watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case

(Rule 8.1). 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 British Boxing Board of Control was found to . 39. 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. 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. My reaction is the same as that of Buxton L.J. In 1991 the Board had about twelve hundred licence holders and members of which about five hundred and fifty were active boxers. The board, however, went far beyond this. [1997] QB 1004 at 1034. In an opinion read by Phillips MR, the court upheld Kennedy's decision, noting that it "broke new ground". The North Middlesex Hospital had no neurosurgical department, so Mr Watson was transferred by ambulance, still unconscious, to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. The principles alleged to give rise to a duty of care in this case are those of assumption of responsibility and reliance. (Rule 5.9(c)). In Caparo v Dickman the Court recognised a duty of care owed by auditors to all the members of a company. In an open letter to BMA delegates, written some time in the 1980's, Dr Whiteson, the Chief Medical Officer to the Board, wrote "The British Boxing Board of Control is justifiably proud of its reputation of being in the vanguard of the protection of professional boxers." In my judgment, there must be an affirmative answer to that question. The Board's assumption of responsibility in relation to medical care probably relieved the promoter of such responsibility. They have not succeeded. 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. 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. In Caparo v Dickman at p.617 Lord Bridge considered a series of decisions of the Privy Council and the House of Lords in relation to the duty of care in negligence and summarised their effect as follows:-. 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. At p.1172 he summarised his conclusion as follows:-. He would only use it to overcome breathing difficulties. The Board called to give evidence Mr Peter Richards, a Consultant Neuro-Surgeon with Charing Cross Hospital between 1987 and 1995. He distinguished the fire and police `rescue' cases on the ground that: "This was not a case of general reliance, but specific reliance. 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. 31. Capital and Counties plc v. Hampshire County Council, Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority. said: "In my opinion authorities who run a hospital, be they local authorities, government boards, or any other corporation, are in law under the selfsame duty as the humblest doctor. 68. The promoters and the boxers do not themselves address considerations of safety. 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. He makes a diagnosis and advises the education authority. The Board controlled every aspect of that activity. The ordinary test of reasonable skill and care is the correct one to apply. The Notice of Appeal contended that there was no evidence that, had the rules contended for by Mr Watson been in place, he would have been treated any differently; the Judge should have found that none of the doctors present, nor the ambulance man, would have intubated the claimant, whatever equipment had been available, because he was breathing spontaneously. He received only occasional visits of inspection by the duty ratings. The aircraft crashed and the Plaintiff sustained personal injuries. In Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd,l the Court of Appeal has upheld an unprecedented decision that a regulatory body can be liable for negligence in the exercise of its rule-making functions. (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.) As a result of the delay the patient sustained brain damage. These make it necessary: i) to identify the principles which are relied upon as giving rise to a duty of care in this case. Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. He could have been treated on the spot, and had an endotrachael tube inserted, been ventilated and thereafter transferred directly to a Neurosurgical Unit where CT scan facilities were available. The Board argued that this demonstrated that the standard applied by the Judge was too high. Therefore in giving that advice he owes a duty to the child to exercise the skill and care of a reasonable advisory teacher.". depending upon the court's attitude to the case before it. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd [2001] QB 1134 (CA) - BB was not insured but Court said it is irrelevant because a duty of care is decided regardless . . Lord Browne-Wilkinson answered this question in the affirmative. There an operation was carried out to evacuate a sub-dural haematoma. The Board encouraged and supported its boxing members in the pursuit of an activity which involved inevitable physical injury and the need for medical precautions against the consequences of such injury. A boxer who suffered brain damage following a title fight in London alleged that the Board which regulates boxing had been negligent in not providing a better level of ringside medical care. 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. 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. 77. The numbers of those to whom the duty is alleged to be owed in the present case are not incompatible with the requirements of proximity. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1734 - Law Journals Case: Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1734 Case Report: Andrew Risk v Rose Bruford College [2013] EWHC 3869 (QB) 12 King's Bench Walk (Chambers of Paul Russell QC) | Personal Injury Law Journal | March 2014 #123 Thus it has been held that the prison service owes a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent prisoners from committing suicide. Nearly half an hour elapsed between the end of the fight and the time that he got there. 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. I see no reason why the rules should not have contained the provision suggested by the Judge. "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.". 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". It is not sufficient for the doctor to be in the vicinity of the ring as in the case of an emergency the speed of the doctor's reactions in treating this are all important. England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor. 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. 503 at p.517, per Lord Justice Cotton). To my mind it is difficult in such a situation to profess a concern for safety and to deny a duty such as I have described. 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.". The claim was based upon the alleged negligent failure of the defendant to enforce disciplinary regulations against drunkenness so as to protect the deceased against his own known proclivity for alcohol . He went on to hold that, in relation to the child abuse cases, the statutory scheme was incompatible with the existence of a direct common law duty of care owed by the local authorities. Calvert v William Hill (2008). In 1991 it was also the practice to infuse with Manitol, though as I understand it this is no longer the case today. 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. In Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 K.B. 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. Ian Kennedy J. equated the formulation of rules and regulations with the giving of advice and these decisions are of relevance in this context. James George, James George. The setting of rules could be akin to the giving of advice and thus had an indirect influence on the occurrence of the injury. iii) to decide whether these principles should be applied so as to give rise to a duty of care in the present case. In laying down Rules for the benefit of boxers generally, however, Mr Walker submitted that the Board was under no duty of care. The defendant in each case was a local authority. It was also important to have a prior arrangement with the hospital with a neurological unit, and with that unit placed on standby. expounded the relevant principles of law in the following passages: "A minimum requirement of particularity and contemplation is required. He said that a report had identified the risks. Licence holders are also required to comply with the Board's policy in respect of matters not dealt with by specific rules. This increases the oxygen in the blood and reduces the level of carbon dioxide. Match. The ambulance should be prepared to go direct to the Neurological unit that had been placed on stand-by. The Board's authority is essentially based upon the consent of the boxing world. 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. 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. The Judge held that on these facts Mr Watson was entitled to recover for his injuries in full, relying on the authorities of McGhee v The National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1; Wiltshire v Essex A.H.A. 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". CLUE. At least 20 minutes, and probably nearer 30 minutes, could have been saved. 78. However, should this not be so, then the boxer's gumshield should be removed, an adequate airway established and the boxer put on his left side so that should he fit or vomit he will not obstruct his airway. 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. I propose to develop the relevant facts more fully in the context of each of these issues. This involved taking precautions or giving instructions for them to be taken so that the work could be done with safety. Mr. Walker advanced five arguments in support of the proposition that there was insufficient proximity to give rise to a duty of care on the facts of this case. There are features of this case which are extraordinary, if not unique. 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.". 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)). This involves intubation, or the insertion of an endotracheal tube. Search for more papers by this author. The facts of this case are not common to other sports. 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 my judgment there is a clear distinction between the role of the Board and the role of a fire service or the police service. 37. These facts produced a relationship of close proximity between the Board and those of its members who were professional boxers. Once this proximity exists, it ceases to be material what form the unreasonable conduct takes. 96. Saville L.J. . 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. I consider that the Judge was entitled to conclude that there was in this case reliance by Mr Watson on the exercise of skill and care by the Board in looking after his safety. radio 119. 21. The Board was involved in an activity which gave it, not merely a measure of control, but complete control over and a responsibility for a situation which would be liable to result in injury to Mr Watson if reasonable care was not exercised by the Board. One issue in each case was whether, on these facts, it could be argued that the local authority had been either directly or vicariously, in breach of a duty of care owed to the child under common law. 91. Thus the. so-called requirements for a duty of care are not to be treated as wholly separate and distinct requirements but rather as convenient and helpful approaches to the pragmatic question whether a duty should be imposed in any given case. 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 move is being made as a cost-cutting measure in the wake of the Michael Watson case. 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. A . Mr Watson was put on a stretcher, which was placed on a trolley and wheeled towards the ambulance. 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. 3.10 The promoter shall procure that at all promotions a stretcher is available for use near the ring. As already stated, no tournament is allowed to commence or continue without one doctor sitting ringside. 97. 64. 3. Learn. The child was in a singularly vulnerable position. The Board did not insure against liability in negligence. It much have been in the contemplation of the architect that builders would go on the site as the whole object of the work was to erect building there. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. No one can take part, in any capacity, in professional boxing in this Country who is not licensed by the Board and, at the same time, a member of it, for the two are essentially synonymous. Order: Appal dismissed with costs on the issues of liability and causation here and below, those costs to be assessed forthwith on to Legal Services Assessment; 18,000 in Court to be paid out in part satisfaction of those costs forthwith; detailed assessment on standard basis; Legal Services Commission taxation; application for permission to appeal to House of Lords refused. 47. 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 physical safety of boxers has always been a prime concern of the Board. 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. When carrying out the assessment and advising the education authority, did the psychologist owe a duty of care to the child? 63. It is supplied to amateur flyers in a kit form which they can then assemble for themselves. agreed with Hobhouse L.J. 5. 54. 15. I confess I entertain no doubt on how that question should be answered. A primary injury such as that described can have secondary consequences which are much more serious. In accordance with normal practice, the medical officers for the contest were nominated by the Southern Area Council. As part of the health service it should owe the same duty to members of the public as other parts of the health service. 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. [3] Watson spent 40 days in a coma and 6 years in a wheelchair, with doctors initially predicting that he would never walk again.