watson v british boxing board of control 2001 case

The phrase means simply that the law recognises that there is a duty of care. 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. The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. Later that day, there was a rise in intra-cranial pressure and a second operation was performed, on this occasion by Mr Hamlyn, to remove a new collection of blood and staunch a bleeding vein and artery. The decision is of interest for several reasons. She claimed in negligence and occupiers liability. 79. Any such inspector has to be approved by the association". 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 Board assumes the, 89. 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. But the fact that the carrying out of the retainer involves contact with and relationship with the child cannot alter the extent of the duty owed by the professionals under the retainer from the local authority. But the claimant does not come even remotely . Explore the crossword clues and related quizzes to this answer. The nature of the damage was important. 17. The Judge's findings in relation to breach of duty appear from the following passages in his judgment: "The standard response where the presence of subdural bleeding is known or suspected has been agreed since at least 1980, which is to intubate, ventilate, sedate, paralyse, and in Britain at least, to administer Manitol. 54. This is a further factor which tends to establish the proximity necessary for a duty of care. c) Rules governing bandaging for the hands and the composition of boxing gloves (Rules 3.22 and 3.23). 128. That, however, did not prove to be the position. Lord Steyn, however, gave short shrift to an argument based on assumption of responsibility: "Given that the cargo owners were not even aware of N.K.K. 7. In order to explain these allegations, I propose to summarise the evidence on: * the nature of injuries such as those suffered by Mr Watson; * the manner in which such injuries were treated in hospital in 1991; * the manner in which such injuries should have been treated at the ringside and. This can, of itself, result in the restriction of the supply of oxygen to the brain. 101. He answered that it took something like the injury to Mr Watson to make the Committee think of changing the practice. .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. 97. In support of that proposition Mr. Walker relied upon, 79. The Judge summarised his findings on the facts as follows:-. Thus it has been held that the prison service owes a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent prisoners from committing suicide. Thus the Board was a body with special knowledge giving advice to a defined class of persons in the knowledge that it would rely upon that advice in the defined situation of boxing contests. 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.". While it is difficult, or perhaps impossible, to avoid a degree of subjectivity when considering what is fair, just and reasonable, the approach must be to apply established principles and standards. 9. That argument was rejected. 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. Learn. However, should this not be so, then the boxer's gumshield should be removed, an adequate airway established and the boxer put on his left side so that should he fit or vomit he will not obstruct his airway. The child has a learning difficulty. Next Mr Walker argued that the Board did not create the danger of injury or the need for medical assistance. 15. Resuscitation equipment should be at ringside along with person(s) capable of using it". He said that a report had identified the risks. 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. 35. I shall revert to the details of this when I come to consider the question of breach. Search for more papers by this author. It is not so much that responsibility is assumed as that it is recognised or imposed by the law.". In the chaos that then ensued, Mr Watson was surrounded by his team, which included a number of bodyguards. The precise nature of the company's constitution is not covered by the evidence. Lord Nicholls posed and answered the following question at p.802: "Take a case where an educational psychologist is employed by an education authority. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . 98. 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. It did not summon medical assistance and its supervision of him was inadequate". The plaintiffs submitted that that which is most closely analogous is that of doctor and patient or health authority and patient. Match. This passage was approved by Lord Steyn when the case reached the House of Lords [1996] AC 211 at 235. No reasonably competent educational psychologist, exercising reasonable skill and care, would have given such advice. 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. The Board had given notice that he would be called as a witness and submitted the witness statement from him. He distinguished the fire and police `rescue' cases on the ground that: "This was not a case of general reliance, but specific reliance. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police 2014, East Suffix River Catchment Board v Kent, Reeves v Commissioner of Police and more. Effects are usually short-lived and do not produce lasting damage. In this the Judge was correct. 293.". 44. Treatment that should have been provided at the ringside. 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. 10. Mr Hamlyn said, and I accept, that there would have been very few British neurosurgeons who at this time would have questioned the need to put up a line and administer this diuretic in a case such as the present. In the course of his work he assesses a pupil whose lack of progress at school has been causing concern all round: to teachers and parents alike. The Board called to give evidence Mr Peter Richards, a Consultant Neuro-Surgeon with Charing Cross Hospital between 1987 and 1995. 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. I am left with the clear impression that the Board's medical advisers have not looked outside their personal expertise. The fight had taken place in accordance with the rules of the British Boxing Board of Control Ltd., ("the Board"). 21. In my judgment, there must be an affirmative answer to that question. 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. rejected the submission that any negligence on the part of Mr Usherwood was only an indirect cause of the crash. 34. Beldam L.J. Similarly, in the case of the advisory teacher brought in to advise on the educational needs of a specific pupil, if he knows that his advice will be communicated to the pupil's parents he must foresee that they will rely on such advice. The third category is of particular importance in the context of this action. 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. '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 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. 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. 36. The Board professes - I do not for one moment question its sincerity - its lively interest in his safety. * the treatment actually provided to Mr Watson. The Board held itself out as treating the safety of boxers as of paramount importance. It was also important to have a prior arrangement with the hospital with a neurological unit, and with that unit placed on standby. 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. The Board is non-profit making. 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. The first of these to enter the ring, Dr Shapiro, reached Mr Watson seven minutes after the fight had been stopped, i.e. Lord Steyn stated:-, "Since the decision in Dorset Yacht Co. v The Home Office [1970] AC 1004, it has been settled law that the elements of foreseeability and proximity as well as considerations of fairness, justice and reasonableness are relevant to all cases whatever the nature of the harm sustained by the plaintiff..". 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. 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. 32. I now come to the second special feature of this case - the fact that the Board is not charged with having failed itself to provide appropriate medical treatment, but with having failed to impose rules and regulations which would have ensured that others did so. 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. 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. Licence holders are also required to comply with the Board's policy in respect of matters not dealt with by specific rules. 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. The request for an ambulance was accepted. Stabilise the patient's condition by maintaining an air way and maintaining ventilation. The Board had, or had available, medical expertise. 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. It made provision in its rules for the medical precautions to be employed and made compliance with these rules mandatory.. He was brought in by the education authority to assist it in carrying out its educational functions. The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . 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:-. . In 1991 the Board had about twelve hundred licence holders and members of which about five hundred and fifty were active boxers. 52. Nearly half an hour elapsed between the end of the fight and the time that he got there. In the event, without explanation, he was not tendered as a witness and objection was taken to the use of his witness statement. iii) that the breach of duty alleged did not cause Mr Watson's injuries. These considerations lead to the final point made by Mr Walker in the context of proximity. Boxing is the only sport where this is the object of the exercise. Sharpe v Avery [1938] 4 All E.R. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. 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.