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. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe. 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. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control explained In any event, option B was the one that was undertaken. b) The rule that a Licence may be suspended or withdrawn if, in the opinion of the Board or an Area Council, the licence-holder is not medically fit to box (Rule 4.9(b)(I)). The acceptance of the call in this case established the duty of care. Mr Morris, commenting in his Witness Statement on the Statement of Claim, stated: "We do collaborate with the medical profession, indeed we believe that our Rules are as good as currently can be devised, taking into account the medical interests of the boxers, and the requirements of the sport itself. 105. 48. So far I have not dealt with the question of reliance by Mr Watson on the exercise of care by the Board. It is to make regulations imposing on others the duty to achieve these results. Lord Nicholls posed and answered the following question at p.802: "Take a case where an educational psychologist is employed by an education authority. These considerations lead to the final point made by Mr Walker in the context of proximity. Letang v Cooper - Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 - Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd -. . A primary injury such as that described can have secondary consequences which are much more serious. 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. 86. In that case a doctor phoned for an ambulance to take to hospital urgently a patient who had suffered an asthma attack. 42. At the third stage, questions of `proximity' and of what is `fair, just and reasonable' have to be considered. 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.". [4] After recovering consciousness, he sued the BBBC, arguing that because they laid down the rules governing professional boxing that ensured his safety, they owed him a duty of care and should have ensured that he was properly and immediately treated. This has relevance to a number of the points discussed above. 81. Elr, Recueil JP 01.02 3 a) Case of Michels v USOC (United States Court of Appeals - 7th circuit, 16 August 1984)40 B. the British Boxing Board of Control was found to . 125. When carrying out the assessment and advising the education authority, did the psychologist owe a duty of care to the child? "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. For these reasons I would dismiss this appeal. The Board next drew attention to evidence that a member of the public having sustained brain damage in a road accident would not expect to receive from the ambulance attending the scene the resuscitation service which the Judge held should have been available at the ringside. 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 Bout Agreement, which was subject to the sanction of the Board, provided that: "The bout will be conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the WBO and BBBC". 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. In 1991 it was also the practice to infuse with Manitol, though as I understand it this is no longer the case today. The fight had taken place in accordance with the rules of the British Boxing Board of Control Ltd., ("the Board"). 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. By the time he received resuscitation in hospital he had sustained permanent brain damage which such treatment would have prevented. 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. Hobhouse L.J. The North Middlesex Hospital had no neurosurgical department, so Mr Watson was transferred by ambulance, still unconscious, to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. They have not succeeded. 29. 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. I do not believe there is any difference in principle between giving advice about safety and laying down rules to provide for safety. 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. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - Wikipedia * the treatment actually provided to Mr Watson. 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. PDF Watson v British Boxing Board of Control: Negligent Rule-Making in the 74. Citation. While it might be possible to rationalise the reason for the duty by postulating that there is a general reliance by citizens upon the National Health Service to provide reasonable care in the case of a medical emergency, English law has set its face against this line of reasoning. 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. The child was in a singularly vulnerable position. The relevant findings of the Judge were as follows:-. 69. I confess I entertain no doubt on how that question should be answered. 115. He had particular experience of brain injuries caused by sporting activities. 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:-. 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 . Learn. As for the argument that the local authorities were vicariously liable for negligence on the part of those giving them advice, Lord Browne-Wilkinson held at pp.752-3: "The claim based on vicarious liability is attractive and simple. Instead he argued that even if resuscitation had been used, it would have been used too late to affect the outcome. Michael Watson was injured in a boxing match supervised by the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC or BBBC), which was expected . Michael Watson stands to receive no more than 400,000 compensation The settlement of Watson's case against the British Boxing Board of Control, approved by the High Court in London. 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. 33. QUIZ. Held: There is a close link between the tests in law for proximity . First published: 28 June 2008. had not been responsible for the claimant's asthma but it had caused the respiratory arrest and to this extent the L.A.S was the author of additional damage.". Only full case reports are accepted in court. 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. [5] Phillips noted that the BBBC had taken control of medically supervising the sport, and that the duty of care was not just to avoid injuries, but "to ensure that injuries already sustained are properly treated". There are features of this case which are extraordinary, if not unique. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd and Another Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. It has the ability to require of promoters what it sees as good practice. These recommendations Mr Hamlyn set out in a detailed paper for the Board two days later. Flashcards. The Articles of Association of the Board provide that its objects include: "To promote and safeguard the interests of members of the company in the United Kingdom and throughout the world including members' (being boxers) interests in boxing contests and tournaments.including..the encouragement. 77. 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. Use our proprietary AI tool CaseIQ to find other relevant judgments with just one click. Throughout, the child was very dependent upon the expert's assessment. Caring for the needs of boxers, and in particular the physical safety of boxers, is the primary object of the Board. "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. His comment that "it would only have added three minutes or so if he had waited until he was summoned" suggests to the contrary. An overview of key case law relating to negligent - LawInSport At the outset, however, I propose to identify some significant features of the present case, which place it outside any established category of duty of care in negligence. 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. 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. It made provision in its rules for the medical precautions to be employed and made compliance with these rules mandatory.. There an operation was carried out to evacuate a sub-dural haematoma. It is worth setting out the passage of the report of the Board's expert, Dr Cartlidge, which dealt with this aspect of the case. 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. 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. Also by Rupert Sheldrake A New Science of Life (1981; new edition 2009) The Presence of the Past (1988; new edition 2011) The Rebirth of Nature (1990) Seven Experiments That Could Change the World (1994; new edition 2002) Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home (1999; new edition 2011) The Sense of Being Stared At (2003) with Ralph Abraham and Terence McKenna Chaos Creativity and . I agree that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Lord Phillips M.R. 343, Denning L.J. 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. .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. In the second place it was not practical to use this equipment while the ambulance was on the move. Without it, the system of personal injury compensation would not have survived. 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. [3] Watson spent 40 days in a coma and 6 years in a wheelchair, with doctors initially predicting that he would never walk again. The word puzzle answer watson v british boxing board of control 2001 has these clues in the Sporcle Puzzle Library. [2], The case first went to the High Court of Justice, where Kennedy, J, gave his judgment on 24 September 1999, awarding Watson around 1 million in damages. at p.262 which I have set out above. 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. I conclude that the Judge correctly found that the Board owed Mr Watson a duty of care. Dr Whiteson did not give evidence. 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. 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. ", The Regime Applying to the Contest Between Watson and Eubank. 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. The Board's assumption of responsibility in relation to medical care probably relieved the promoter of such responsibility. .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 Law Commission in its 1994 Consultation Paper No.134 "Criminal Law: Consent and Offences Against the Person" recognised that boxing was an anomaly in English law. 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. Capital and Counties plc v. Hampshire County Council, Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority. 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. 55. 64. 7. It made provision in its Rules for the medical precautions to be employed and made compliance with these Rules mandatory. Sports injuries - Edge Hill University "The Board does not create the danger. Of course.these three matters overlap with each other and are really facets of the same thing. 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 fact that it was a person who foreseeably would suffer further injuries by a delay in providing an ambulance, when there was no reason why it should not be provided, is important in establishing the necessary proximity and thus duty of care in this case. 4. They argued that if they had failed to exercise reasonable care, this was not the direct cause of the Plaintiff's injuries - the direct cause being that the aircraft had been designed in a manner that made it unairworthy. On 24 September 1999 Ian Kennedy J., gave judgment in favour of Mr Watson against the Board. in that case. 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 practice the Area Secretary would select the medical officers for a particular contest, albeit that the promoter would pay them. 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. This involves intubation, or the insertion of an endotracheal tube. As part of the health service it should owe the same duty to members of the public as other parts of the health service. 129. Its experience, contacts and resources exceed his own. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - WikiMili.com 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. In its statutory context the ambulance service is more properly described as part of the National Health Service than as a rescue service. The agreed time of reception at the hospital was 23.22. 99. 122. The doctors required by the rules to be present at a contest had to be doctors who had been approved by the Board. 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. 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. The rise in pressure inside the skull caused by the haematoma results in distortion of the brain. 8. There was no contract between the parties, but boxers had to fight under the Board's rules. 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 Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Management Committee [1969] 1 Q.B. 35. So far as the promoter was concerned, these delimited his obligations. Next Mr. Walker argued that the duty of care alleged was one owed for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate number of persons. Another example was a general direction given, at about the same time, that an ambulance and crew should be in attendance at a boxing contest.