In Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2000), the claimant was the famous professional boxer Michael Watson. In the leading judgment Hobhouse L.J. In the second place it was not practical to use this equipment while the ambulance was on the move. In Marc Rich & Co v. Bishop Rock Ltd [1996] AC 211 a classification surveyor had surveyed a vessel laden with cargo and given it a clean bill of health. Herbert Smith, London. This ground of appeal would have been unsustainable. In consequence this special need was not addressed, to the detriment of the child. 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. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. In my judgement in the present cases, the social workers and the psychiatrist did not, by accepting the instructions of the local authority, assume any general professional duty of care to the plaintiff children. 12. In practice the Area Secretary would select the medical officers for a particular contest, albeit that the promoter would pay them. held that. 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. In an opinion read by Phillips MR, the court upheld Kennedy's decision, noting that it "broke new ground". On 24 September 1999 Ian Kennedy J., gave judgment in favour of Mr Watson against the Board. 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. He claimed that the Board had been under a duty of care to see that all reasonable steps were taken to ensure that he received immediate and effective medical attention and treatment should he sustain injury in the fight. 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 . The agreed time of reception at the hospital was 23.22. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. In Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 K.B. The phrase means simply that the law recognises that there is a duty of care. 97. The Judge summarised his findings on the facts as follows:-. 2. 118. 83. The Board held itself out as treating the safety of boxers as of paramount importance. . The Board did not insure against liability in negligence. 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.". Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Alexandrou v Oxford (1933), Maguire v Harland & Wolff PLC (2005), Calvert v William Hill (2008) and more. Later in the judgment the Judge suggested, by implication, that the Board's rules should have included a requirement that a boxer who was knocked out, or seemed unfit to defend himself, should be immediately seen by a doctor. 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. An analogy can be drawn with the duty of an employer, whose activities involve a particular health risk, to make provision for its employees to receive appropriate medical attention - see Stokes v. Guest Keen & Nettlefold (Bolts & Nuts) [1968] 1 WLR 1776. The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. The psychologist sees the child and carries out an assessment. 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. In relation to two of the cases involving special educational needs, Lord Browne-Wilkinson reached a different conclusion. He had particular experience of brain injuries caused by sporting activities. 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. I do not find this surprising. 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 physical safety of boxers has always been a prime concern of the Board. Since the seminal case of Condon v Basi [1985] . The Claimant would have been resuscitated within a few minutes of 23.00 and in St. Bartholomews by 23.45 at the latest. 3. 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. 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. [3] Kennedy held that there was a "sufficient nexus" between Watson and the BBBC to create a duty of care, and that Watson's consent to the fight (which would normally be considered a defence of volenti non fit injuria) was not a consent to the inadequate safety measures. 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. [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". In 1991 there were only about 550 active boxers, of which almost all were semi-professional. In 1991, a world title fight between Michael Watson and Chris Eubank took place in London under the BBBC Rules. It is a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that personal injuries already sustained are properly treated. 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 particular, the Board controlled the medical assistance that would be provided. I personally don't think that the decision to follow option B as opposed to option A had any material affect upon Watson.", The Medical facilities provided to Mr Watson at the ringside, 102. 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 . Once this proximity exists, it ceases to be material what form the unreasonable conduct takes. 98. 293.". .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. In any event, option B was the one that was undertaken. Center circle: In the center circle, jot down the name of your stated goalin this case, Create an Audio Educational Program. Try and prevent and/or treat raised intracranial pressure. 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. 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. 132. It was also important to have a prior arrangement with the hospital with a neurological unit, and with that unit placed on standby. 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. 24. 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. I can summarise the position as follows. 88. 35. 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. Of course.these three matters overlap with each other and are really facets of the same thing. The essence of Mr Watson's case is that there should have been a system under which such equipment would not merely be available, but used immediately in the event of a brain injury. The duty of the Board and of those advising it on medical matters, was to be prospective in their thinking and seek competent advice as to how a recognised danger could be combated. 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. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. Mr Watson's injuries were not, however, without precedent. 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. 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. We do not provide advice. I would echo the comment of Lord Steyn in Marc Rich & Co. v Bishop Rock Ltd [1996] AC 211 at p.236: "None of the cases cited provided any realistic analogy to be used as a springboard for a decision one way or the other in this case. Mr Usherwood had authority, under an Order made pursuant to the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to certify that the aircraft was fit to fly. 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. Only about twenty-five British boxers succeeded in earning a full-time living from the sport. 1. She claimed in negligence and occupiers liability. In X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633 five appeals were heard together by the House of Lords because they raised, by way of preliminary issues, similar questions about the duty of care. 29. Next Mr. Walker argued that the duty of care alleged was one owed for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate number of persons. In Clay v. Crump & Sons Ltd [1964] 1 QB 133 a building worker was injured when a wall collapsed on him. 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. I confess I entertain no doubt on how that question should be answered. This involves intubation, or the insertion of an endotracheal tube. The boxers display skill, strength and courage, but nobody pretends that they do good to themselves or others. This seems to me to be, on its face, an example par excellence of a situation where the law will regard the professional as owing a duty of care to a third party as well as his own employer.". That regulation has been provided by the Board. 133. 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 hospital should be requested to confirm that a Neuro-Surgeon would be on stand-by. Herbert Smith, London. It examines the ability of insurers to influence legislation relevant to the tort system. The broad function of the Board is to support professional boxing. 7. 34. Thus it has been held that the prison service owes a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent prisoners from committing suicide. 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. There is no doubt that once the relationship of doctor and patient or hospital authority and admitted patient exists, the doctor or the hospital owe a duty to take reasonable care to effect a cure, not merely to prevent further harm. 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. 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. The Board argued that this demonstrated that the standard applied by the Judge was too high. The Judge held that it was the duty of the Board, and of those advising it on medical matters, to be prospective in their thinking and to seek competent advice as to how a recognised danger could best be combated. 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. Test. The patient is then artificially ventilated through this tube with oxygen. 37. Plainly, however, the longer the delay, the more serious the outcome. Considerations of insurance are not relevant. That phrase can be misleading in that it can suggest that the professional person must knowingly and deliberately accept responsibility. 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 BBBC had a series of rules on the medical coverage needed for boxing matches, which required two doctors to be present at all times. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . He did not, however, identify any obvious stepping stones to his decision. As a result of the delay the patient sustained brain damage. In consequence, the pupil fails to receive the appropriate educational treatment and, as a result, his educational progress is retarded, perhaps irreparably. 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. 113. 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. Likewise, a doctor who happened to witness a road accident will very likely go to the assistance of anyone injured, but he is not under any legal obligation to do so, save in certain limited circumstances which are not relevant, and the relationship of doctor and patient does not arise. This concludes my summary of the facts which I consider material to the question of whether the Board owed a duty of care to Mr Watson. 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. First he submitted that the Board exercises a public function which it has assumed for the public good. 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.". He gave evidence that he agreed with Mr Hamlyn's views. While this may not be true of the volunteer who offers assistance at the scene of an accident, it will be true of a body whose purpose is or includes the provision of such assistance. The facilities provided accorded with the advice to medical officers issued by the Board's Medical Committee, to which I referred earlier. For these reasons I would dismiss this appeal. i) that it owed no duty of care to Mr Watson; ii) that if it owed the duty alleged, it committed no breach; and. In fact the Board had required a third doctor to be present and that an ambulance should be in attendance. Some boxers employed their own doctors. 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:-. held that, on the facts, a duty of care had existed. His evidence was that it was his practice to use it where a patient was experiencing breathing difficulties.