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. At the North Middlesex Hospital he was intubated, that is an endotrachael tube was inserted, and he was given oxygen. This is a further factor which tends to establish the proximity necessary for a duty of care. There are a number of problems with this submission. 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". Mr Watson belonged to a class which was within the contemplation of the Board. Citation. Lord Phillips MR Gazette 22-Mar-2001, Times 02-Feb-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 2116, [2001] QB 1134, [2001] PIQR 16 Bailii, Bailii England and Wales Citing: Considered Perrett v Collins, Underwood PFA (Ulair) Limited (T/a Popular Flying Association) CA 22-May-1998 The plaintiff was a passenger in an aircraft which crashed, and there was a preliminary issue as to the liability to him of those who certified that the aircraft was fit to fly. He rejected it, holding that the standard to be expected of an ambulance dealing with every kind of medical emergency was not the same as the standard to be expected from those making provision for a particular and serious risk which was one of a limited number likely to arise. Mr Walker also suggested that a finding in favour of Mr Watson in this case would involve postulating that other sporting regulatory bodies, such as the Rugby Football Union, owed duties of care to the participants in their sports in relation to their rules and regulations. Test. Outside circles: Next, divide the goal into the major categories of tasks you'll need to accomplish to achieve the greater goalin this case, Title, Studio, Topics, Audience, and so on. Accordingly, I am left in no doubt that the Board was in breach of its duty in that it did not institute some such system or protocol as Mr Hamlyn was to propose. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001). This appears to be an attempt to import into the law of negligence concepts of public law. Watson was injured during a fight in 1991 The British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC) faces a financial crisis after losing its court battle with Michael Watson. 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.". 91. It is to make regulations imposing on others the duty to achieve these results. 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. [5] Phillips noted that the BBBC had taken control of medically supervising the sport, and that the duty of care was not just to avoid injuries, but "to ensure that injuries already sustained are properly treated". 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. Mr Watson was the third boxer on whom Mr Hamlyn had operated for similar injuries. 1 result for "watson v british boxing board of control 2001" hide this ad. None of the three doctors present went to his assistance until requested to do so. I consider that the Judge was entitled to find on the evidence, that had the Hamlyn protocol been in place, the outcome of Mr Watson's injuries would have been significantly better. Each case involved the performance by the local authority of duties imposed under statute for the benefit of children. The company, as the Popular Flying Association, appoint inspectors for the purpose of, among other things, inspecting aircraft during the course of their construction by members of the association and certifying whether the relevant work has been done to his "entire satisfaction" and the aircraft is in an airworthy condition. 9. He had in fact sustained a brain haemorrhage and, after returning to his corner, he lapsed into unconsciousness on his stool. 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. 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. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (1999) (QBD) During a professional boxing contest, the claimant suffered a sub-dural haemorrhage resulting in irreversible brain damage which left him with, among other things, a left-sided partial paralysis. 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". 3.10 The promoter shall procure that at all promotions a stretcher is available for use near the ring. It was Mr Walker's submission that there was no reliance. 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. [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. In consequence, the pupil fails to receive the appropriate educational treatment and, as a result, his educational progress is retarded, perhaps irreparably. I agree that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Lord Phillips M.R. He was also given an injection of Manitol, a diuretic that can have the effect of reducing swelling of the brain. 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. True it is that, in the absence of a statutory power or duty, the authority could not offer such a service. [2], The case first went to the High Court of Justice, where Kennedy, J, gave his judgment on 24 September 1999, awarding Watson around 1 million in damages. He was taken on a stretcher to an ambulance which was standing by which took him to North Middlesex Hospital. The Judge summarised his findings on the facts as follows:-. In 1991 it was also the practice to infuse with Manitol, though as I understand it this is no longer the case today. 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. held at p.557: "Is this a case in which it can be said that the plaintiff was closely and directly affected by the acts of the architect as to have been reasonably in his contemplation when he was directing his mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question? Throughout, the child was very dependent upon the expert's assessment. 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. 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. Instead he argued that even if resuscitation had been used, it would have been used too late to affect the outcome. 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. As part of the health service it should owe the same duty to members of the public as other parts of the health service. [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. Each venue must have a room set aside exclusively for medical purposes. .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. 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. [1997] QB 1004 at 1034. .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. As for the argument that the local authorities were vicariously liable for negligence on the part of those giving them advice, Lord Browne-Wilkinson held at pp.752-3: "The claim based on vicarious liability is attractive and simple. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. Mr Walker accepted that if Mr Watson had specifically asked the Board for advice as to the precautions that he ought to have in place for his fight, and the Board had given advice, the Board would have been under a duty to exercise care in giving that advice. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. Licence holders are also required to comply with the Board's policy in respect of matters not dealt with by specific rules. 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. 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. 96. She claimed in negligence and occupiers liability. The defendant said that the report was preliminary only and could not found a . 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. 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. 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. The Board assumes the responsibility of determining the nature of the medical facilities and assistance to be provided. 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. 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. This care was insufficient, and as such Watson was in a coma for 40 days, and spent 6 years in a wheelchair. 27. The movement of the brain within the skull may rupture veins, or more rarely an artery, inside the head leading to bleeding which builds up into a blood clot or haematoma. 73. 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. I would simply comment that if the Board were given the statutory function of directing what medical assistance should be provided to boxers at the stadium, I consider that it would be at least arguable that they owed boxers a duty of care in exercising that function. As already stated, no tournament is allowed to commence or continue without one doctor sitting ringside. "The fact that it was a person who foreseeably would suffer further injuries by a delay in providing an ambulance, when there was no reason why it should not be provided, is important in establishing the necessary proximity and thus duty of care in this case. 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. "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. 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. 69. 23. Many sports involve a risk of physical injury to the participants. There is no statutory basis for this. 121. 2. The first of these to enter the ring, Dr Shapiro, reached Mr Watson seven minutes after the fight had been stopped, i.e. Mr Hamlyn said, and I accept, that there would have been very few British neurosurgeons who at this time would have questioned the need to put up a line and administer this diuretic in a case such as the present. What it does do does at least reduce the dangers inherent in professional boxing. 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. the Hillsborough cases: e.g. I shall revert to the details of this when I come to consider the question of breach. Each emphatically concluded that it was. "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. Again I disagree. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control[2001] QB 1134was a case of the Court of Appeal of England and Walesthat established an exception to the defence of consent to trespass to the personand an extension of the duty of care expected in cases of negligence. This may entail suturing of a wound, the assessment of the seriousness of any injury or maybe just simple advice concerning future training or contests. That case involved four further claims by children against local education authorities for, among other things, negligently failing to address their special educational needs. Dr Whiteson did not give evidence. He held the Commonwealth middleweight title from 1989-1991. . 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. The Board contends:-. 88. But at the same time it countenances and gives its blessing to contests where the safety arrangements are those of its making. In laying down Rules for the benefit of boxers generally, however, Mr Walker submitted that the Board was under no duty of care. When carrying out the assessment and advising the education authority, did the psychologist owe a duty of care to the child? As a result of the delay the patient sustained brain damage. He sued the owner, Mr Usherwood and the Popular Flying Association ("the PFA"). 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. It acts as a regulatory rule making body. Treatment that should have been provided at the ringside. I consider that the Judge was entitled to conclude that there was in this case reliance by Mr Watson on the exercise of skill and care by the Board in looking after his safety. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001 . A press release issued in the 1980's', stated: "In the last 20 years, the medical protection of British professional boxers has become the Board's main raison d' trethrough its Medical Committee set up in 1950, it has provided British professional boxing with an unrivalled set of medical safety checks and balances.". While it might be possible to rationalise the reason for the duty by postulating that there is a general reliance by citizens upon the National Health Service to provide reasonable care in the case of a medical emergency, English law has set its face against this line of reasoning. 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 was accepted that, if the survey had been negligent the loss of the cargo was a foreseeable consequence. 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. 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. So far as the promoter was concerned, these delimited his obligations. 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. The issue in this action is not whether the right policy was adopted but simply whether proper care was used in making provision for medical treatment of Mr Watson. It examines the ability of insurers to influence legislation relevant to the tort system. Learn. In consequence this special need was not addressed, to the detriment of the child. At p.1172 he summarised his conclusion as follows:-. The diagnosis is hopelessly wrong. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1734 - Law Journals Case: Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1734 Case Report: Andrew Risk v Rose Bruford College [2013] EWHC 3869 (QB) 12 King's Bench Walk (Chambers of Paul Russell QC) | Personal Injury Law Journal | March 2014 #123 In an article on injuries in professional boxing written in 1981, Dr Whiteson stated: "My task as Senior Medical Officer is to control the medical aspects of boxing and in this to liaise closely with Area Medical Officers and with the team of medical experts which includes neurologists and orthopaedic, plastic and ophthalmic surgeons". In fact the Board had required a third doctor to be present and that an ambulance should be in attendance. In the final round, Watson lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital, arriving there nearly half an hour after the end of the fight and received resuscitation treatment. Serious brain damage such as that suffered by Mr Watson, though happily an uncommon consequence of a boxing injury, represented the most serious risk posed by the sport and one that required to be addressed. The occurrence of a haematoma could not have been prevented but its effects could have been mitigated. 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. A primary stated object of the Board was to look after its boxing member's physical safety. The fight had taken place in accordance with the rules of the British Boxing Board of Control Ltd., ("the Board"). Had the Board said nothing, it might not be liable, but once it gave advice by setting rules, it came to be responsible. In particular they are boxers. In practice the Area Secretary would select the medical officers for a particular contest, albeit that the promoter would pay them. One group of cases involved statutory duties imposed on local authorities for the purpose of protecting children from child abuse. His comment that "it would only have added three minutes or so if he had waited until he was summoned" suggests to the contrary. The third category is of particular importance in the context of this action. This passage was approved by Lord Steyn when the case reached the House of Lords [1996] AC 211 at 235. The broad function of the Board is to support professional boxing. 4. Resuscitation equipment should be at ringside along with person(s) capable of using it". "If the protocol had been in place, and Dr Shapiro had been required to go straight to the ring, he would have begun the necessary procedures within a minute or two of the collapse and so by 23.00. "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? I shall have to examine the facts and reasoning in Perrett in due course, for Mr Mackay, QC, for Mr Watson has relied upon it as providing a close analogy with the present case. (Rule 5.9(c)). He had particular experience of brain injuries caused by sporting activities. He contended that they were in breach of this duty with the consequence that he did not receive the immediate medical attention at the ringside that his condition required. 41. Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 Q.B.D. Thus the. so-called requirements for a duty of care are not to be treated as wholly separate and distinct requirements but rather as convenient and helpful approaches to the pragmatic question whether a duty should be imposed in any given case. There was also an ambulance standing by which had resuscitation equipment and a paramedic who knew how to use this. 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. 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. "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. 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. This has left him paralysed down the left side and with other physical and mental disability. It concludes that, if account is taken of all these areas, insurance has been of vital importance to the law of tort. Watson successfully sued the BBBC for 400,000 after being left with brain injuries following his 1991 fight with Chris Eubank. The Board argued that this demonstrated that the standard applied by the Judge was too high. The educational psychologist was professionally qualified. 81. 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. Nothing that I have heard persuades me that there was any impracticality, whether in terms of manpower or in cost to the promoters, in the Board having included such a requirement in their rules. The decision is of interest for several reasons. 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". IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE Case No: QBENF1999/1137/A2, (1) BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL LIMITED, (2) WORLD BOXING ORGANISATION INCORPORATED, (Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of, Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street, Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, Mr C Mackay, QC and Mr Neil Block (instructed by Myers Fletcher & Gordon) appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Claimant. "In Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Management Committee [1969] 1 Q.B. Without it, the system of personal injury compensation would not have survived. The judgment is attacked root and branch. 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. 74. 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. at p.262 which I have set out above. I turn to consider the extent to which there are categories of cases, in which a duty of care has been held to exist, or alternatively held not to exist involving these features. 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. Attempts have been made, within Parliament and outside, to bring about the banning of the sport of boxing. 127. The relevant findings of the Judge were as follows:-. * Enter a valid Journal (must 29. This submission involves considering the timing of events and the Judge's findings in relation to the impact of these on causation. The Board held itself out as treating the safety of boxers as of paramount importance. 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 . Flashcards. 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. 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 acceptance of the call in this case established the duty of care. 7. The purpose of his assessment was to enable him to give expert advice to the education authority about the child. Whilst unattended he vomited and died as a result of inhaling his own vomit. These facts produced a relationship of close proximity between the Board and those of its members who were professional boxers. 79. 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. 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. in that case.