watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case

He emphasised that the Board does not provide medical treatment or employ doctors. Mr Walker's challenge to these findings was based on a single point. 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. 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. 114. The Politics of traditional-federal state formationand land 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. Found Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor useful? 46. Subsequently they were incorporated in the Rules by an addition to Regulation 8. 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. No one can take part, in any capacity, in professional boxing in this Country who is not licensed by the Board and, at the same time, a member of it, for the two are essentially synonymous. 103. ", 38. 83. In 1991, a world title fight between Michael Watson and Chris Eubank took place in London under the BBBC Rules. I do not consider that a conscious reliance by the patient on the hospital to exercise care is an essential element in this duty of care. 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. b) The rule that a Licence may be suspended or withdrawn if, in the opinion of the Board or an Area Council, the licence-holder is not medically fit to box (Rule 4.9(b)(I)). The distinction between negligent misstatement and other forms of conduct ceases to be legally relevant, although it may have a factual relevance to foresight or causation. 11. 133. 55. The Board assumes the responsibility of determining the nature of the medical facilities and assistance to be provided. He answered that it took something like the injury to Mr Watson to make the Committee think of changing the practice. The fight had taken place in accordance with the rules of the British Boxing Board of Control Ltd., ("the Board"). 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. ii) rules designed to restrict the physical injuries that may be caused in the course of the fight; iii) rules designed to secure that a boxer receives appropriate medical attention when injured in the course of a fight. [2] He was given no oxygen, and first sent to a hospital which lacked a neurosurgery unit. A . 37. The acceptance of the call in this case established the duty of care. 5. the British Boxing Board of Control was found to . He would only use it to overcome breathing difficulties. 32. Thereafter the effect of delay was less important, although brain damage occurred cumulatively until death. 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. 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. In these circumstances the Board should owe no greater duty of care than that imposed on a rescuer, that is a duty to exercise reasonable care not to make the situation worse, but no duty to reduce the damage that would have occurred in any event had the rescuer not intervened - see Capital and Counties plc v. Hampshire County Council. the Hillsborough cases: e.g. 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. Moreover, the tendering of any advice will in many cases involve interviewing and, in the case of doctors, examining the child. A preliminary issue was tried as to whether Mr Usherwood and the PFA owed the Plaintiff a duty of care. In the event Mr Walker did not put this pleaded Ground of Appeal at the forefront of his argument. I turn to the distinctive features of this case. 106. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - Alchetron, the free social 2. While Buxton L.J. 2. 28. England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor. Mr Watson brought an action against the Board. On a preliminary issue the House of Lords held that the classification society had no duty of care to the cargo owners. Efforts continue and will continue to improve safety standards and these efforts are and were on-going prior to the Watson fight.". It is sometimes said that there has to be an assumption of responsibility by the person concerned. No medical assistance was provided. The facilities include a scheme which enables members to construct and fly their own light aircraft. 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. His belief was that the brain damage that occurred in each case could probably have been avoided in whole or in a large part if the boxer had received immediate resuscitation at the ringside. The fight was terminated at 22.54. The relevant allegations of negligence can be summarised as follows: * The Board failed to inform itself adequately about the risks inherent in a blow to the head; * The Board failed to require the provision of resuscitation equipment at the venue, together with the presence of persons capable of operating such equipment. 50. The Board's authority is essentially based upon the consent of the boxing world. The request for an ambulance was accepted. 7. held that. By then, so he submitted, the evidence established that the damage would have been done. . In my judgement in the present cases, the social workers and the psychiatrist did not, by accepting the instructions of the local authority, assume any general professional duty of care to the plaintiff children. Lord Mustill reached the same conclusion in R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 at p.265, where he gave the following description of professional boxing: "For money, not recreation or personal improvement, each boxer tries to hurt the opponent more than he is hurt himself, and aims to end the contest prematurely by inflicting a brain injury serious enough to make the opponent unconscious, or temporarily by impairing his central nervous system through a blow to the midriff, or cutting his skin to a degree which would ordinarily be well within the scope of Section 20. In support of that proposition Mr. Walker relied upon, 79. Tort Law - Negligence | PDF | Negligence | Damages - Scribd Try and prevent and/or treat raised intracranial pressure. 20. Cargo owners sued the classification society N.K.K. 73. 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. Insurance and the tort system | Legal Studies | Cambridge Core Again I disagree. PFA was not a commercial undertaking. The rise in pressure inside the skull caused by the haematoma results in distortion of the brain. ", 126. 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. .Cited Jane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions CA 5-Nov-2004 The claimants husband died when his car skidded on hoar frost. This concludes my summary of the facts which I consider material to the question of whether the Board owed a duty of care to Mr Watson. The facts of this case are not common to other sports. The principles alleged to give rise to a duty of care in this case are those of assumption of responsibility and reliance. He makes a diagnosis and advises the education authority. 76. Licence holders are also required to comply with the Board's policy in respect of matters not dealt with by specific rules. 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.". BBC SPORT | OTHER SPORTS | Boxing board loses appeal 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. In Barrett v. Ministry of Defence [1995] 1 WLR a naval rating drank himself into a state of insensibility at the Royal Navy Air Station where he was serving. [3] Kennedy held that there was a "sufficient nexus" between Watson and the BBBC to create a duty of care, and that Watson's consent to the fight (which would normally be considered a defence of volenti non fit injuria) was not a consent to the inadequate safety measures. 1. The leading case in terms of the duty of care owed by governing bodies in UK law is Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134, where the governing body was held to be liable for the horrific injuries suffered by Michael Watson in his boxing bout with Chris Eubank. This care was insufficient, and as such Watson was in a coma for 40 days, and spent 6 years in a wheelchair. The North Middlesex Hospital had no neurosurgical department, so Mr Watson was transferred by ambulance, still unconscious, to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. contains alphabet). Tort Case Law Flashcards | Quizlet A primary stated object of the Board was to look after its boxing member's physical safety. 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 . 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. Sutradhar v. Natural Environment Research Council - Casemine 15. 116. Any such inspector has to be approved by the association". 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. These cases establish that where A advises B as to action to be taken which will directly and foreseeably affect the safety or well-being of C, a situation of sufficient proximity exists to found a duty of care on the part of A towards C. Whether in fact such a duty arises will depend upon the facts of the individual case and, in particular, upon whether such a duty of care would cut across any statutory scheme pursuant to which the advice was given. 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.". Instead he argued that even if resuscitation had been used, it would have been used too late to affect the outcome. In Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 K.B. If the boxer remains unconscious, then full emergency procedures should be undertaken, the stretcher placed in the ring, the boxer very carefully transferred to it, preferably by skilled handlers and, if needs be, the other doctor should by then have rung ambulance control and have contacted the local hospital to inform them of the problem. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - Wikipedia 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. Search for more papers by this author. 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. If such head teacher gives advice to the parents, then in my judgment he must exercise the skills and care of a reasonable teacher in giving such advice. 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. Search for more papers by this author. Michael Watson MBE, born 15 March 1965, is a British former professional boxer who competed from 1984-1991. On his initiative a meeting took place with the Minister for Sport, two of Mr Hamlyn's colleagues, the Board's Chief Medical Officer, Dr Whiteson, and other board officials on 16th October 1991. Negligence duty of care - Marc Rich & Co v Bishop Rock Marine Co "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. 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. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. The third category is of particular importance in the context of this action. 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. It would seem impossible to contend that the plaintiff would not be affected by the decisions and plans drawn up by the architect.". 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 . 85. It shall be adequately lit, have an examination couch and possess hot and cold running water. 2. PDF An adjacent duty of care? 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. 58. 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. It has the ability to require of promoters what it sees as good practice. . There an operation was carried out to evacuate a sub-dural haematoma. 14. 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. In my judgment, the same duty applies to any other person possessed of special skills, such as a social worker. It was foreseeable that the claimant could suffer personal injuries if there was delay. In that case a doctor phoned for an ambulance to take to hospital urgently a patient who had suffered an asthma attack. 57. Establish an accurate diagnosis as to the intracranial pathology. Dealing with the arguments of policy advanced on behalf of PFA, Buxton L.J. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, who noted that the BBBC had a duty not only to ensure that injuries did not occur, but that injuries were properly treated. that the negligence alleged fell into the category of directly causing foreseeable personal injury, both he and Swinton Thomas L.J. The vessel sailed and sank a few days later with the loss of the cargo. He held that he was 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 that which Mr Hamlyn was later to propose.