watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case

In these circumstances the task is to look at the circumstances in which specific factors have given rise to the duty of care and to consider whether, on the facts of this case, they should also give rise to such a duty. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . 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. 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.". 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. In its statutory context the ambulance service is more properly described as part of the National Health Service than as a rescue service. "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. Radio Times - February 1117 2023 - Free ebook download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read book online for free. 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. 25. * The Board failed to require a medical examination of Mr Watson immediately following the conclusion of the contest. The Court of Appeal drew a correct analogy with the doctor instructed by an insurance company to examine an applicant for the life insurance. The Board controlled every aspect of that activity. In accordance with normal practice, the medical officers for the contest were nominated by the Southern Area Council. 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. 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 Hillsborough cases: e.g. It is, however, clear that the test is an objective one: Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd., [1995] 2 AC 145, 181. In these circumstances there was insufficient proximity between the Board and the objects of the duty. The Judge's reference to Mr Hamlyn was to a Neurosurgeon who operated on Mr Watson at St Bartholomew's Hospital and who gave evidence on his behalf at the trial. . 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. in that case. 88. These rules included provisions for medical inspection of boxers and for the attendance of two doctors at a fight. The nature of the damage was important. .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. 5. He emphasised that the Board does not provide medical treatment or employ doctors. 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. ", 126. As a result of the delay the patient sustained brain damage. Secondly, to identify any categories of cases in which these principles 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. The board lost its. In his Witness Statement, Mr Morris accepted that the following averment in the Statement of Claim was "basically correct": "at all material times, by reason of the effective control over boxing that the Board assumed, 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. 130. In 1991 it was also the practice to infuse with Manitol, though as I understand it this is no longer the case today. 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.". 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. Tort Case Law. 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 [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. This involves intubation, or the insertion of an endotracheal tube. The Board professes - I do not for one moment question its sincerity - its lively interest in his safety. It is on this basis that it is possible to draw a distinction between the doctor who goes to the assistance of the victim of a road accident and the hospital that receives that victim into its casualty department. 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. 22. Mr Usherwood, who alone of those involved had technical expertise, might be the only person who had been negligent. Mr Watson's injuries were not, however, without precedent. 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. The aircraft crashed and the Plaintiff sustained personal injuries. If any doubt arises concerning a boxer's condition then referral to a local hospital for emergency treatment or advice should be undertaken and a report sent to the Board. The Judge went on to review such statistical evidence as there was in relation to the frequency of occurrence of head injuries in boxing and observed that there had been no evidence to suggest that the Board considered and balanced the difficulty of providing the adequate response to the risks of head injury against their frequency of occurrence and severity of outcome. 120. 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. 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. He would thus have developed the subdural haemorrhage in the most favourable circumstances possible, short of doing so in hospital with staff around him. 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. A . Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Dryden and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc: SC 21 Mar 2018, Perrett v Collins, Underwood PFA (Ulair) Limited (T/a Popular Flying Association), Binod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council, Jane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions, Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council, Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee (A Charity) v Poppleton, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. The doctors who were actually present were not aware of the desirability of immediate resuscitation of a victim with a brain haemorrhage. Mr. Usherwood was the person who was carrying out this role in relation to Mr. Collins' assembly of this aircraft. 77. 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 Board has argued that until this accident no-one had suggested that they should institute this protocol. A defendant seeking to disturb the findings of fact of a trial Judge in relation to causation undertakes a hard task. "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.". . He was held at North Middlesex Hospital until 23.55 to ensure that he was stabilised for the onward journey, and then taken to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. 3.10 The promoter shall procure that at all promotions a stretcher is available for use near the ring. It is not so much that responsibility is assumed as that it is recognised or imposed by the law.". Questions of what was fair and reasonable did not arise. Furthermore, if an ambulance service is called and agrees to attend the patient, those caring for the patient normally abandon any attempt to find an alternative means of transport to the hospital". 128. But at the same time it countenances and gives its blessing to contests where the safety arrangements are those of its making. As already stated, no tournament is allowed to commence or continue without one doctor sitting ringside. Nor has it been a requirement that the defendant should inflict the injury upon the plaintiff. He inferred that professional boxers would be unlikely to have an innate or well informed concern about safety. 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. 121. He answered that it took something like the injury to Mr Watson to make the Committee think of changing the practice. 75. 129. * Enter a valid Journal (must 1, 43-44, where he said: "It is preferable, in my view, that the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories, rather than by a massive extension of a prima facie duty of care restrained only by indefinable `considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed.". The ambulance should be prepared to go direct to the Neurological unit that had been placed on stand-by. I propose to develop the relevant facts more fully in the context of each of these issues. 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. .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. Thus it has been held that the prison service owes a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent prisoners from committing suicide. 123. In answer to a claim by the workman, the architect argued that his only duty was the contractual duty that he owed to the owners of the building. 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. Hobhouse L.J. 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. The Judge was impressed with the fact that, even then, resuscitation would have been commenced at least twenty and probably thirty minutes before in fact it was. While I do not agree with Mr Mackay's submission that Perrett v Collins provides a close analogy to the present case, I do find helpful the formulation of legal principle by Hobhouse L.J. 69. Thereafter, when the defendant assumed responsibility for him, it accepts that the measures taken fell short of the standard reasonably to be expected. [1988] 1 AC 1074 at 1090; and Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] 1 AC 750 at 783. The time was now 23.08. 28. 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. 3.5.2 For British and Commonwealth Championship contests only, or In the chaos that then ensued, Mr Watson was surrounded by his team, which included a number of bodyguards. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. Mr Watson's case, in essence, was that there should have been a different regime in place - Mr Walker described it as an intensive care unit at the ringside. Lord Steyn stated:-, "Since the decision in Dorset Yacht Co. v The Home Office [1970] AC 1004, it has been settled law that the elements of foreseeability and proximity as well as considerations of fairness, justice and reasonableness are relevant to all cases whatever the nature of the harm sustained by the plaintiff..". Elr, Recueil JP 01.02 3 a) Case of Michels v USOC (United States Court of Appeals - 7th circuit, 16 August 1984)40 B. This has relevance to a number of the points discussed above. 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)). Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. 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. A primary stated object of the Board was to look after its boxing member's physical safety. It seems to me that this is almost implicit in Mr Walker's argument that to issue such a requirement expressly, was to instruct a doctor as to how to perform his duty. In an opinion read by Phillips MR, the court upheld Kennedy's decision, noting that it "broke new ground". 16. 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. . The decision is of interest for several reasons. 93. Saville L.J. The evidence certainly supports the proposition that it was Mr Watson's injuries, and the subsequent advice given by Mr Hamlyn, that caused the Board to change its practice. Since 1929 the Board has been and continues to be the sole controlling body regulating professional boxing in the United Kingdom. Subsequently they were incorporated in the Rules by an addition to Regulation 8. 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. JURISDICTION TO INTERPRET A FEDERATION'S RULES OF PROCEDURE IN DOPING CASES41 a) Case of Smith v International Triathlon Union (Supreme Court of British Colombia, Vancouver, The contest was sponsored not by the Board, but by the World Boxing Organisation (WBO). 101. Center circle: In the center circle, jot down the name of your stated goalin this case, Create an Audio Educational Program. Thus the criteria identified by Hobhouse L.J. '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.". 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. "The Board does not create the danger. 109. 343, Denning L.J. The Judge did not find that the lapse of time between Mr Watson becoming unconscious and Dr Shapiro being called to assist was critical. It was also important to have a prior arrangement with the hospital with a neurological unit, and with that unit placed on standby. 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 Board did not insure against liability in negligence. 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. 11. This sequence can result in cumulative damage to the brain, leading sooner or later to death. In fact the Board had required a third doctor to be present and that an ambulance should be in attendance. Mr Watson was put on a stretcher, which was placed on a trolley and wheeled towards the ambulance. b) A limit on the number of rounds to twelve (Rule 3.7). Any loss of consciousness was short lived - he regained his feet and walked to his corner. 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 Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Management Committee [1969] 1 Q.B. She claimed in negligence and occupiers liability. In this the Judge was correct. The Board, however, went far beyond this. Therefore, it is likely that injuries arising from such play occur frequently but when do they occur as an act of negligence? that the negligence alleged fell into the category of directly causing foreseeable personal injury, both he and Swinton Thomas 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. Treatment that should have been provided at the ringside. 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. [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. The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . The following rules fall into this category: 3.8 The promoter shall procure that two doctors, who must be approved by the Area Medical Officer, attend at all promotions, one of whom must be seated at the ringside at all times during the contest. 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. An operation was carried out to remove a moderate size haematoma and to close such veins as were found to be oozing blood. Where a patient is brought unconscious to hospital as a result of intra-cranial bleeding, the practice is first to apply a process described as resuscitation or stabilisation. 81. The Board's Grounds of Appeal argued that in making policy decisions, the Board ought not to be held to be negligent unless such decisions were found to be wholly irrational. This decision turned, essentially, on considerations of policy in relation to the role of a classification society in the context of the complex arrangements for sharing, limiting and insuring the risks inherent in carriage of goods by sea. 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. 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 third category is of particular importance in the context of this action. 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. 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. . In my judgment, there must be an affirmative answer to that question. None of the three doctors present went to his assistance until requested to do so. Many sports involve a risk of physical injury to the participants. 3. I find this distinction between instructions as to duties and instructions as to how to perform duties elusive and over subtle. 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. 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. Thus a person may be liable for directing someone into a dangerous location (e.g. My reaction is the same as that of Buxton L.J. 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. The education of the pupil is the very purpose for which the child goes to the school. 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. In Caparo v Dickman the Court recognised a duty of care owed by auditors to all the members of a company. The Board held itself out as treating the safety of boxers as of paramount importance. At the end of December 1991 the net assets of the Board were about 352,000. If it had in place the appropriate protocols for provision of medical care, the claimants injuries would not have been so severe. Mr Watson received resuscitation and neuro-surgery in hospital in circumstances that I shall describe when I come to deal with causation. After the operation Mr Watson was taken to the intensive care unit where he arrived at 04.45. In the event Mr Walker did not put this pleaded Ground of Appeal at the forefront of his argument. But the fact that the carrying out of the retainer involves contact with and relationship with the child cannot alter the extent of the duty owed by the professionals under the retainer from the local authority. Letang v Cooper - Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 - Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd -. The General Medical Council clearly states that a doctor must offer help when off-duty, if an emergency arises. There an operation was carried out to evacuate a sub-dural haematoma. 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. Held: There is a close link between the tests in law for proximity . Had the Board said nothing, it might not be liable, but once it gave advice by setting rules, it came to be responsible. The history of the Board can be traced back to the middle of the nineteenth century, but the Board itself was constituted as an unincorporated association in 1929. "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. 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. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. 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. I turn to the distinctive features of this case. d) The rule that a boxer must be medically examined before every contest. 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. 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. 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. . 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. 46. It is clear on the authorities that the duty to take reasonable care to prevent further harm and to effect a cure is founded on the acceptance of the patient as a patient, which carries with it an implicit undertaking to care for the patient's needs.