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. a) Requirements as to protective covering for the ring floor and the corners (Rule 3.4). (Rule 8.1). 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. 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. Lord Woolf M.R. 4. By the time he received resuscitation in hospital he had sustained permanent brain damage which such treatment would have prevented. 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. Many of the matters considered under the heading of proximity are also relevant to the question of whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in this case. Of course.these three matters overlap with each other and are really facets of the same thing. Against that judgment the Board now appeals. Establish an accurate diagnosis as to the intracranial pathology. 24. There had been a number of similar cases in the 1980's. In the second place it was not practical to use this equipment while the ambulance was on the move. As a result of the delay the patient sustained brain damage. Flashcards. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001). The Board encouraged and supported its boxing members in the pursuit of an activity which involved inevitable physical injury and the need for medical precautions against the consequences of such injury. It does not seem to me to be profitable to speculate what the position would be if the Board had a statutory function in relation to boxing. No medical assistance was provided. 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. This was drawn to the attention of the duty Petty Officer, who organised a stretcher, had the rating carried to his cabin and placed on his bunk in the recovery position, in a coma. Watson v British Board of Boxing Control: QBD 12 Oct 1999 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. But although the cases in which the courts have imposed or withheld liability are capable of an approximate categorisation, one looks in vain for some common denominator by which the existence of the essential relationship can be tested. In particular they are boxers. Mr Watson was the third boxer on whom Mr Hamlyn had operated for similar injuries. In these circumstances there was insufficient proximity between the Board and the objects of the duty. 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. In this the Judge was correct. There are features of this case which are extraordinary, if not unique. 117. 121. The claimant drank the water, and claimed damages for having consumed arsenic in it. [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. This has left him paralysed down the left side and with other physical and mental disability. i) that it owed no duty of care to Mr Watson; ii) that if it owed the duty alleged, it committed no breach; and. 6. 73. 9.39.3 (added to the Rules on 25 May 1991)). I confess I entertain no doubt on how that question should be answered. The General Medical Council clearly states that a doctor must offer help when off-duty, if an emergency arises. [7] Paying the compensation granted to Watson, which was eventually reduced to 400,000, led to the BBBC selling their London headquarters and moving to Wales. 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 . There is no statutory basis for this. 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. These recommendations Mr Hamlyn set out in a detailed paper for the Board two days later. The Board had given notice that he would be called as a witness and submitted the witness statement from him. contains alphabet). Efforts continue and will continue to improve safety standards and these efforts are and were on-going prior to the Watson fight.". I turn to the law. The architect, by reason of his contractual arrangement with the building owner, was charged with the duty of preparing the necessary plans and making arrangements for the manner in which the work should be done. 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. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above The phrase means simply that the law recognises that there is a duty of care. 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. "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.". (pp.27-8). Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. 85. * Enter a valid Journal (must 14. In the first place the paramedic in the ambulance was not trained to use resuscitation equipment as a matter of course where a head injury was involved. 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. at p.262 which I have set out above. Each case involved the performance by the local authority of duties imposed under statute for the benefit of children. Most boxers recover very quickly having been knocked down and counted out and most, in fact, are fully conscious, if somewhat dazed, by the time the count reaches ten. Such duty does not depend on the existence of any contractual relationship between the person causing and the person suffering the damage. It is, however, clear that the test is an objective one: Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd., [1995] 2 AC 145, 181. The normal duty of a doctor to exercise reasonable skill and care is well established as a common law duty of care. 133. A Respondent's Notice was served contending that the Judge could and should have drawn an adverse inference from his failure to give evidence. 119. In accordance with normal practice, the medical officers for the contest were nominated by the Southern Area Council. I can summarise the position as follows. 112. The Board argued that, until they received such advice, they could not reasonably be expected to alter their recommendations and rules in relation to ringside treatment. d) The rule that a boxer must be medically examined before every contest. It is not so much that responsibility is assumed as that it is recognised or imposed by the law.". 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. 131. Tutorial 3 ( Sport Law) - LIA3030 SPORTS LAW TUTORIAL 3 1. Explain v He claimed that the Board had been under a duty of care to see that all reasonable steps were taken to ensure that he received immediate and effective medical attention and treatment should he sustain injury in the fight. the Hillsborough cases: e.g. 56. They did not have the expertise in providing such resuscitation; nor did they have the necessary equipment. Also by Rupert Sheldrake A New Science of Life (1981; new edition 2009) The Presence of the Past (1988; new edition 2011) The Rebirth of Nature (1990) Seven Experiments That Could Change the World (1994; new edition 2002) Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home (1999; new edition 2011) The Sense of Being Stared At (2003) with Ralph Abraham and Terence McKenna Chaos Creativity and . 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.". I propose to develop the relevant facts more fully in the context of each of these issues. Michael Alexander Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd, World 52. A British doctor's duty to offer help in emergencies outside of a The Board argued that this demonstrated that the standard applied by the Judge was too high. 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. b) A limit on the number of rounds to twelve (Rule 3.7). He added : "If the plaintiff has been negligently injured by a failing by the PFA, I cannot see that it would be right to withhold relief from him simply on the ground that to grant that relief might cause a rise in the PFA's insurance premiums, or even cause a more expensive system of inspection to be substituted for that of the PFA.". In that case Hobhouse L.J. 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. 45. 43. 105. 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. He was also given an injection of Manitol, a diuretic that can have the effect of reducing swelling of the brain. But it has never been a requirement of the law of the tort of negligence that there be a particular antecedent relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff other than one that the plaintiff belongs to a class which the defendant contemplates or should contemplate would be affected by his conduct. The facts of this case are not common to other sports. The undertaking is to use the special skills which the doctor and hospital authorities have to treat the patient. Learn. Radio Times - February 1117 2023 - Free ebook download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read book online for free. As already stated, no tournament is allowed to commence or continue without one doctor sitting ringside. Mr Watson was put on a stretcher, which was placed on a trolley and wheeled towards the ambulance. 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. Has the law encroached too far into the world of sport? - The Telegraph There was no contract between the parties, but boxers had to fight under the Boards rules. 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. Moreover, it is clear that no such duty of care exists, even though there may be close physical proximity, simply because one party is a doctor and the other has a medical problem which may be of interest to both". The Judge summarised his findings on the facts as follows:-. Throughout, the child was very dependent upon the expert's assessment. In Marc Rich & Co v. Bishop Rock Ltd [1996] AC 211 a classification surveyor had surveyed a vessel laden with cargo and given it a clean bill of health. Next the Board attacked the implicit finding of the Judge that the Rules should have required the doctor to enter the ring as soon as a boxer was counted out or deemed unfit to defend himself. 111. the concern of the Board for the physical safety of boxers is reflected in many of the Board's rules and regulations. 25Watson v British Board of Boxing Control Ltd [2001] QB 113419, 20 it was claimed that had Watson received immediate resuscitation he would not have been as badly brain damaged, the Court agreed saying that because the Board were in sole charge of safety arrangements there was sufficient proximity for the board of control to owe a duty of care 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. Search for more papers by this author. It has limited liability. "Until he collapsed, I would hold that the deceased was in law alone responsible for his condition. 32. 114. 22. Because the facts of this case are so unusual, there is no category in which a duty of care has been established from which one can advance to this case by a small incremental step. 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. 89. 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. [2] The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, where a 3-judge panel consisting of Phillips MR, May LJ and Laws LJ delivered their judgment on 19 December 2000. 59. It is a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that personal injuries already sustained are properly treated. [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. 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. That, however, did not prove to be the position. agreed with Hobhouse L.J. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. It is not necessary for a supposed tortfeasor to have created the danger himself. The Board has argued that until this accident no-one had suggested that they should institute this protocol. 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. Found Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor useful? 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. The Board assumes the responsibility of determining the nature of the medical facilities and assistance to be provided. 47. The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. 5. When considering whether the Board owed Watson a duty of care, Ian Kennedy J. examined at some length the role played by the Board in imposing, by rules and regulations, the safety standards to be observed by those involved in professional boxing in this country. For these reasons I would dismiss this appeal. In the event, without explanation, he was not tendered as a witness and objection was taken to the use of his witness statement. The doctor does not, by examining the applicant, come under any general duty of medical care to the applicant. The occurrence of a haematoma could not have been prevented but its effects could have been mitigated. 16. 95. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email [email protected], Dryden and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc: SC 21 Mar 2018, Perrett v Collins, Underwood PFA (Ulair) Limited (T/a Popular Flying Association), Binod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council, Jane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions, Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council, Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee (A Charity) v Poppleton, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. Match. 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. 8. 72. held that. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001 . Where a blow to the head results in immediate impairment or loss of consciousness, this is normally the result of temporary deformation of the brain caused by acceleration or deceleration of movement of the head. True it is that, in the absence of a statutory power or duty, the authority could not offer such a service. .Cited Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee (A Charity) v Poppleton CA 12-Jun-2008 The claimant was injured climbing without ropes (bouldering) at defendants activity centre. 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. JURISDICTION TO INTERPRET A FEDERATION'S RULES OF PROCEDURE IN DOPING CASES41 a) Case of Smith v International Triathlon Union (Supreme Court of British Colombia, Vancouver, The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. He would only use it to overcome breathing difficulties. Applied Barrett v Ministry of Defence CA 3-Jan-1995 The deceased was an off-duty naval airman. It made provision in its rules for the medical precautions to be employed and made compliance with these rules mandatory.. In order to explain these allegations, I propose to summarise the evidence on: * the nature of injuries such as those suffered by Mr Watson; * the manner in which such injuries were treated in hospital in 1991; * the manner in which such injuries should have been treated at the ringside and. 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. 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. "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. I do not believe there is any difference in principle between giving advice about safety and laying down rules to provide for safety. This point was put to the Judge. The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. An overview of key case law relating to negligent - LawInSport Mr Usherwood, who alone of those involved had technical expertise, might be the only person who had been negligent. 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. This can lead to an accumulation of carbon dioxide in the blood, which in its turn can cause swelling of the brain and a rise in intra-cranial pressure. 's examination of the ship, and that the cargo owners simply relied on the undertakings of the shipowners, it is in my view impossible to force the present set of facts into even the most expansive view of the doctrine of voluntary assumption of responsibility.". See Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 and Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145. Hearn refuses to give up fight after Benn v Eubank thrown into chaos by .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. 87. 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. In my judgment, there must be an affirmative answer to that question. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. 84. expounded the relevant principles of law in the following passages: "A minimum requirement of particularity and contemplation is required. Explore the crossword clues and related quizzes to this answer. In consequence this special need was not addressed, to the detriment of the child. [1988] 1 AC 1074 at 1090; and Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] 1 AC 750 at 783. 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 . 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. It examines the ability of insurers to influence legislation relevant to the tort system. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - Wiley Online Library A. The Board's Medical Committee met to consider these on the 22nd October 1991 and made recommendations which included the following: "1 The nearest hospital with a neurological unit should be notified of the date of each tournament held under the Board's jurisdiction and must be on alert in case of serious head injury. A preliminary issue was tried as to whether Mr Usherwood and the PFA owed the Plaintiff a duty of care. Finally I return to Perrett v. Collins, the only case referred to by Ian Kennedy J. when considering the question of duty of care. PDF Rules and Regulations 2021 - British Boxing Board of Control The setting of rules could be akin to the giving of advice and thus had an indirect influence on the occurrence of the injury. This is a further factor which tends to establish the proximity necessary for a duty of care. 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. Stabilise the patient's condition by maintaining an air way and maintaining ventilation. The essence of Mr Watson's case is that there should have been a system under which such equipment would not merely be available, but used immediately in the event of a brain injury. The patient can then be taken straight to the nearest neurosurgical unit. Mr. Usherwood was the person who was carrying out this role in relation to Mr. Collins' assembly of this aircraft. 81. Whilst unattended he vomited and died as a result of inhaling his own vomit. The defendant said that the report was preliminary only and could not found a . Mr Usherwood had authority, under an Order made pursuant to the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to certify that the aircraft was fit to fly. the British Boxing Board of Control was found to . 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. Medical knowledge does not enable one to say what, on the balance of probabilities, would have been the outcome if the protocol had been in place and followed. It is not possible to measure even on the balance of probabilities where the damage would have stopped if the protocol had been followed. There are, however, authorities dealing with advice given to third parties that foreseeably resulted in injury to the person or property of claimants. The duty alleged is a duty owed to a determinate class - professional boxers who are members of the Board. Ian Kennedy J. equated the formulation of rules and regulations with the giving of advice and these decisions are of relevance in this context. observed that there was no evidence of any of the asserted potential effects of a finding of negligence against PFA. The brain benefits from the increased supply of oxygen and from a reduction in intra-cranial pressure in so far as this was attributable to excessive carbon dioxide. 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. The owner of the aircraft took off, with the Plaintiff onboard as a passenger. In addition to the two doctors required by the rules, there was, on the direction of the Board, a third medical officer present. 48. In relation to two of the cases involving special educational needs, Lord Browne-Wilkinson reached a different conclusion. 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.