In that case Hobhouse L.J. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control The Importance of Evidence in Proving a Breach of Duty Rugby Rugby is a dangerous sport with heavy body collisions between players and regularly, multiple players at any given time. I would echo the comment of Lord Steyn in Marc Rich & Co. v Bishop Rock Ltd [1996] AC 211 at p.236: "None of the cases cited provided any realistic analogy to be used as a springboard for a decision one way or the other in this case. 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. At p.1172 he summarised his conclusion as follows:-. 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". A Respondent's Notice was served contending that the Judge could and should have drawn an adverse inference from his failure to give evidence. 83. Mr Watson received resuscitation and neuro-surgery in hospital in circumstances that I shall describe when I come to deal with causation. The request for an ambulance was accepted. It is supplied to amateur flyers in a kit form which they can then assemble for themselves. I turn to the distinctive features of this case. He won a historic High Court case in Sept 1999, raising questions about the future of the professional sport in the UK. If it had in place the appropriate protocols for provision of medical care, the claimants injuries would not have been so severe. 113. In any event it would be quite wrong to determine the result of the individual facts of this case by formulating a principle of general policy that sporting regulatory bodies should owe no duty of care in respect of the formulation of their rules and regulations. More significantly, he would not be in a position to know whether the provisions that the Board required to be put in place represented all that it was reasonable to provide for his safety. The patient is then artificially ventilated through this tube with oxygen. 94. 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. If wrong information had not been given about the arrival of the ambulance, other means of transport could have been used". The onlookers derive entertainment, but none of the physical and moral benefits which have been seen as the fruits of engagement in many sports.". 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. 428 Nield J. drew a distinction between a casualty department of a hospital that closes its doors and says no patients can be received, in which case he would, by inference, have held there was no duty of care, and the case before him where the three watchmen, who had taken poison, entered the hospital and were given erroneous advice, where a duty of care arose. Each venue must have a room set aside exclusively for medical purposes. In its statutory context the ambulance service is more properly described as part of the National Health Service than as a rescue service. 121. This can, of itself, result in the restriction of the supply of oxygen to the brain. The comparison drawn by Mr Walker between the Board and a rescuer is not apt. Dealing with the arguments of policy advanced on behalf of PFA, Buxton L.J. The social workers and the psychiatrists were retained by the local authority to advise the local authority, not the plaintiffs. (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.) 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. The Claimant would have been resuscitated within a few minutes of 23.00 and in St. Bartholomews by 23.45 at the latest. 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. The witness best placed to deal with the consideration, if any, given to this matter would have been Mr Whiteson. 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. 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 final question is, to what extent? 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. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. 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. 65. 58. Professor Teasdale had some reservations about the effectiveness of some of this, but he accepted that this was standard practice. 20. In 1991 the Board had about twelve hundred licence holders and members of which about five hundred and fifty were active boxers. The conduct of the activity of professional boxing carries with it, for the small body of men that take part in it, the need for the provision of medical assistance to treat the injuries that they sustain and minimise their adverse consequences. "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.". change. Test. The Court of Appeal drew a correct analogy with the doctor instructed by an insurance company to examine an applicant for the life insurance. (Rule 8.1). 14. 100. Ormrod L.J. James George, James George. Herbert Smith, London. That regulation has been provided by the Board. Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE Case No: QBENF1999/1137/A2 COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (THE HON MR JUSTICE IAN KENNEDY) Tuesday 19th December 2000 THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS LORD JUSTICE MAY LORD JUSTICE LAWS Respondent/Claimant The setting of rules could be akin to the giving of advice and thus had an indirect influence on the occurrence of the injury. 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.". So may be an education officer performing the functions of a local education authority in regard to children with special educational needs. In 1991, a world title fight between Michael Watson and Chris Eubank took place in London under the BBBC Rules. This would mean an appointment of a Senior Medical officer specifically for the major event and then two other doctors on duty to ensure that there were always two doctors at the ringside while a major contest was taking place.". 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 view of this, they said that there should have been available at the ringside resuscitation equipment and doctors who knew how to use this. Once resuscitation, or stabilisation has taken place, the next stage is neuro-surgery to remove the haematoma and seal any ruptured veins or arteries. Dr Ross, who was a member of the Medical Committee for a number of years before the Watson fight, was asked whether he remembered discussions about treatment in the ring of head injuries before that fight. He sued the owner, Mr Usherwood and the Popular Flying Association ("the PFA"). Indirect Influence on the Occurrence of Injury. 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. He would only use it to overcome breathing difficulties. In the event those same procedures could not have been begun before 23.25 at the earliest, to allow some time for an examination after the claimant's recorded time of arrival at the North Middlesex. From at least 1959 the Board kept under review the medical safeguards that should be provided at a boxing contest in the light of developing medical knowledge, or purported so to do. 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. 129. So in my view is an educational psychologist or psychiatrist and a teacher including a teacher in a specialised area, such as a teacher concerned with children having special educational needs. ii) to identify any categories of cases in which these principles have given rise to a duty of care, or conversely where they have not done so. He had in fact sustained a brain haemorrhage and, after returning to his corner, he lapsed into unconsciousness on his stool. 63. It was foreseeable that the claimant could suffer personal injuries if there was delay. In the event Mr Walker did not put this pleaded Ground of Appeal at the forefront of his argument. He emphasised that the Board does not provide medical treatment or employ doctors. No contest shall take place unless fully trained personnel are able to operate such resuscitation equipment are present throughout the promotion.". In Caparo Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, and in many subsequent cases, the House of Lords and this Court have approved the approach to the development of the law of negligence recommended by Brennan J. in the High Court of Australia in Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 60 A.L.R. The Bout Agreement, which was subject to the sanction of the Board, provided that: "The bout will be conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the WBO and BBBC". 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. Mr Usherwood had authority, under an Order made pursuant to the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to certify that the aircraft was fit to fly. 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. 3. 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. In consequence this special need was not addressed, to the detriment of the child. If he volunteers his assistance, his only duty as a matter of law is not to make the victim's condition worse. If PFA was not liable in negligence, the Plaintiff might be left without a remedy against anyone. This has left him paralysed down the left side and with other physical and mental disability. The nature of the damage was important. This submission involves considering the timing of events and the Judge's findings in relation to the impact of these on causation. Citation. In this case the following matters are particularly material: 1. 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. Likewise, in Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134 the defendant was found to owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff boxer who had suffered more significant injury b.. Request a trial to view additional results 1 firm's commentaries Heading The Ball: Part Of The Game Or An Industrial Disease United Kingdom Mondaq UK English case law has developed, with various twists and turns, in the problematic field of factual causation. 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". .Cited Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd ChD 12-Mar-2008 The claimant said that the defendant bookmakers had been negligent in allowing him to continue betting when they should have known that he was acting under an addiction. 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. I can summarise the position as follows. .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. 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. The background to this case was described by Hobhouse L.J. b) A limit on the number of rounds to twelve (Rule 3.7). 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. 130. The patient can then be taken straight to the nearest neurosurgical unit. The Board, however, went far beyond this. . There an operation was carried out to evacuate a sub-dural haematoma. In 1991 it was also the practice to infuse with Manitol, though as I understand it this is no longer the case today. 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. At the hospital Mr Watson was given the conventional resuscitation procedure - that is intubation, ventilation, oxygen and an infusion of Manitol. 76. I do not believe there is any difference in principle between giving advice about safety and laying down rules to provide for safety. The aircraft crashed and the Plaintiff sustained personal injuries. 11. 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". Mr Block, the Secretary of the Board's Southern Area Council, reported to the Board that the arrangements in place were satisfactory and that the tournament could receive the Board's approval. 47. about 23.01. 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. I conclude that the Judge correctly found that the Board owed Mr Watson a duty of care. 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. A primary stated object of the Board was to look after its boxing member's physical safety. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. The child has a learning difficulty. The word puzzle answer watson v british boxing board of control 2001 has these clues in the Sporcle Puzzle Library. 108. It is not so much that responsibility is assumed as that it is recognised or imposed by the law.". There is no question but that anyone with the appropriate expertise would have advised such a system whatever reservations they may have had, as had Professor Teasdale, about its ultimate utility.". 62. 67. The board lost its. if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[320,100],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_5',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Cited by: Cited Binod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council CA 20-Feb-2004 The defendant council had carried out research into a water supply in India in the 1980s. He had particular experience of brain injuries caused by sporting activities. The Board called to give evidence Mr Peter Richards, a Consultant Neuro-Surgeon with Charing Cross Hospital between 1987 and 1995. The article examines this regulatory framework; where traditional attitudes about the social desirability of sport and acceptance of harm support an autonomous self-regulatory approach, often insulated from the full application of the criminal law. It is, however, clear that the test is an objective one: Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd., [1995] 2 AC 145, 181. 3. That, however, did not prove to be the position. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. The final point taken by the Board was that they did not receive advice in relation to the desirability of ringside resuscitation until after Mr Watson's injuries. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001). Flashcards. 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. depending upon the court's attitude to the case before it. The issue is whether the standard of reasonable care required the Board to change their practice in order to address the risks of such injuries before the Watson/Eubank fight. 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. The duty of the Board and of those advising it on medical matters, was to be prospective in their thinking and seek competent advice as to how a recognised danger could be combated. 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. 50. Search for more papers by this author. 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. 105. 109. Secondly, to identify any categories of cases in which these principles 125. I consider that the Judge could properly have done so. 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. There are features of this case which are extraordinary, if not unique. 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. 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. Mr Usherwood, who alone of those involved had technical expertise, might be the only person who had been negligent. At the third stage, questions of `proximity' and of what is `fair, just and reasonable' have to be considered. The role of Mr Usherwood was distinct and independent from the role of the constructor of the plane. The physical safety of boxers has always been a prime concern of the Board. He was present at the meeting held with the Minister for Sport after Mr Watson's injuries. 15. Watson successfully sued the BBBC for 400,000 after being left with brain injuries following his 1991 fight with Chris Eubank. 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 my judgment, the same duty applies to any other person possessed of special skills, such as a social worker. There had been a number of similar cases in the 1980's. 92. e) The rule that any boxer selected to take part in a championship contest shall submit to the Board a satisfactory centralised tomography (CT) brain scan report not less than 28 days before the contest and a further scan report annually, so long as the boxer continues to take part in such contests. She claimed in negligence and occupiers liability. Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users . What it does do does at least reduce the dangers inherent in professional boxing. In delivering the leading speech Lord Browne-Wilkinson observed at p.739: "The question whether there is such a common law duty and if so its ambit, must be profoundly influenced by the statutory framework within which the acts complained of were done.". Of course.these three matters overlap with each other and are really facets of the same thing. They have not succeeded. He was brought in by the education authority to assist it in carrying out its educational functions. The relevant findings of the Judge were as follows:-. 116. England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor. 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. Indeed it is difficult to resist a conclusion that what have been treated as three separate requirements are, at least in most cases, in fact merely facets of the same thing, for in some cases the degree of foreseeability is such that it is from that alone that the requisite proximity can be deduced, whilst in others the absence of that essential relationship can most rationally be attributed simply to the court's view that it would not be fair and reasonable to hold the defendant responsible. 24. The Board next drew attention to evidence that a member of the public having sustained brain damage in a road accident would not expect to receive from the ambulance attending the scene the resuscitation service which the Judge held should have been available at the ringside. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. 12. The Board exercises its control of professional boxing through a system of eight Area Councils, subject to overall control by Stewards and Committees. Establish an accurate diagnosis as to the intracranial pathology. radio in that case. On the law relied upon by the Judge, this was all that Mr Watson needed to succeed. The facilities include a scheme which enables members to construct and fly their own light aircraft. The hospital should be requested to confirm that a Neuro-Surgeon would be on stand-by. [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 Board is non-profit making. CLUE. Mr Watson collapsed unconscious within a minute or so of this. The occurrence of a haematoma could not have been prevented but its effects could have been mitigated. Next Mr. Walker argued that the duty of care alleged was one owed for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate number of persons. [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". * The Board failed to require a medical examination of Mr Watson immediately following the conclusion of the contest. The Plaintiffs were children with dyslexia. It is a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that personal injuries already sustained are properly treated. Saville L.J. 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 Board held itself out as treating the safety of boxers as of paramount importance. 89. While Buxton L.J. These recommendations Mr Hamlyn set out in a detailed paper for the Board two days later. Lord Bridge went on to state that these ingredients were insufficiently precise to be used as practical tests and to commend the desirability of proceeding by analogy with established categories of negligence. Next Mr. Walker argued that if the Board had made its Rules pursuant to a statutory power it would be tolerably clear that it could not be held liable in negligence in relation to the manner in which it chose to exercise its discretion. del frisco's boston restaurant week menu, does tim marry casey on heartland, perputhen sot live,