory scheme was incompatible with the existence of a direct common law duty of care owed by the local authorities. These can be divided into three categories: i) rules designed to ensure that a boxer is not permitted to fight unless he is fit. The Board exercises its control of professional boxing through a system of eight Area Councils, subject to overall control by Stewards and Committees. In particular, the Board controlled the medical assistance that would be provided. Thus the necessary `proximity' was not made out. If Mr Watson has no remedy against the Board, he has no remedy at all. An operation was carried out to remove a moderate size haematoma and to close such veins as were found to be oozing blood. He was also given an injection of Manitol, a diuretic that can have the effect of reducing swelling of the brain. 81. . 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. Mr Watson suffered such an injury when he was knocked down in the eleventh round. 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. By then, so he submitted, the evidence established that the damage would have been done. The setting of rules could be akin to the giving of advice and thus had an indirect influence on the occurrence of the injury. 110. deprecated the introduction of tests such as `proximity' and `fair just and reasonable' in a situation where it was reasonably foreseeable that a failure to exercise reasonable care would cause personal injury: "They also illustrate the dangers of substituting for clear criteria, criteria which are incapable of precise definition and involve what can only be described as an element of subjective assessment by the Court: such ultimately subjective assessments tend inevitably to lead to uncertainty and anomaly which can be avoided by a more principled approach". about 23.01. Watson claimed that the British Boxing Board of Control had been under a duty of care to ensure that all reasonable steps were taken to provide immediate and effective medical attention and treatment in the event of his sustaining an injury, and he argued that the Board had breached that duty by not providing resuscitation treatment at ringside. They did not have the expertise in providing such resuscitation; nor did they have the necessary equipment. Case: Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1734 3. Michael Watson was injured in a boxing match supervised by the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC or BBBC), which was expected to . Once proximity is established by reference to the test which I have identified, none of the more sophisticated criteria which have to be used in relation to allegations of liability for mere economic loss need to be applied in relation to personal injury, nor have they been in the decided cases.". 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. He was present at the meeting held with the Minister for Sport after Mr Watson's injuries. 8. Explore the crossword clues and related quizzes to this answer. In the second place it was not practical to use this equipment while the ambulance was on the move. The nature of the damage was important. Learn. Throughout, the child was very dependent upon the expert's assessment. There he arrived in the scanning room at 00.30 on 22nd September. It is clear on the authorities that the duty to take reasonable care to prevent further harm and to effect a cure is founded on the acceptance of the patient as a patient, which carries with it an implicit undertaking to care for the patient's needs. Mr Morris told the court that he would expect the Medical Committee, and its Chief Medical Officer, to keep abreast of developments in sports medicine that impacted on the safety of boxers in the ring. 104. It seems to me that, but for the intervention of the Board, the promoter would probably owe a common law duty to the boxer to make reasonable provision for the immediate treatment of his injuries. The broad function of the Board is to support professional boxing. Nevertheless, defendants will likely seek to argue that their breach of duty made no difference to the claimant's eventual outcome - an argument that the British Boxing Board of Control ran unsuccessfully in the Watson case. In these circumstances there was insufficient proximity between the Board and the objects of the duty. 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. The Judge did not rely upon the specific evidence given by Mr Watson about reliance. The social workers and the psychiatrists were retained by the local authority to advise the local authority, not the plaintiffs. The Board, however, went far beyond this. James George, James George. The phrase means simply that the law recognises that there is a duty of care. 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. They support the proposition that the act of undertaking to cater for the medical needs of a victim of illness or injury will generally carry with it the duty to exercise reasonable care in addressing those needs. 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. If PFA was not liable in negligence, the Plaintiff might be left without a remedy against anyone. 1 result for "watson v british boxing board of control 2001" hide this ad. Lord Nicholls posed and answered the following question at p.802: "Take a case where an educational psychologist is employed by an education authority. 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. There was evidence that the Board's Medical Committee met regularly to consider medical precautions. 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. Dealing with the arguments of policy advanced on behalf of PFA, Buxton L.J. No medical assistance was provided. Licence holders are also required to comply with the Board's policy in respect of matters not dealt with by specific rules. Lord Bridge went on to state that these ingredients were insufficiently precise to be used as practical tests and to commend the desirability of proceeding by analogy with established categories of negligence. So far I have not dealt with the question of reliance by Mr Watson on the exercise of care by the Board. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001). e) The rule that any boxer selected to take part in a championship contest shall submit to the Board a satisfactory centralised tomography (CT) brain scan report not less than 28 days before the contest and a further scan report annually, so long as the boxer continues to take part in such contests. Saville L.J. 119. It was a matter for Mr Watson to choose whether or not to compete subject to the Board's rules. 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. .if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. . 80. Held: A certifying . The Board's authority is essentially based upon the consent of the boxing world. (Rules 8.5 and 8.6). Of these, the vast majority were semi-professional. radio 31. 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. But the claimant does not come even remotely . "One can summarise the aims of treatment of a patient who has been rendered unconscious as the result of a head injury as follows: 1. The Board set out by its rules, directions and guidance, to make comprehensive provision for the services to be provided to safeguard the health of the boxer. Herbert Smith, London. 48. Appeal from 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. 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. .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.