watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case

He inferred that professional boxers would be unlikely to have an innate or well informed concern about safety. Mr Watson was one of a defined number of boxing members of the Board. This ground of appeal would have been unsustainable. In theory the medical officers at a contest would be appointed and paid by the Promoter from the body of approved doctors. By the time he received resuscitation in hospital he had sustained permanent brain damage which such treatment would have prevented. Treatment that should have been provided at the ringside. 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. 131. At this meeting Mr Hamlyn expressed the view that it was vital that at the ringside there should be the right doctors with the right equipment. 94. Effects are usually short-lived and do not produce lasting damage. 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. 29. Therefore in giving that advice he owes a duty to the child to exercise the skill and care of a reasonable advisory teacher.". Try and prevent and/or treat raised intracranial pressure. In a nutshell, his case was that the resuscitation treatment that he received at the North Middlesex Hospital should have been available at the ringside, but was not. The General Medical Council clearly states that a doctor must offer help when off-duty, if an emergency arises. 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. 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.". In these circumstances there is no close proximity between the services and the general public. Test. 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. The relevant findings of the Judge were as follows:-. Plainly, however, the longer the delay, the more serious the outcome. 74. In my judgment there is a difference in principle between making Rules and giving advice, but it is not one which assists the Board. [3] Watson spent 40 days in a coma and 6 years in a wheelchair, with doctors initially predicting that he would never walk again. He makes a diagnosis and advises the education authority. 91. Questions of what was fair and reasonable did not arise. 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)). Michael Alexander Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd, World Boxing Organisation Incorporated: CA 19 Dec 2000 The claimant was seriously injured in a professional boxing match governed by rules established by the defendant's rules. In these circumstances the claim against Mr Usherwood was a conventional claim for carelessness causing direct and foreseeable personal injury. Thus it has been held that the prison service owes a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent prisoners from committing suicide. The onlookers derive entertainment, but none of the physical and moral benefits which have been seen as the fruits of engagement in many sports.". They argued that if they had failed to exercise reasonable care, this was not the direct cause of the Plaintiff's injuries - the direct cause being that the aircraft had been designed in a manner that made it unairworthy. In 1989 it was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee. In 1991, a world title fight between Michael Watson and Chris Eubank took place in London under the BBBC Rules. In consequence, the pupil fails to receive the appropriate educational treatment and, as a result, his educational progress is retarded, perhaps irreparably. If Mr Watson has no remedy against the Board, he has no remedy at all. 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. The Board, however, went far beyond this. 85. Next the Board argued that the presence of an ambulance, with resuscitation equipment, should have satisfied the Judge that this aspect of medical care was adequately provided. [2001] QB 1134 was a case of the Court of Appeal of England The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. This contention had some similarities to submissions made in relation to the Popular Flying Association in Perrett v Collins. Search for more papers by this author. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . Mr Walker's challenge to these findings was based on a single point. 105. 21. On a preliminary issue the House of Lords held that the classification society had no duty of care to the cargo owners. It concludes that, if account is taken of all these areas, insurance has been of vital importance to the law of tort. 3. A boxer member of the Board would not be aware of the details of all these matters. I agree that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Lord Phillips M.R. He gave evidence that he agreed with Mr Hamlyn's views. 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". They also argued that it was not fair, just and reasonable that the PFA should be liable to negligence. I see no reason why the rules should not have contained the provision suggested by the Judge. He did so, notwithstanding, so it was alleged, that the mismatch between gearbox and propeller made the aircraft unairworthy. 104. In this case the following matters are particularly material: 1. It would seem impossible to contend that the plaintiff would not be affected by the decisions and plans drawn up by the architect.". This can, of itself, result in the restriction of the supply of oxygen to the brain. Dealing with the arguments of policy advanced on behalf of PFA, Buxton L.J. 133. The patient is then artificially ventilated through this tube with oxygen. 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. Caring for the needs of boxers, and in particular the physical safety of boxers, is the primary object of the Board. the British Boxing Board of Control was found to . 111. A primary stated object of the Board was to look after its boxing member's physical safety. He further alleged that had he received that treatment, he would not have sustained permanent brain damage. 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. These are explored in the authorities to which I have referred earlier. 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. 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. Whilst unattended he vomited and died as a result of inhaling his own vomit. No reasonably competent educational psychologist, exercising reasonable skill and care, would have given such advice. The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. It is said, rightly, that in general such professional duty of care is owed irrespective of contract and can arise even where the professional assumes to act for the plaintiff pursuant to a contract with a third party: Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145; White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207. At the third stage, questions of `proximity' and of what is `fair, just and reasonable' have to be considered. 9. This is a further factor which tends to establish the proximity necessary for 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. 23. 35. In 1991 there were only about 550 active boxers, of which almost all were semi-professional. 110. 343, Denning L.J. iii) Those taking part in the activity, and Mr Watson in particular, relied upon the Board to ensure that all reasonable steps were taken to provide immediate and effective medical attention and treatment to those injured in the course of the activity. 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 concern of the Board for the physical safety of boxers is reflected in many of the Board's rules and regulations. The Judge's findings in relation to breach of duty appear from the following passages in his judgment: "The standard response where the presence of subdural bleeding is known or suspected has been agreed since at least 1980, which is to intubate, ventilate, sedate, paralyse, and in Britain at least, to administer Manitol. 103. Saville L.J. "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. Boxing is the only sport where this is the object of the exercise. When carrying out the assessment and advising the education authority, did the psychologist owe a duty of care to the child? 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 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 body set up by the Board that gave particular consideration to safety standards was a Medical Committee, sometimes referred to as The Medical Panel, that was set up in 1950. The present case can only be decided on the basis of an intense and particular focus on all its distinctive features, and then applying established legal principles to it.". He was also given an injection of Manitol, a diuretic that can have the effect of reducing swelling of the brain. Some boxers employed their own doctors. The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . This involved taking precautions or giving instructions for them to be taken so that the work could be done with safety. 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. 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. At the outset, however, I propose to identify some significant features of the present case, which place it outside any established category of duty of care in negligence. 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. At the end of the contest one doctor remains ringside, the other should follow both contestants back to the dressing room and should at least check that both boxers are in a satisfactory condition and if not instigate any treatment that is required, preferably in the treatment room provided. The social workers and the psychiatrists were retained by the local authority to advise the local authority, not the plaintiffs. 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. 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. 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. 54. The arrival of the ambulance was greatly delayed without any reasonable explanation. 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. (Compare also Clay v AJ Crump & Sons Ltd [1964] 1 QB 533 in which an architect had complete control over whether a dangerous wall was left standing and Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd [2001] QB 1134 in which the Board had control over the medical services provided at boxing matches.) The statutory obligations in relation to certifying airworthiness was designed, at least in substantial part, for the protection of those who might be injured if an aircraft was certified as being fit to fly when it was not. These recommendations Mr Hamlyn set out in a detailed paper for the Board two days later. No medical assistance was provided. These make it necessary: i) to identify the principles which are relied upon as giving rise to a duty of care in this case. These facts bring the Board into close proximity with each individual boxer who contracts with a promoter to fight under the Board's rules. Next Mr. Walker argued that the duty of care alleged was one owed for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate number of persons. Such a concept belongs to the law of trespass not to the law of negligence".. "Where the plaintiff belongs to a class which either is or ought to be within the contemplation of the defendant and the defendant by reason of his involvement in an activity which gives him a measure of control over and responsibility for a situation which, if dangerous, will be liable to injure the plaintiff, the defendant is liable if as a result of his unreasonable lack of care he causes a situation to exist which does in fact cause the plaintiff injury. 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 owner of the aircraft took off, with the Plaintiff onboard as a passenger. The doctor does not, by examining the applicant, come under any general duty of medical care to the applicant. 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. contains alphabet). 14. 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. 63. 4. If, which I doubt, this conclusion represents any step beyond what is already settled law, I am fully persuaded it is a proper one to take.". In its statutory context the ambulance service is more properly described as part of the National Health Service than as a rescue service. The ordinary test of reasonable skill and care is the correct one to apply. radio After the operation Mr Watson was taken to the intensive care unit where he arrived at 04.45. .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. 25. Next Mr Walker argued that the Board did not create the danger of injury or the need for medical assistance. 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. 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. A defendant seeking to disturb the findings of fact of a trial Judge in relation to causation undertakes a hard task. 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. I turn to the law. 3.10 The promoter shall procure that at all promotions a stretcher is available for use near the ring. 107. First published: 28 June 2008. 10. The undertaking is to use the special skills which the doctor and hospital authorities have to treat the patient. 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. 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. The plaintiff's allegation is that during this process an alternative gearbox was fitted without the appropriate and corresponding substitution of a propeller which matched the substituted gearbox. Thus a person may be liable for directing someone into a dangerous location (e.g. 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. 26. This contention had some similarities to submissions made in relation to the Popular Flying Association in. 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. 81. Its experience, contacts and resources exceed his own. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. 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. A case that is instructive is the English case of Watson v British Boxing Board of Control ([2001] 2 WLR 1256), the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC) was held liable for the injuries sustained by Michael Watson. ", The Regime Applying to the Contest Between Watson and Eubank. 122. 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. In X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633 five appeals were heard together by the House of Lords because they raised, by way of preliminary issues, similar questions about the duty of care. The doctors who were actually present were not aware of the desirability of immediate resuscitation of a victim with a brain haemorrhage. 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. 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. 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. In order that, when complete, the aircraft can obtain first a provisional and then a full certificate of airworthiness, the assembly of the aircraft has to be supervised and checked by an inspector. 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? The move is being made as a cost-cutting measure in the wake of the Michael Watson case. If wrong information had not been given about the arrival of the ambulance, other means of transport could have been used". * The Board failed to require a medical examination of Mr Watson immediately following the conclusion of the contest. In the event, without explanation, he was not tendered as a witness and objection was taken to the use of his witness statement. I do not believe that the evidence admits of any accurate answer to this question but that is by no means an uncommon situation in cases of this sort. 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. 39. The Board assumes the, 89. 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. This Court held that the Ministry of Defence had been under no duty of care to prevent the deceased from abusing alcohol to the extent that he did. 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. Dr Ross, the Board's Chief Medical Officer for the Southern Area, was asked why the Medical Committee did not make the recommendations made after Mr Watson's injuries at an earlier stage. An operation was carried out to remove a moderate size haematoma and to close such veins as were found to be oozing blood. I now come to the second special feature of this case - the fact that the Board is not charged with having failed itself to provide appropriate medical treatment, but with having failed to impose rules and regulations which would have ensured that others did so. At p.1172 he summarised his conclusion as follows:-. 84. Once the defendant had become involved in the activity which gives rise to the risk, he comes under the duty to act reasonably in all respects relevant to that risk. England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor. 1. One group of cases involved statutory duties imposed on local authorities for the purpose of protecting children from child abuse. 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. 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. The next ground advanced by the Board in support of the contention that the Judge applied too high a standard, was that there was no evidence that any other boxing authority in the World imposed more rigorous requirements than those of the Board's rules. (Vowles v Evans and the Welsh Rugby Union Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 318), governing bodies for failing to provide in their rules for appropriate medical provision at ringside in a boxing match (Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134), . At the hospital Mr Watson was given the conventional resuscitation procedure - that is intubation, ventilation, oxygen and an infusion of Manitol. 85) or a producer may be liable for the absence of an adequate warning on the labelling of his product (e.g. His answer was that he was sure that these things were discussed but he could not remember. [2] He was given no oxygen, and first sent to a hospital which lacked a neurosurgery unit. There is no statutory basis for this. 80. 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. Moreover, since the professionals could foresee that negligent advice would damage the plaintiffs, they are liable to the plaintiffs for tendering such advice to the local authority Like the majority in the Court of Appeal, I cannot accept these arguments.