fbpx

watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case

how much is bryan robson worth
Spread the love

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. There are, however, authorities dealing with advice given to third parties that foreseeably resulted in injury to the person or property of claimants. 95. 5. 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. 25. 78. 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 2. 20. 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. The vessel sailed and sank a few days later with the loss of the cargo. .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. 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.". Mr Watson's case can be summarised as follows: i) The Board assumed responsibility for the control of an activity the essence of which was that personal injuries should be sustained by those participating. The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. These cases were distinguished in Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 WLR 1158. The General Medical Council clearly states that a doctor must offer help when off-duty, if an emergency arises. Had the Board's rules required Mr Hamlyn's protocol to be put in place, the doctors present could have been expected to have resorted to resuscitation. 15. The doctors should decide between them who will remain ringside and who will undertake the emergency treatment should the need arise. Capital and Counties plc v. Hampshire County Council, Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority. There he arrived in the scanning room at 00.30 on 22nd September. "One can summarise the aims of treatment of a patient who has been rendered unconscious as the result of a head injury as follows: 1. Dr Shapiro examined Mr Watson and put a Brookes Airway into his mouth to maintain his airway. 128. 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. Of course.these three matters overlap with each other and are really facets of the same thing. Thus the criteria identified by Hobhouse L.J. held that, on the facts, a duty of care had existed. ii) The Board assumed responsibility for determining the details of the medical care and facilities which would be provided by way of immediate treatment of those who received personal injuries while taking part in the activity. Michael Watson was injured in a boxing match supervised by the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC or BBBC), which was expected . The body set up by the Board that gave particular consideration to safety standards was a Medical Committee, sometimes referred to as The Medical Panel, that was set up in 1950. 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. 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". 25Watson v British Board of Boxing Control Ltd [2001] QB 113419, 20 it was claimed that had Watson received immediate resuscitation he would not have been as badly brain damaged, the Court agreed saying that because the Board were in sole charge of safety arrangements there was sufficient proximity for the board of control to owe a duty of care The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . 13. Mr Watson was put on a stretcher, which was placed on a trolley and wheeled towards the ambulance. The promoters and the boxers do not themselves address considerations of safety. 107. 4. 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. Attempts have been made, within Parliament and outside, to bring about the banning of the sport of boxing. I agree that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Lord Phillips M.R. The Board contends:-. 3.5.2 For British and Commonwealth Championship contests only, or In 1991 it was also the practice to infuse with Manitol, though as I understand it this is no longer the case today. Each area had a Chief Medical Officer, whose duties included the approval of doctors who wished to serve as medical officers at boxing matches. 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". A preliminary issue was tried as to whether Mr Usherwood and the PFA owed the Plaintiff a duty of care. [2001] QB 1134 was a case of the Court of Appeal of England Center circle: In the center circle, jot down the name of your stated goalin this case, Create an Audio Educational Program. No reasonably competent educational psychologist, exercising reasonable skill and care, would have given such advice. Test. The settlement of Watson's case against the. It acts as a regulatory rule making body. The Board's Medical Committee met to consider these on the 22nd October 1991 and made recommendations which included the following: "1 The nearest hospital with a neurological unit should be notified of the date of each tournament held under the Board's jurisdiction and must be on alert in case of serious head injury. The move is being made as a cost-cutting measure in the wake of the Michael Watson case. 116. 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. Mr Watson suffered such an injury when he was knocked down in the eleventh round. The patient is then artificially ventilated through this tube with oxygen. 3. 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. By this time, however, he had sustained serious brain damage. Nearly half an hour elapsed between the end of the fight and the time that he got there. The fight had taken place in accordance with the rules of the British Boxing Board of Control Ltd., ("the Board"). Effects are usually short-lived and do not produce lasting damage. It is not necessary for a supposed tortfeasor to have created the danger himself. "In Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Management Committee [1969] 1 Q.B. (Rule 8.1). 8. He held that he was left in no doubt that the Board was in breach of its duty in that it did not institute some such system or protocol as that which Mr Hamlyn was later to propose. These considerations lead to the final point made by Mr Walker in the context of proximity. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. There an operation was carried out to evacuate a sub-dural haematoma. 37. I do not find this surprising. Applied Barrett v Ministry of Defence CA 3-Jan-1995 The deceased was an off-duty naval airman. In each case it was alleged that the professional in question negligently failed to diagnose dyslexia. I found this submission unrealistic. It was Mr Walker's submission that there was no reliance. Once proximity is established by reference to the test which I have identified, none of the more sophisticated criteria which have to be used in relation to allegations of liability for mere economic loss need to be applied in relation to personal injury, nor have they been in the decided cases.". He would only use it to overcome breathing difficulties. Despite this statement, Ian Kennedy J. suggested that where there was a potential for physical injury there was no need to go beyond the test of foreseeability in deciding whether a duty of care existed, relying on Perrett v. Collins [1998] 255. 93. These recommendations Mr Hamlyn set out in a detailed paper for the Board two days later. A . .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. Boxer members of the Board, including Mr Watson, could reasonably rely upon the Board to have taken reasonable care in making provision for their safety. Mr Watson brought an action against the Board. The precise nature of the company's constitution is not covered by the evidence. 67. Nor has it been a requirement that the defendant should inflict the injury upon the plaintiff. At this stage it is enough to note that the advice set out the professional expertise expected of the medical officers and details of equipment needed to perform their duties. 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. "The postulate of a simple duty to avoid any harm that is, with hindsight, reasonably capable of being foreseen becomes untenable without the imposition of some intelligible limits to keep the law of negligence within the bounds of common sense and practicality. When considering whether the Board owed Watson a duty of care, Ian Kennedy J. examined at some length the role played by the Board in imposing, by rules and regulations, the safety standards to be observed by those involved in professional boxing in this country. The Board professes - I do not for one moment question its sincerity - its lively interest in his safety. It seems to me that, but for the intervention of the Board, the promoter would probably owe a common law duty to the boxer to make reasonable provision for the immediate treatment of his injuries. 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. He was brought in by the education authority to assist it in carrying out its educational functions. The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. 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. 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. The facts of this case are not common to other sports. that the negligence alleged fell into the category of directly causing foreseeable personal injury, both he and Swinton Thomas L.J. It is said, rightly, that in general such professional duty of care is owed irrespective of contract and can arise even where the professional assumes to act for the plaintiff pursuant to a contract with a third party: Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145; White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207. 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. 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. The provision made by those rules in relation to medical assistance was plain. At least 20 minutes, and probably nearer 30 minutes, could have been saved. 33. Each emphatically concluded that it was. 74. The owner of the aircraft took off, with the Plaintiff onboard as a passenger. 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. His belief was that the brain damage that occurred in each case could probably have been avoided in whole or in a large part if the boxer had received immediate resuscitation at the ringside. He should certainly carry an aphygomamometer and stethoscope, an ophthalmoscope, an auroscope, a patella hammer, a Brooks airway and a padded spatula in case of a rate occurrence of fitting and the need to establish an airway. The Board contended that this was unjustifiable, since it would require Rules which in effect instructed doctors as to how to perform their duties. change. Questions of what was fair and reasonable did not arise. 6. 44. There had been a number of similar cases in the 1980's. 100. 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.". Such treatment had been standard form in hospitals for many years prior to 1991. In its statutory context the ambulance service is more properly described as part of the National Health Service than as a rescue service. It concludes that, if account is taken of all these areas, insurance has been of vital importance to the law of tort. 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. It is sometimes said that there has to be an assumption of responsibility by the person concerned. In the event Mr Walker did not put this pleaded Ground of Appeal at the forefront of his argument. The Board, however, went far beyond this. As I read the judgment the duty of care turned upon the acceptance by the ambulance service of the request to provide an ambulance and thus the acceptance of responsibility for the care of the particular patient. 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. The background to this case was described by Hobhouse L.J. In addition to the two doctors required by the rules, there was, on the direction of the Board, a third medical officer present. 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. A Respondent's Notice was served contending that the Judge could and should have drawn an adverse inference from his failure to give evidence. 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. 49. 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. So far as the promoter was concerned, these delimited his obligations. In that case Hobhouse L.J. In my judgment there is a clear distinction between the role of the Board and the role of a fire service or the police service. 35. It is, however, clear that the test is an objective one: Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd., [1995] 2 AC 145, 181. 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. 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. In these circumstances the claim against Mr Usherwood was a conventional claim for carelessness causing direct and foreseeable personal injury. This contention had some similarities to submissions made in relation to the Popular Flying Association in. He did so, notwithstanding, so it was alleged, that the mismatch between gearbox and propeller made the aircraft unairworthy. The present case can only be decided on the basis of an intense and particular focus on all its distinctive features, and then applying established legal principles to it.". Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001). 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 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". The ordinary test of reasonable skill and care is the correct one to apply. agreed with Hobhouse L.J. 74. 2. 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. 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. "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". at p.258 as follows: "The third defendants are a trading company incorporated under the companies Acts. 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. As already mentioned the referee is in sole charge of the contest, but if a boxer is counted out and fails to rise it is the doctor's duty to get into the ring as quickly as possible and institute emergency treatment should this be required. Stabilise the patient's condition by maintaining an air way and maintaining ventilation. In support of that proposition Mr. Walker relied upon X v Bedfordshire CC and Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923. 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. the British Boxing Board of Control was found to . 124. 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. The head teacher, being responsible for the school, himself comes under a duty of care to exercise the reasonable skills of a headmaster in relation to such steps as a reasonable teacher would consider appropriate to try to deal with such under-performance. 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. 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. .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 concern of the Board for the physical safety of boxers is reflected in many of the Board's rules and regulations. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. 118. I conclude that the Judge correctly found that the Board owed Mr Watson a duty of care. 30. 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 . First published: 28 June 2008. 85. The rise in pressure inside the skull caused by the haematoma results in distortion of the brain. By then, so he submitted, the evidence established that the damage would have been done. 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. the Hillsborough cases: e.g. Boxing is the only sport where this is the object of the exercise. He was present at the meeting held with the Minister for Sport after Mr Watson's injuries. For example, the relationship between the parties may be such that it is obvious that a lack of care will create a risk of harm and that as a matter of common sense and justice a duty should be imposed.. Again in most cases of the direct infliction of physical loss or injury through carelessness, it is self-evident that a civilised system of law should hold that a duty of care has been broken, whereas the infliction of financial harm may well pose a more difficult problem. Because the facts of this case are so unusual, there is no category in which a duty of care has been established from which one can advance to this case by a small incremental step. He submitted that the Board would presumably owe the same duty to boxers who came from abroad to box and persons who were not yet boxers, and perhaps not even born, when the rules were made. Thus at p.1162 Lord Woolf observed: "Once a call to an ambulance service has been accepted, the service is dealing with a named individual upon whom the duty becomes focused. It seems to me that the authorities support a principle that, where A places himself in a relationship to B in which Bs physical safety becomes dependant upon the acts and omissions of A, As conduct can suffice to impose on A a duty to exercise reasonable care for Bs safety. and Had the board simply given advice to all involved in professional boxing as to appropriate medical precautions, it would be strongly arguable that there was insufficient proximity between the board and individual boxers to give rise to a duty of care.

Alyssa Nose Before And After, Newburyport Restaurants On The Water, Stabbing In North Miami Beach, Neutralize Acid Spills Using Sodium Bicarbonate True Or False, Articles W