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

English case law has developed, with various twists and turns, in the problematic field of factual causation. Thus boxers, promoters, managers, referees, time-keepers, trainers, seconds, masters of ceremonies, match-makers, agents for overseas boxers, ringmasters and whips all have to be licensed by the Board to perform their particular functions and become, when granted their licences, members of the Board. "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. In fact, it took very much longer than a few minutes to get to the hospital, for reasons that were not identified at the trial. The patient can then be taken straight to the nearest neurosurgical unit. 86. CLUE. On 24 September 1999 Ian Kennedy J., gave judgment in favour of Mr Watson against the Board. 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. There is a general reliance by the public on the fire service and the police to reduce those risks. Citation. I confess I entertain no doubt on how that question should be answered. 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. 69. The ambulance took him to North Middlesex Hospital, which was less than a mile away. This sequence can result in cumulative damage to the brain, leading sooner or later to death. The rise in pressure inside the skull caused by the haematoma results in distortion of the brain. The background to this case was described by Hobhouse L.J. In each case it was alleged that the professional in question negligently failed to diagnose dyslexia. The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. 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. 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.". My reaction is the same as that of Buxton L.J. 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. 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. Ormrod L.J. A doctor must be available to give immediate attention to any boxer should this be required. 6. 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". 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. expounded the relevant principles of law in the following passages: "A minimum requirement of particularity and contemplation is required. The Board had, or had access to, specialist expertise in relation to appropriate standards of medical care. a) Requirements as to protective covering for the ring floor and the corners (Rule 3.4). 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. They support the proposition that the act of undertaking to cater for the medical needs of a victim of illness or injury will generally carry with it the duty to exercise reasonable care in addressing those needs. Afternoon in a Yellow Room, by Charles Edwar, CHRONICLES - The Unz 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". Michael Watson MBE, born 15 March 1965, is a British former professional boxer who competed from 1984-1991. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - Wikipedia '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.". The ordinary test of reasonable skill and care is the correct one to apply. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. By the time he received resuscitation in hospital he had sustained permanent brain damage which such treatment would have prevented. This can, of itself, result in the restriction of the supply of oxygen to the brain. The position is directly analogous with a hospital conducted, formerly by a local authority now by a health authority, in exercise of statutory powers. In the second place it was not practical to use this equipment while the ambulance was on the move. Thus the necessary `proximity' was not made out. 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. 7. Questioned further by the Judge, he agreed that to the best of his recollection, there was no discussion during the 1980's about whether the practice of stabilising victims of head injuries at the scene of the event, should be applied to the sport of Boxing. 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. The Judge accepted that this was the case but ruled that in the final analysis that it was for the Court to determine whether even the most widely followed practice was acceptable. Test. 131. The third category is of particular importance in the context of this action. 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.". It is a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that personal injuries already sustained are properly treated. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. 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". . I have already indicated that I do not accept the basis of the challenge of the Judge's finding that the protocol in place ought to have included a requirement for a doctor to attend immediately where a fight was stopped because a boxer could no longer defend himself. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. He emphasised that the Board does not provide medical treatment or employ doctors. c) The rule that if a fight is stopped by the referee or a boxer is counted out, the boxer's licence is suspended for at least 28 days and until the boxer is certified fit to box by a doctor. 23. [8], "BBC Sport Poignant end to Watson's epic journey", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watson_v_British_Boxing_Board_of_Control&oldid=1049029766, This page was last edited on 9 October 2021, at 12:23. In the course of his work he assesses a pupil whose lack of progress at school has been causing concern all round: to teachers and parents alike. 99. 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. 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. In an opinion read by Phillips MR, the court upheld Kennedy's decision, noting that it "broke new ground". the British Boxing Board of Control was found to . Thus in Capital and Counties v. Hampshire this Court held that a fire brigade was under no common law duty to answer a call for help or, having done so, to exercise reasonable skill and care to extinguish the fire. The Board has argued that until this accident no-one had suggested that they should institute this protocol. But at the same time it countenances and gives its blessing to contests where the safety arrangements are those of its making. The Board held itself out as treating the safety of boxers as of paramount importance. The phrase means simply that the law recognises that there is a duty of care. 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. Each doctor is expected to attend a tournament fully equipped to cover all emergencies. 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. 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. That is true as a fact. The probability must therefore have been that he could have been among those patients who would have had a favourable outcome, or no circumstance peculiar to his physical make-up has been identified to suggest why that should not be so". In Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 K.B. .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. I have not heard evidence to the effect that the Board or its medical advisers had before this incident considered, and for some reason decided not to follow, what may not unfairly be called this protocol. 2. The Claimant would have been resuscitated within a few minutes of 23.00 and in St. Bartholomews by 23.45 at the latest. 45. The vessel sailed and sank a few days later with the loss of the cargo. The undertaking is to use the special skills which the doctor and hospital authorities have to treat the patient. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. While it is difficult, or perhaps impossible, to avoid a degree of subjectivity when considering what is fair, just and reasonable, the approach must be to apply established principles and standards. 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. In practice the Area Secretary would select the medical officers for a particular contest, albeit that the promoter would pay them. Mon 8 Oct 2001 12.23 EDT Michael Watson will receive no more than 400,000 compensation in settlement of a damages claim worth up to 2.5m. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. 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. No medical assistance was provided. 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. 116. That regulation has been provided by the Board. 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. James George, James George. 68. 62. 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. Sports injuries - Edge Hill University There are also reasons of public policy for not imposing a duty of care to individuals in relation to the performance of their functions. * Enter a valid Journal (must Applied Barrett v Ministry of Defence CA 3-Jan-1995 The deceased was an off-duty naval airman. 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. These make it necessary: i) to identify the principles which are relied upon as giving rise to a duty of care in this case. "What emerges is that, in addition to the forceability of damage, necessary ingredients in any situation giving rise to a duty of care are that there should exist between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed, a relationship characterised by the law as one of "proximity" or "neighbourhood" and that the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope upon the one party for the benefit of the other". Hobhouse L.J. 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.". Mr Morris told the court that he would expect the Medical Committee, and its Chief Medical Officer, to keep abreast of developments in sports medicine that impacted on the safety of boxers in the ring. There is no doubt that once the relationship of doctor and patient or hospital authority and admitted patient exists, the doctor or the hospital owe a duty to take reasonable care to effect a cure, not merely to prevent further harm. 91. On the evidence I consider that the Judge was entitled to find that, even if resuscitation had not been commenced until after help was summoned, it would probably have resulted in a significantly better outcome for Mr Watson. In laying down Rules for the benefit of boxers generally, however, Mr Walker submitted that the Board was under no duty of care. While Buxton L.J. In support of that proposition Mr. Walker relied upon, 79. 124. He said that a report had identified the risks. Thus the criteria identified by Hobhouse L.J. Secondly, to identify any categories of cases in which these principles It shall be adequately lit, have an examination couch and possess hot and cold running water. At the third stage, questions of `proximity' and of what is `fair, just and reasonable' have to be considered. In other words, he could have been resuscitated on site and then transferred for more specific care. PDF An adjacent duty of care? A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media Therefore, it is said, it is nothing to the point that the social workers and psychiatrist only came into contact with the plaintiffs pursuant to contracts or arrangements made between the professionals and the local authority for the purpose of the discharge by the local authority of its statutory duties. 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. 9. His evidence was that it was his practice to use it where a patient was experiencing breathing difficulties. Mr Morris, commenting in his Witness Statement on the Statement of Claim, stated: "We do collaborate with the medical profession, indeed we believe that our Rules are as good as currently can be devised, taking into account the medical interests of the boxers, and the requirements of the sport itself. If PFA was not liable in negligence, the Plaintiff might be left without a remedy against anyone. 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. 1 result for "watson v british boxing board of control 2001" hide this ad. The Board assumes the, 89. 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. 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". 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. I consider that the Judge could properly have done so. I do not find this surprising. He received only occasional visits of inspection by the duty ratings. 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. In 1991 it was also the practice to infuse with Manitol, though as I understand it this is no longer the case today.