watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case

Mr Usherwood had authority, under an Order made pursuant to the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to certify that the aircraft was fit to fly. 83. In 1990 Mr Watson had been involved in litigation with his manager, in which the Board had filed an Affidavit. In my judgment, there must be an affirmative answer to that question. 110. The plaintiffs submitted that that which is most closely analogous is that of doctor and patient or health authority and patient. Such duty does not depend on the existence of any contractual relationship between the person causing and the person suffering the damage. 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. They did not have the expertise in providing such resuscitation; nor did they have the necessary equipment. . 13. 1. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - WikiMili.com 125. In my view the Claimant makes his case on causation when he shows, as he has done, that with the protocol in place he would have been attended from the outset by a doctor skilled in resuscitation, who would have made any necessary inquiries of the neurosurgeons at St. Bartholomews, who would themselves have been on notice. 52. Held: There is a close link between the tests in law for proximity . The comparison drawn by Mr Walker between the Board and a rescuer is not apt. "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. 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. at p.262 which I have set out above. 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. 90. Herbert Smith, London. 27. Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. 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 . 111. The head teacher, being responsible for the school, himself comes under a duty of care to exercise the reasonable skills of a headmaster in relation to such steps as a reasonable teacher would consider appropriate to try to deal with such under-performance. This duty involved the exercise of professional skills in investigating the circumstances of the plaintiffs and (in the Newham case) conducting the interview with the child. 47. (pp.27-8). The occurrence of a haematoma could not have been prevented but its effects could have been mitigated. 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. (Rule 5.9(c)). No contest shall take place unless fully trained personnel are able to operate such resuscitation equipment are present throughout the promotion.". 112. 40. Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 59. 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. In Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd,l the Court of Appeal has upheld an unprecedented decision that a regulatory body can be liable for negligence in the exercise of its rule-making functions. 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. At the end of December 1991 the net assets of the Board were about 352,000. He was brought in by the education authority to assist it in carrying out its educational functions. James George, James George. Dr Shapiro examined Mr Watson and put a Brookes Airway into his mouth to maintain his airway. "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. 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. 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. The issue is whether the standard of reasonable care required the Board to change their practice in order to address the risks of such injuries before the Watson/Eubank fight. He submitted that, having regard to the chaos prevailing at the end of the fight, Mr Watson would not have received medical attention for seven minutes, even if the Hamlyn protocol had been in place. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Many sports involve a risk of physical injury to the participants. The Board argued that this demonstrated that the standard applied by the Judge was too high. The Judge summarised his findings on the facts as follows:-. 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. Later that day, there was a rise in intra-cranial pressure and a second operation was performed, on this occasion by Mr Hamlyn, to remove a new collection of blood and staunch a bleeding vein and artery. In laying down Rules for the benefit of boxers generally, however, Mr Walker submitted that the Board was under no duty of care. Lord Nicholls posed and answered the following question at p.802: "Take a case where an educational psychologist is employed by an education authority. expressed a similar view in Marc Rich & Co. v Bishop Rock Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 1071 at 1077: "Whatever the nature of the harm sustained by the plaintiff, it is necessary to consider the matter not only by inquiring about foreseeability but also by considering the nature of the relationship between the parties; and to be satisfied that in all the circumstances it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. 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. The Law Commission in its 1994 Consultation Paper No.134 "Criminal Law: Consent and Offences Against the Person" recognised that boxing was an anomaly in English law. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd and Another 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. "Until he collapsed, I would hold that the deceased was in law alone responsible for his condition. It acts as a regulatory rule making body. Michael Watson faces 400,000 compensation limit - The Telegraph 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. It is to make regulations imposing on others the duty to achieve these results. Mr Watson belonged to a class which was within the contemplation of the Board. That case involved four further claims by children against local education authorities for, among other things, negligently failing to address their special educational needs. 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. 61. 86. The ambulance took him to North Middlesex Hospital, which was less than a mile away. 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. watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case 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.". 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. The Judge referred (Transcript p.17) to the question of whether to attach a duty of care to the facts of the present case would be an acceptable incremental extension of established liabilities, or too long a step. That phrase can be misleading in that it can suggest that the professional person must knowingly and deliberately accept responsibility. Similarly none of the particular difficulties which arise in relation to economic loss arise in relation to the causing of personal injury. 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. A case that is instructive is the English case of Watson v British Boxing Board of Control ([2001] 2 WLR 1256), the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC) was held liable for the injuries sustained by Michael Watson. Case: Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1734 Mr Watson collapsed unconscious within a minute or so of this. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - Alchetron, the free social ", 126. As already mentioned the referee is in sole charge of the contest, but if a boxer is counted out and fails to rise it is the doctor's duty to get into the ring as quickly as possible and institute emergency treatment should this be required. First, Watson is apparently the first reported case in which the English The third category is of particular importance in the context of this action. They alleged that the local authorities had provided services under which, in one case, educational psychologists and, in the other, advisory teachers provided advice to teaching staff and parents as to whether children had special educational needs. 106. He received only occasional visits of inspection by the duty ratings. 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. First he submitted that the Board exercises a public function which it has assumed for the public good. 133. This submission involves considering the timing of events and the Judge's findings in relation to the impact of these on causation. Each doctor is expected to attend a tournament fully equipped to cover all emergencies. 46. ", 38. The Judge did not rely upon the specific evidence given by Mr Watson about reliance. 66. If it had in place the appropriate protocols for provision of medical care, the claimants injuries would not have been so severe. The Board held itself out as treating the safety of boxers as of paramount importance. Attempts have been made, within Parliament and outside, to bring about the banning of the sport of boxing. A number of authorities show that an acceptance of the role (usually under statutory powers or duties) of protecting the community in general from foreseeable dangers does not carry with it a legal duty of care to safeguard individual members of the community from those dangers. It made provision in its Rules for the medical precautions to be employed and made compliance with these Rules mandatory. Mr Watson's injuries were not, however, without precedent. 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. 35. 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. 2. At the outset, however, I propose to identify some significant features of the present case, which place it outside any established category of duty of care in negligence. * Enter a valid Journal (must Likewise, a doctor who happened to witness a road accident will very likely go to the assistance of anyone injured, but he is not under any legal obligation to do so, save in certain limited circumstances which are not relevant, and the relationship of doctor and patient does not arise. Tort Case Law Flashcards | Quizlet Therefore, it is likely that injuries arising from such play occur frequently but when do they occur as an act of negligence? He was held at North Middlesex Hospital until 23.55 to ensure that he was stabilised for the onward journey, and then taken to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. 54. I am left with the clear impression that the Board's medical advisers have not looked outside their personal expertise. 10. 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 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. 78. These cases turned upon the assumption of responsibility to an individual. Lord Woolf M.R. There are many instances of this. Mr Usherwood, who alone of those involved had technical expertise, might be the only person who had been negligent. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. 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". 2. 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 . In 1991 it was also the practice to infuse with Manitol, though as I understand it this is no longer the case today. 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. * The Board failed to require a medical examination of Mr Watson immediately following the conclusion of the contest. 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 support of that proposition Mr. Walker relied upon X v Bedfordshire CC and Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923. There had been a number of similar cases in the 1980's. 96. 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. Hearn refuses to give up fight after Benn v Eubank thrown into chaos by 127. .Cited Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council HL 5-Jul-2006 Preliminary Report of Risk No Duty of Care The claimant sought damages after suffering injury after the creation of water supplies which were polluted with arsenic. The position is directly analogous with a hospital conducted, formerly by a local authority now by a health authority, in exercise of statutory powers. The Board contended that this was unjustifiable, since it would require Rules which in effect instructed doctors as to how to perform their duties. Test. [3] Watson spent 40 days in a coma and 6 years in a wheelchair, with doctors initially predicting that he would never walk again. Michael Watson was injured in a boxing match supervised by the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC or BBBC), which was expected to provide medical care. It did not summon medical assistance and its supervision of him was inadequate". Since 1929 the Board has been and continues to be the sole controlling body regulating professional boxing in the United Kingdom. Tutorial 3 ( Sport Law) - LIA3030 SPORTS LAW TUTORIAL 3 1. Explain v for the existence of a duty of care were present. ii) the duty alleged is not directly, through the servants or agents of the Board to provide proper facilities and administer proper treatment to those injured. 55. By then, so he submitted, the evidence established that the damage would have been done. The ordinary test of reasonable skill and care is the correct one to apply. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control The Importance of Evidence in Proving a Breach of Duty Rugby Rugby is a dangerous sport with heavy body collisions between players and regularly, multiple players at any given time. There are features of this case which are extraordinary, if not unique. 92. In that case Hobhouse L.J. Furthermore, if an ambulance service is called and agrees to attend the patient, those caring for the patient normally abandon any attempt to find an alternative means of transport to the hospital". 74. At the hospital Mr Watson was given the conventional resuscitation procedure - that is intubation, ventilation, oxygen and an infusion of Manitol. 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. In these circumstances there is no close proximity between the services and the general public. . The Court of Appeal drew a correct analogy with the doctor instructed by an insurance company to examine an applicant for the life insurance. 56. The next ground advanced by the Board in support of the contention that the Judge applied too high a standard, was that there was no evidence that any other boxing authority in the World imposed more rigorous requirements than those of the Board's rules. Saville L.J. Mr Watson suffered some, at least, of these secondary effects, which were the cause of his permanent brain damage. 128. 130. 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. In this way the Board reduces this aspect of the promoter's responsibility to the boxer to the contractual obligation to comply with the requirements of the Board's Rules in relation to the provision of medical facilities and assistance. As already stated, no tournament is allowed to commence or continue without one doctor sitting ringside. Should the principles, as derived from the established cases, lead to a finding of a duty of care in this case? Mr Watson was one of a defined number of boxing members of the Board. The settlement of Watson's case against the. Ian Kennedy J. equated the formulation of rules and regulations with the giving of advice and these decisions are of relevance in this context. After recovering consciousness, he sued the BBBC in negligence, and was awarded approximately 1 million by the High Court of Justice, who determined that the relationship between the BBBC and Watson was sufficient to create a duty of care. 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. 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. 41. Each case involved the performance by the local authority of duties imposed under statute for the benefit of children. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. The facilities include a scheme which enables members to construct and fly their own light aircraft. 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. Finally I return to Perrett v. Collins, the only case referred to by Ian Kennedy J. when considering the question of duty of care. Clearly, they look to the Board's stipulations as providing the appropriate standard. These can be divided into three categories: i) rules designed to ensure that a boxer is not permitted to fight unless he is fit. If Mr Watson has no remedy against the Board, he has no remedy at all. 124. The nature of the damage was important. There was no contract between the parties, but boxers had to fight under the Board's rules. It was foreseeable that the claimant could suffer personal injuries if there was delay. As part of the health service it should owe the same duty to members of the public as other parts of the health service. In other words, he could have been resuscitated on site and then transferred for more specific care. 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. 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. "In Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Management Committee [1969] 1 Q.B. 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 North Middlesex Hospital had no neurosurgical department, so Mr Watson was transferred by ambulance, still unconscious, to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. 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:-. Boxing members of the Board, including Mr Watson, could reasonably rely upon the Board to look after their safety. Had the Board's rules required Mr Hamlyn's protocol to be put in place, the doctors present could have been expected to have resorted to resuscitation. PDF Watson v British Boxing Board of Control: Negligent Rule-Making in the Rule 23 of the Board's rules and regulations provided: "23.1 Commonwealth, European and World Championships when promoted in Great Britain and Northern Ireland must be organised and controlled in accordance with the Regulations of the BBB of C except where such Regulations may be at variance with those of any Commonwealth, European or World Boxing Authorities with whom the BBC of C may for the time being be affiliated, when the Regulations of such Authorities shall apply.