watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case

Each area had a Chief Medical Officer, whose duties included the approval of doctors who wished to serve as medical officers at boxing matches. The most material part of this reads: "The Senior Medical Officer shall arrange for full and adequate resuscitation equipment (including intubation and ventilation equipment) to be available at the ringside of the venue. In 1991 the Board had about twelve hundred licence holders and members of which about five hundred and fifty were active boxers. The General Medical Council clearly states that a doctor must offer help when off-duty, if an emergency arises. Boxing members of the Board, including Mr Watson, could reasonably rely upon the Board to look after their safety. It seems to me that the authorities support a principle that where A places himself in a relationship to B in which B's physical safety becomes dependent upon the acts or omissions of A, A's conduct can suffice to impose on A, a duty to exercise reasonable care for B's safety. This is an argument which might appeal to boxing enthusiasts, but would not be accepted by the British Medical Association. Lord Phillips in the Court of Appeal described the case as a unique one because here, rather than . 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. [6] This was an extension to the previous duty of care under negligence, and also serves as an exception to the rule under trespass to the person that a defendant will not be liable for personal harm caused in sporting matches which the claimant consents to. 83. 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. Boxing is the only sport where this is the object of the exercise. Similarly none of the particular difficulties which arise in relation to economic loss arise in relation to the causing of personal injury. 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. The child has a learning difficulty. 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. This can lead to an accumulation of carbon dioxide in the blood, which in its turn can cause swelling of the brain and a rise in intra-cranial pressure. The Board, however, went far beyond this. The medical room should be situated in close proximity to the boxer's dressing rooms and be reasonable accessible to and from the ring. In practice the Area Secretary would select the medical officers for a particular contest, albeit that the promoter would pay them. Mr Walker accepted that if Mr Watson had specifically asked the Board for advice as to the precautions that he ought to have in place for his fight, and the Board had given advice, the Board would have been under a duty to exercise care in giving that advice. 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". 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. Hobhouse L.J. In relation to two of the cases involving special educational needs, Lord Browne-Wilkinson reached a different conclusion. (Rule 5.9(c)). Administrative, Personal Injury, Negligence, Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.135634. The L.A.S. Held: A certifying . rejected the submission that any negligence on the part of Mr Usherwood was only an indirect cause of the crash. Each venue must have a room set aside exclusively for medical purposes. These facts bring the Board into close proximity with each individual boxer who contracts with a promoter to fight under the Board's rules. Plainly, however, the longer the delay, the more serious the outcome. 2. 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 . b) A limit on the number of rounds to twelve (Rule 3.7). that the negligence alleged fell into the category of directly causing foreseeable personal injury, both he and Swinton Thomas L.J. Watson successfully sued the BBBC for 400,000 after being left with brain injuries following his 1991 fight with Chris Eubank. The Board accepted these recommendations and promulgated them by way of guidance. He rejected it, holding that the standard to be expected of an ambulance dealing with every kind of medical emergency was not the same as the standard to be expected from those making provision for a particular and serious risk which was one of a limited number likely to arise. In a Witness Statement in the present proceedings, Mr Watson stated that this accorded with his understanding as a boxer that the Board undertook responsibility for all the medical aspects of boxing, including the medical supervision of boxing contests, in the United Kingdom. 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. In particular, the Board controlled the medical assistance that would be provided. 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. In the chaos that then ensued, Mr Watson was surrounded by his team, which included a number of bodyguards. 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. The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. 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. 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. 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. 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.". 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. 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. Each emphatically concluded that it was. They alleged that the local authorities had provided services under which, in one case, educational psychologists and, in the other, advisory teachers provided advice to teaching staff and parents as to whether children had special educational needs. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe. held that, on the facts, a duty of care had existed. "Here all that is clear is that on the balance of probabilities the Claimant's present state would have been materially better than it actually is. 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. 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. The boxers display skill, strength and courage, but nobody pretends that they do good to themselves or others. 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. Serious brain damage such as that suffered by Mr Watson, though happily an uncommon consequence of a boxing injury, represented the most serious risk posed by the sport and one that required to be addressed. If he volunteers his assistance, his only duty as a matter of law is not to make the victim's condition worse. The Kit Fox aircraft is an aircraft which is designed for this purpose. The Board's assumption of responsibility in relation to medical care probably relieved the promoter of such responsibility. 17. is darth vader more powerful than palpatine; modern warplanes mod apk unlimited money and gold 2022 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. It is not so much that responsibility is assumed as that it is recognised or imposed by the law.". It trades under the name of the "Popular Flying Association" and it appears that either its main role or one of its main roles is to run that association. Use our proprietary AI tool CaseIQ to find other relevant judgments with just one click. The distinction between negligent misstatement and other forms of conduct ceases to be legally relevant, although it may have a factual relevance to foresight or causation. 3.10 The promoter shall procure that at all promotions a stretcher is available for use near the ring. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001). iii) that the breach of duty alleged did not cause Mr Watson's injuries. The final point taken by the Board was that they did not receive advice in relation to the desirability of ringside resuscitation until after Mr Watson's injuries. 3.9 each boxer must be examined after every contest and a report sent to the Board or Area Council concerned if necessary. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001 . 109. The claimant drank the water, and claimed damages for having consumed arsenic in it. A. 75. First published: 28 June 2008. Radio Times - February 1117 2023 - Free ebook download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read book online for free. The Board argued that this demonstrated that the standard applied by the Judge was too high. This concludes my consideration of cases dealing with the assumption of responsibility to exercise reasonable care to safeguard a victim from the consequences of an existing personal injury or illness. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control: Negligent Rule-Making in the Court of Appeal. Beldam L.J. Lord Oliver at p.633 also emphasised the difficulty of using the three requirements as a practical guide to the existence of a duty of care. 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. 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 concern of the Board for the physical safety of boxers is reflected in many of the Board's rules and regulations. Any such inspector has to be approved by the association". At the third stage, questions of `proximity' and of what is `fair, just and reasonable' have to be considered. 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. 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. In my judgment, there must be an affirmative answer to that question. The latter have the role of protecting the public in general against risks, which they play no part in creating. 9.39.3 (added to the Rules on 25 May 1991)). agreed with Hobhouse L.J. 99. No reasonably competent educational psychologist, exercising reasonable skill and care, would have given such advice. 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. 124. Secondly, to identify any categories of cases in which these principles She claimed in negligence and occupiers liability. The physical safety of boxers has always been a prime concern of the Board. 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". ", 126. 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. 1 result for "watson v british boxing board of control 2001" hide this ad. They did not have the expertise in providing such resuscitation; nor did they have the necessary equipment. In other words, he could have been resuscitated on site and then transferred for more specific care. 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. Only full case reports are accepted in court. 21. c) Rules governing bandaging for the hands and the composition of boxing gloves (Rules 3.22 and 3.23). 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. The board, however, went far beyond this. 73. . 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. 115. 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. Many of the matters considered under the heading of proximity are also relevant to the question of whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in this case. Saville L.J. 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. At the hospital Mr Watson was given the conventional resuscitation procedure - that is intubation, ventilation, oxygen and an infusion of Manitol. 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.". e) The rule that any boxer selected to take part in a championship contest shall submit to the Board a satisfactory centralised tomography (CT) brain scan report not less than 28 days before the contest and a further scan report annually, so long as the boxer continues to take part in such contests. In an opinion read by Phillips MR, the court upheld Kennedy's decision, noting that it "broke new ground".