watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case

There was no contract between the parties, but boxers had to fight under the Boards rules. 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. Administrative, Personal Injury, Negligence, Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.135634. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Michael Watson stands to receive no more than 400,000 compensation The settlement of Watson's case against the British Boxing Board of Control, approved by the High Court in London. 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. 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 But at the same time it countenances and gives its blessing to contests where the safety arrangements are those of its making. This appears to be an attempt to import into the law of negligence concepts of public law. 293.". 3. In practice the Area Secretary would select the medical officers for a particular contest, albeit that the promoter would pay them. b) A limit on the number of rounds to twelve (Rule 3.7). Held: A body which had responsibility for licensing and setting conditions for the boxing matches was liable in negligence when, having assumed responsibility for the boxers medical care, the standards it set were inadequate. He criticised the Judge for saying that there was no difference in principle between "giving advice about safety and laying down rules to provide for safety". 2. 82. It was the evidence of Mr Watson's experts that, while brain damage of the type I have described is cumulative, what happens in the first ten minutes is particularly critical. 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.". They also argued that it was not fair, just and reasonable that the PFA should be liable to negligence. 10. 77. But the fact that the carrying out of the retainer involves contact with and relationship with the child cannot alter the extent of the duty owed by the professionals under the retainer from the local authority. That regulation has been provided by the Board. 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. Mr Watson was the third boxer on whom Mr Hamlyn had operated for similar injuries. . It has the ability to require of promoters what it sees as good practice. I am left with the clear impression that the Board's medical advisers have not looked outside their personal expertise. The purpose of his assessment was to enable him to give expert advice to the education authority about the child. First he submitted that the Board exercises a public function which it has assumed for the public good. A boxer member of the Board would not be aware of the details of all these matters. 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. The setting of rules could be akin to the giving of advice and thus had an indirect influence on the occurrence of the injury. 123. In fact the Board had required a third doctor to be present and that an ambulance should be in attendance. The arrival of the ambulance was greatly delayed without any reasonable explanation. He inferred that professional boxers would be unlikely to have an innate or well informed concern about safety. 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. 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. In my judgment there is a difference in principle between making Rules and giving advice, but it is not one which assists the Board. 21. 86. 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". 20. 67. Hobhouse L.J. 46. Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile. To hold that, in such circumstances, the head teacher could properly ignore the matter and make no attempt to deal with it would fly in the face, not only of society's expectations of what a school will provide, but also the fine traditions of the teaching profession itself. Once brought into contact with the plaintiffs, the professionals owed a duty properly to exercise their professional skills in dealing with their `patients', the plaintiffs. During the match Watson was knocked out by Eubank, and it was 7 minutes before doctors attended him; eventually 3 doctors and an ambulance were needed. It would seem impossible to contend that the plaintiff would not be affected by the decisions and plans drawn up by the architect.". Beldam L.J. 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 seems to me to be, on its face, an example par excellence of a situation where the law will regard the professional as owing a duty of care to a third party as well as his own employer.". the British Boxing Board of Control was found to . 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.". 60. 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. Those limits have been found by the requirement of what has been called a "relationship of proximity" between plaintiff and defendant and by the imposition of a further requirements that the attachment of liability for harm which has occurred be "just and reasonable". 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 professionals were employed or retained to advise the local authority in relation to the well being of the plaintiffs but not to advise or treat the plaintiffs". In particular they are boxers. Mr Watson collapsed unconscious within a minute or so of this. While Buxton L.J. 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. Only full case reports are accepted in court. 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. Calvert v William Hill (2008). said: "In my opinion authorities who run a hospital, be they local authorities, government boards, or any other corporation, are in law under the selfsame duty as the humblest doctor. (Rules 8.5 and 8.6). The Board, however, went far beyond this. In relation to two of the cases involving special educational needs, Lord Browne-Wilkinson reached a different conclusion. 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. 36. 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 any event I believe that this point vanishes when causation is considered. Similarly none of the particular difficulties which arise in relation to economic loss arise in relation to the causing of personal injury. 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. 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. A doctor must be available to give immediate attention to any boxer should this be required. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. I agree that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Lord Phillips M.R. I turn to the distinctive features of this case. 129. The Board called to give evidence Mr Peter Richards, a Consultant Neuro-Surgeon with Charing Cross Hospital between 1987 and 1995. The Board did not insure against liability in negligence. Lord Oliver at p.633 also emphasised the difficulty of using the three requirements as a practical guide to the existence of a duty of care. Mr Walker urged that a duty of care should not be imposed upon the Board because it was a non profit-making organisation and did not carry insurance. It seems to me that the authorities support a principle that where A places himself in a relationship to B in which B's physical safety becomes dependent upon the acts or omissions of A, A's conduct can suffice to impose on A, a duty to exercise reasonable care for B's safety. The rise in pressure inside the skull caused by the haematoma results in distortion of the brain. In support of that proposition Mr. Walker relied upon X v Bedfordshire CC and Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923. Establish an accurate diagnosis as to the intracranial pathology. 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. 71. 2. 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. In addition to the two doctors required by the rules, there was, on the direction of the Board, a third medical officer present. In the chaos that then ensued, Mr Watson was surrounded by his team, which included a number of bodyguards. . The ambulance should be prepared to go direct to the Neurological unit that had been placed on stand-by. Licence holders are also required to comply with the Board's policy in respect of matters not dealt with by specific rules. I turn to the law. 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. 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 medical room should be situated in close proximity to the boxer's dressing rooms and be reasonable accessible to and from the ring. The request for an ambulance was accepted. Moreover, the tendering of any advice will in many cases involve interviewing and, in the case of doctors, examining the child. These cases were distinguished in Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 WLR 1158. 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. 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. It was Mr Walker's submission that there was no reliance. The Board's Grounds of Appeal argued that in making policy decisions, the Board ought not to be held to be negligent unless such decisions were found to be wholly irrational. He won a historic High Court case in Sept 1999, raising questions about the future of the professional sport in the UK. [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. On the findings of the judge it was delay which caused the further injuries. In Smoldon v Whitworth [1997] PIQR P133 the duty of care had been conceded in the context of a school colts game and similarly, boxing came under scrutiny in Watson v British Boxing. 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. 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. 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. 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 aircraft crashed and the Plaintiff sustained personal injuries. 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. had not been responsible for the claimant's asthma but it had caused the respiratory arrest and to this extent the L.A.S was the author of additional damage.". 51. The relevant findings of the Judge were as follows:-. 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 other group of cases involved duties imposed on local authorities in relation to children with special educational needs. that the negligence alleged fell into the category of directly causing foreseeable personal injury, both he and Swinton Thomas L.J. ii) The Board assumed responsibility for determining the details of the medical care and facilities which would be provided by way of immediate treatment of those who received personal injuries while taking part in the activity. 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. 44. 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. In accordance with normal practice, the medical officers for the contest were nominated by the Southern Area Council. It made provision in its rules for the medical precautions to be employed and made compliance with these rules mandatory.. If Mr Watson has no remedy against the Board, he has no remedy at all. 97. Lord Browne-Wilkinson answered this question in the affirmative. 9.39.3 (added to the Rules on 25 May 1991)). Each area had a Chief Medical Officer, whose duties included the approval of doctors who wished to serve as medical officers at boxing matches. The Judge went on to review such statistical evidence as there was in relation to the frequency of occurrence of head injuries in boxing and observed that there had been no evidence to suggest that the Board considered and balanced the difficulty of providing the adequate response to the risks of head injury against their frequency of occurrence and severity of outcome. "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? 343, Denning L.J. There was no contract between the parties, but boxers had to fight under the Board's rules. 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. . 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. Each emphatically concluded that it was. The witness best placed to deal with the consideration, if any, given to this matter would have been Mr Whiteson. 107. In a Witness Statement in the present proceedings, Mr Watson stated that this accorded with his understanding as a boxer that the Board undertook responsibility for all the medical aspects of boxing, including the medical supervision of boxing contests, in the United Kingdom. There are a number of problems with this submission. Each doctor is expected to attend a tournament fully equipped to cover all emergencies. 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 Indeed it is difficult to resist a conclusion that what have been treated as three separate requirements are, at least in most cases, in fact merely facets of the same thing, for in some cases the degree of foreseeability is such that it is from that alone that the requisite proximity can be deduced, whilst in others the absence of that essential relationship can most rationally be attributed simply to the court's view that it would not be fair and reasonable to hold the defendant responsible. The Board is non-profit making. 29. None of the three doctors present went to his assistance until requested to do so. 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. But the claimant does not come even remotely . 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 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. The principles alleged to give rise to a duty of care in this case are those of assumption of responsibility and reliance. agreed with Hobhouse L.J. There is no statutory basis for this. 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..". We have been referred to no case where a duty of care has been established in relation to the drafting of rules and regulations which have governed the conduct of third parties towards a claimant. 47. This contention had some similarities to submissions made in relation to the Popular Flying Association in Perrett v Collins. In an opinion read by Phillips MR, the court upheld Kennedy's decision, noting that it "broke new ground". [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. For example, the relationship between the parties may be such that it is obvious that a lack of care will create a risk of harm and that as a matter of common sense and justice a duty should be imposed.. Again in most cases of the direct infliction of physical loss or injury through carelessness, it is self-evident that a civilised system of law should hold that a duty of care has been broken, whereas the infliction of financial harm may well pose a more difficult problem. He emphasised that the Board does not provide medical treatment or employ doctors. Flashcards. Had he been asked in the period before the Eubank/Watson fight to advise on precautions in relation to the risk of serious head injury, he said that he would have given the same advice as Mr Hamlyn. In particular, the Board controlled the medical assistance that would be provided. 106. 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. 90. 1 result for "watson v british boxing board of control 2001" hide this ad. In that case a doctor phoned for an ambulance to take to hospital urgently a patient who had suffered an asthma attack. The educational psychologist was professionally qualified. I confess I entertain no doubt on how that question should be answered. 127. That phrase can be misleading in that it can suggest that the professional person must knowingly and deliberately accept responsibility. 39. James George, James George. He sued the Board because they were in charge of safety arrangements at professional boxing matches, and evidence showed that if they had made immediate medical . Try and prevent and/or treat raised intracranial pressure. The facilities include a scheme which enables members to construct and fly their own light aircraft. On a preliminary issue the House of Lords held that the classification society had no duty of care to the cargo owners. 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. After the operation Mr Watson was taken to the intensive care unit where he arrived at 04.45. 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. 8. In this case the following matters are particularly material: 1. More significantly, he would not be in a position to know whether the provisions that the Board required to be put in place represented all that it was reasonable to provide for his safety. I consider that the Judge could properly have done so. James George, James George. The agreed time of reception at the hospital was 23.22. 68. The first of these to enter the ring, Dr Shapiro, reached Mr Watson seven minutes after the fight had been stopped, i.e. 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. By opening its doors to others to take advantage of the service offered, it comes under a duty of care to those using the service to exercise care in its conduct. In any event, option B was the one that was undertaken. 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 1989 it was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee. The owner of the aircraft took off, with the Plaintiff onboard as a passenger. 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. The wall had remained standing because the architect employed in supervising the building works had failed to advise that it was dangerous and should be demolished. about 23.01.

1959 Chevy Apache For Sale Australia, How Close Can A Pergola Be To The House, Articles W