watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case

In support of that proposition Mr. Walker relied upon X v Bedfordshire CC and Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923. 36. The Board set out by its rules, directions and guidance, to make comprehensive provision for the services to be provided to safeguard the health of the boxer. "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". Again I disagree. A book of rules and regulations 58 pages in length provides, in detail, for the manner in which professional boxing is to be carried on. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. 343, Denning L.J. Lord Browne-Wilkinson answered this question in the affirmative. He sued the owner, Mr Usherwood and the Popular Flying Association ("the PFA"). It was the evidence of Mr Watson's experts that, while brain damage of the type I have described is cumulative, what happens in the first ten minutes is particularly critical. The hospital should be requested to confirm that a Neuro-Surgeon would be on stand-by. To hold that, in such circumstances, the head teacher could properly ignore the matter and make no attempt to deal with it would fly in the face, not only of society's expectations of what a school will provide, but also the fine traditions of the teaching profession itself. What it does do does at least reduce the dangers inherent in professional boxing. Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users . He emphasised that the Board does not provide medical treatment or employ doctors. I propose to develop the relevant facts more fully in the context of each of these issues. "As a general rule a sufficient relationship will exist when someone possessed of a special skill undertakes to apply that skill for the assistance of another person who relies upon such skill and there is direct and substantial reliance by the plaintiff on the defendant's skill. 97. In such a case the authority running the hospital is under a duty to those whom it admits to exercise reasonable care in the way it runs it: see Gold v Essex County Council [1942] 2 K.B. 3.5.1 A Referee shall officiate inside the boxing ring to score the contest and act as sole arbiter of the Rules of Boxing except for British and Commonwealth Championship contests, or other such contest that the Stewards in their absolute discretion deem appropriate. Beldam L.J. 118. Radio Times - February 1117 2023 - Free ebook download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read book online for free. Michael Watson was injured in a boxing match supervised by the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC or BBBC), which was expected to . I do not believe there is any difference in principle between giving advice about safety and laying down rules to provide for safety. 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. Mr Watson collapsed unconscious within a minute or so of this. The Judge did not rely upon the specific evidence given by Mr Watson about reliance. 100. 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. There was evidence that the Board's Medical Committee met regularly to consider medical precautions. The Board's authority is essentially based upon the consent of the boxing world. The Board, however, went far beyond this. 21. The fight had taken place in accordance with the rules of the British Boxing Board of Control Ltd., ("the Board"). 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". In 1991 it was also the practice to infuse with Manitol, though as I understand it this is no longer the case today. But the claimant does not come even remotely . It made provision in its Rules for the medical precautions to be employed and made compliance with these Rules mandatory. 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". The Board controlled every aspect of that activity. He would only use it to overcome breathing difficulties. Mr Walker also suggested that a finding in favour of Mr Watson in this case would involve postulating that other sporting regulatory bodies, such as the Rugby Football Union, owed duties of care to the participants in their sports in relation to their rules and regulations. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001). This point was put to the Judge. This appears to be an attempt to import into the law of negligence concepts of public law. On the findings of the judge it was delay which caused the further injuries. 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." By the time he received resuscitation in hospital he had sustained permanent brain damage which such treatment would have prevented. It carried out this function by making and imposing rules dealing with the safety of boxers, by approving medical officers and by giving detailed guidance as to the qualifications and equipment those officers should bring to the ringside. He was taken on a stretcher to an ambulance which was standing by which took him to North Middlesex Hospital. Apart from issues of statutory duty, the question arose in each group of cases whether (i) the local authorities owed, at common law, a duty of care to the children when considering their needs and (ii) whether professionals advising on the needs of children owed a duty of care to those children which, if broken, rendered the local authorities vicariously liable. These considerations lead to the final point made by Mr Walker in the context of proximity. In 1990 Mr Watson had been involved in litigation with his manager, in which the Board had filed an Affidavit. These facts produced a relationship of close proximity between the Board and those of its members who were professional boxers. .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. held that, on the facts, a duty of care had existed. The other group of cases involved duties imposed on local authorities in relation to children with special educational needs. the British Boxing Board of Control was found to . Each case involved the performance by the local authority of duties imposed under statute for the benefit of children. The word puzzle answer watson v british boxing board of control 2001 has these clues in the Sporcle Puzzle Library. In contrast the injuries which are sustained by professional boxers are the foreseeable, indeed inevitable, consequence of an activity which the Board sponsors, encourages and controls. 54. I consider that these were proper findings on the evidence and that Mr Watson's case on breach of duty was made out. d) The rule that a boxer must be medically examined before every contest. He had particular experience of brain injuries caused by sporting activities. 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. He sued the Board because they were in charge of safety arrangements at professional boxing matches, and evidence showed that if they had made immediate medical . 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 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. There was also an ambulance standing by which had resuscitation equipment and a paramedic who knew how to use this. In theory the medical officers at a contest would be appointed and paid by the Promoter from the body of approved doctors. 2. The occurrence of a haematoma could not have been prevented but its effects could have been mitigated. These cases were distinguished in Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 WLR 1158. . The relevant findings of the Judge were as follows:-. In that case a doctor phoned for an ambulance to take to hospital urgently a patient who had suffered an asthma attack. The first of these to enter the ring, Dr Shapiro, reached Mr Watson seven minutes after the fight had been stopped, i.e. Mr Watson received resuscitation and neuro-surgery in hospital in circumstances that I shall describe when I come to deal with causation. 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. 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. 5. 3. A little later he said "As Chief Medical Officer, my approach has always been that preventative controls are the key to making a physically hazardous sport as safe as possibleour interest in preventative controls covers the whole gamut of professional boxing.". In 1989 it was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee. The police have been held to owe no duty to respond to a 999 call or, having done so, to exercise reasonable care to prevent a burglary Alexandrou v. Oxford [1993] 4 All ER 328 [1994] 4 All ER 328. This can, of itself, result in the restriction of the supply of oxygen to the brain. depending upon the court's attitude to the case before it. Try and prevent and/or treat raised intracranial pressure. The facilities provided accorded with the advice to medical officers issued by the Board's Medical Committee, to which I referred earlier. But although the cases in which the courts have imposed or withheld liability are capable of an approximate categorisation, one looks in vain for some common denominator by which the existence of the essential relationship can be tested. But once the decision is taken to offer such a service, a statutory body is in general in the same position as any private individual or organisation holding itself out as offering such a service. .Cited Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council HL 5-Jul-2006 Preliminary Report of Risk No Duty of Care The claimant sought damages after suffering injury after the creation of water supplies which were polluted with arsenic. The facilities include a scheme which enables members to construct and fly their own light aircraft. We have been referred to no case where a duty of care has been established in relation to the drafting of rules and regulations which have governed the conduct of third parties towards a claimant. 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. .Cited Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee (A Charity) v Poppleton CA 12-Jun-2008 The claimant was injured climbing without ropes (bouldering) at defendants activity centre. The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. radio The defendant appealed against a finding of 25% responsibility in having failed to warn climbers that the existence of thick foam would not remove all . 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. 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. The association exists to facilitate amateurs to enjoy facilities for flying light aircraft. This ground of appeal would have been unsustainable. Nearly half an hour elapsed between the end of the fight and the time that he got there. 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. By opening its doors to others to take advantage of the service offered, it comes under a duty of care to those using the service to exercise care in its conduct. 10. Dr Shapiro examined Mr Watson and put a Brookes Airway into his mouth to maintain his airway. I think that the Judge was right. 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. I shall have to examine the facts and reasoning in Perrett in due course, for Mr Mackay, QC, for Mr Watson has relied upon it as providing a close analogy with the present case. This passage was approved by Lord Steyn when the case reached the House of Lords [1996] AC 211 at 235. There are, however, authorities dealing with advice given to third parties that foreseeably resulted in injury to the person or property of claimants. English case law has developed, with various twists and turns, in the problematic field of factual causation. 108. There are a number of problems with this submission. The company, as the Popular Flying Association, appoint inspectors for the purpose of, among other things, inspecting aircraft during the course of their construction by members of the association and certifying whether the relevant work has been done to his "entire satisfaction" and the aircraft is in an airworthy condition. 121. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. The Board's assumption of responsibility in relation to medical care probably relieved the promoter of such 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 BBBC had a series of rules on the medical coverage needed for boxing matches, which required two doctors to be present at all times. Nor do I see why the fact that the Board is a non profit-making organisation should provide it with an immunity from liability in negligence. He would thus have developed the subdural haemorrhage in the most favourable circumstances possible, short of doing so in hospital with staff around him. (Rules 8.5 and 8.6). In consequence this special need was not addressed, to the detriment of the child. 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. There was no contract between the parties, but boxers had to fight under the Boards rules. the Hillsborough cases: e.g. The boxers display skill, strength and courage, but nobody pretends that they do good to themselves or others. His evidence was that it was his practice to use it where a patient was experiencing breathing difficulties. First he submitted that the Board exercises a public function which it has assumed for the public good. In 1991, a world title fight between Michael Watson and Chris Eubank took place in London under the BBBC Rules. 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. This involves intubation, or the insertion of an endotracheal tube. Many sports involve a risk of physical injury to the participants. 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". Questions of what was fair and reasonable did not arise. A doctor must be available to give immediate attention to any boxer should this be required. 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. 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. In such circumstances A's conduct can accurately be described as the assumption of responsibility for B, whether `responsibility' is given its lay or legal meaning. 131. 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. Ormrod L.J. 40. The peculiar features of the duty of care alleged are as follows: i) the duty alleged is not to take reasonable care to avoid causing personal injury. Sharpe v Avery [1938] 4 All E.R. 51. 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. [1997] QB 1004 at 1034. Watson successfully sued the BBBC for 400,000 after being left with brain injuries following his 1991 fight with Chris Eubank. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control 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. It is sometimes said that there has to be an assumption of responsibility by the person concerned. 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. 101. Professor Teasdale had some reservations about the effectiveness of some of this, but he accepted that this was standard practice. Ian Kennedy J. equated the formulation of rules and regulations with the giving of advice and these decisions are of relevance in this context. 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. Where there is a potential for physical injury, I do not believe that I have to go beyond the traditional concept of neighbourhood to find a duty where there is, as here, a clearly foreseeable danger. 95. held that. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. PFA was not a commercial undertaking. Resuscitation equipment should be at ringside along with person(s) capable of using it". There is no more justification for a blanket immunity in their cases than there was in Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire Country Council [1997] QB 1004. that the negligence alleged fell into the category of directly causing foreseeable personal injury, both he and Swinton Thomas L.J. These make it necessary: i) to identify the principles which are relied upon as giving rise to a duty of care in this case. These can be divided into three categories: i) rules designed to ensure that a boxer is not permitted to fight unless he is fit. 31. These rules included provisions for medical inspection of boxers and for the attendance of two doctors at a fight. 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. This reasoning was followed by the House of Lords in Phelps v Hillingdon Borough Council [2000] 3 WLR 776. Lord Woolf M.R. 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. Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile. 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. The facts of this case are not common to other sports. In my judgment there is a difference in principle between making Rules and giving advice, but it is not one which assists the Board. 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. 3. * Enter a valid Journal (must swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. 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. 110. 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. 1. While Buxton L.J. If he volunteers his assistance, his only duty as a matter of law is not to make the victim's condition worse. On 21st September 1991 Michael Watson fought Chris Eubank for the World Boxing Organisation Super-Middleweight title at Tottenham Hotspur Football Club in London. The defendant in each case was a local authority. He distinguished the fire and police `rescue' cases on the ground that: "This was not a case of general reliance, but specific reliance. The leading case in terms of the duty of care owed by governing bodies in UK law is Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134, where the governing body was held to be liable for the horrific injuries suffered by Michael Watson in his boxing bout with Chris Eubank. 17. 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. It acts as a regulatory rule making body. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001 . Such treatment had been standard form in hospitals for many years prior to 1991. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. the concern of the Board for the physical safety of boxers is reflected in many of the Board's rules and regulations. It can also result in disturbance of the processes of breathing so that insufficient air is taken into the lungs to ensure adequate oxidation of the blood. Obviously a full report should then be sent to the relevant Area Council or Board and the sooner this is done, from a medical view point, the better.". 11. 56. In particular, the Board controlled the medical assistance that would be provided. The latter have the role of protecting the public in general against risks, which they play no part in creating. 84. 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. Held: A body which had responsibility for licensing and setting conditions for the boxing matches was liable in negligence when, having assumed responsibility for the boxers medical care, the standards it set were inadequate. 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. 42. 3.5.2 For British and Commonwealth Championship contests only, or '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 wall had remained standing because the architect employed in supervising the building works had failed to advise that it was dangerous and should be demolished. It was accepted that, if the survey had been negligent the loss of the cargo was a foreseeable consequence. It concludes that, if account is taken of all these areas, insurance has been of vital importance to the law of tort. At the end of the contest one doctor remains ringside, the other should follow both contestants back to the dressing room and should at least check that both boxers are in a satisfactory condition and if not instigate any treatment that is required, preferably in the treatment room provided. This contention had some similarities to submissions made in relation to the Popular Flying Association in. 93. Without so doing, however, the Judge concluded that for some reason no thought was given to the practicality of introducing at the ringside what he found had been a standard response, where the presence of sub-dural bleeding was known or suspected, since at least 1980. At this meeting Mr Hamlyn expressed the view that it was vital that at the ringside there should be the right doctors with the right equipment. The Board accepted these recommendations and promulgated them by way of guidance. 9. Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 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". Learn. 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. The Board contended that this was unjustifiable, since it would require Rules which in effect instructed doctors as to how to perform their duties. He inferred that professional boxers would be unlikely to have an innate or well informed concern about safety. On a preliminary issue the House of Lords held that the classification society had no duty of care to the cargo owners. In these circumstances there is no close proximity between the services and the general public. It does not follow that the decision in this case is the thin end of a wedge. 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. 85. It is, however, clear that the test is an objective one: Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd., [1995] 2 AC 145, 181. That, however, did not prove to be the position. The Kit Fox aircraft is an aircraft which is designed for this purpose. It does not seem to me to be profitable to speculate what the position would be if the Board had a statutory function in relation to boxing. Center circle: In the center circle, jot down the name of your stated goalin this case, Create an Audio Educational Program. Outside circles: Next, divide the goal into the major categories of tasks you'll need to accomplish to achieve the greater goalin this case, Title, Studio, Topics, Audience, and so on. Efforts continue and will continue to improve safety standards and these efforts are and were on-going prior to the Watson fight.". 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. 44. 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.