A. One issue in each case was whether, on these facts, it could be argued that the local authority had been either directly or vicariously, in breach of a duty of care owed to the child under common law. The normal duty of a doctor to exercise reasonable skill and care is well established as a common law duty of care. can also be found in Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134 in which Lord Phillips MR's advice on dealing with analogous cases was to first identify the principles relied upon as giving rise to a duty of care in the present case. Lord Browne-Wilkinson answered this question in the affirmative. 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 BBBC had a series of rules on the medical coverage needed for boxing matches, which required two doctors to be present at all times. 123. . 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. At the North Middlesex Hospital he was intubated, that is an endotrachael tube was inserted, and he was given oxygen. A primary stated object of the Board was to look after its boxing member's physical safety. This decision turned, essentially, on considerations of policy in relation to the role of a classification society in the context of the complex arrangements for sharing, limiting and insuring the risks inherent in carriage of goods by sea. 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. Of course.these three matters overlap with each other and are really facets of the same thing. "Proximity" is, no doubt, a convenient expression as long as it is realised that it is no more than a label which embraces not a definable concept but merely a description of circumstances from which pragmatically, the courts conclude that a duty of care exists.". 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. 86. 63. . [8], "BBC Sport Poignant end to Watson's epic journey", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watson_v_British_Boxing_Board_of_Control&oldid=1049029766, This page was last edited on 9 October 2021, at 12:23. It is, however, clear that the test is an objective one: Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd., [1995] 2 AC 145, 181. In these circumstances there was insufficient proximity between the Board and the objects of the duty. The most obvious category of case of a duty of care to administer medical treatment to restrict the consequences of injury or illness, or to effect a cure, is that of the duty owed by a doctor or a hospital authority to a patient. 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. The Judge summarised his findings on the facts as follows:-. at p.262 which I have set out above. Next the Board argued that the presence of an ambulance, with resuscitation equipment, should have satisfied the Judge that this aspect of medical care was adequately provided. Any loss of consciousness was short lived - he regained his feet and walked to his corner. The Board assumes the, 89. It is sometimes said that there has to be an assumption of responsibility by the person concerned. Moreover, the tendering of any advice will in many cases involve interviewing and, in the case of doctors, examining the child. the Hillsborough cases: e.g. The Board is non-profit making. The patient is then artificially ventilated through this tube with oxygen. Attempts have been made, within Parliament and outside, to bring about the banning of the sport of boxing. Thus a person may be liable for directing someone into a dangerous location (e.g. 81. The child was in a singularly vulnerable position. The Board controlled every aspect of that activity. Letang v Cooper - Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 - Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd -. There is no question but that anyone with the appropriate expertise would have advised such a system whatever reservations they may have had, as had Professor Teasdale, about its ultimate utility.". 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. Such duty does not depend on the existence of any contractual relationship between the person causing and the person suffering the damage. He makes a diagnosis and advises the education authority. In Caparo v Dickman the Court recognised a duty of care owed by auditors to all the members of a company. Found Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor useful? There are a number of problems with this submission. 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. 3. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. He held that anyone with the appropriate expertise would have advised the adoption of such a system. In these circumstances, it is no cause for surprise that the equipment was not in fact used. * Enter a valid Journal (must He won a historic High Court case in Sept 1999, raising questions about the future of the professional sport in the UK. In my judgment there is a difference in principle between making Rules and giving advice, but it is not one which assists the Board. change. 3.9 each boxer must be examined after every contest and a report sent to the Board or Area Council concerned if necessary. Next Mr Walker argued that the Board did not create the danger of injury or the need for medical assistance. In this the Judge was correct. We do not provide advice. 39. 2. 1, 43-44, where he said: "It is preferable, in my view, that the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories, rather than by a massive extension of a prima facie duty of care restrained only by indefinable `considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed.". 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 latter have the role of protecting the public in general against risks, which they play no part in creating. 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. This has left him paralysed down the left side and with other physical and mental disability. Had the ambulance been, in fact, just as satisfactory, this would have meant that the absence of a Rule requiring such a facility would have had no causative effect. 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. The onlookers derive entertainment, but none of the physical and moral benefits which have been seen as the fruits of engagement in many sports.". Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. If the boxer remains unconscious, then full emergency procedures should be undertaken, the stretcher placed in the ring, the boxer very carefully transferred to it, preferably by skilled handlers and, if needs be, the other doctor should by then have rung ambulance control and have contacted the local hospital to inform them of the problem. Treatment that should have been provided at the ringside. The company, as the Popular Flying Association, appoint inspectors for the purpose of, among other things, inspecting aircraft during the course of their construction by members of the association and certifying whether the relevant work has been done to his "entire satisfaction" and the aircraft is in an airworthy condition. 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. This submission involves considering the timing of events and the Judge's findings in relation to the impact of these on causation. In 1991, a world title fight between Michael Watson and Chris Eubank took place in London under the BBBC Rules. Without so doing, however, the Judge concluded that for some reason no thought was given to the practicality of introducing at the ringside what he found had been a standard response, where the presence of sub-dural bleeding was known or suspected, since at least 1980. The Judge referred (Transcript p.17) to the question of whether to attach a duty of care to the facts of the present case would be an acceptable incremental extension of established liabilities, or too long a step. 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. I consider that the Judge was entitled to find on the evidence, that had the Hamlyn protocol been in place, the outcome of Mr Watson's injuries would have been significantly better. [2] The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, where a 3-judge panel consisting of Phillips MR, May LJ and Laws LJ delivered their judgment on 19 December 2000. 57. I see no reason why the rules should not have contained the provision suggested by the Judge. 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. That, however, did not prove to be the position. 101. Many sports involve a risk of physical injury to the participants. Watson v British Boxing Board, above Michael v South Wales Police, above ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust . Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. The patient can then be taken straight to the nearest neurosurgical unit. He had in fact sustained a brain haemorrhage and, after returning to his corner, he lapsed into unconsciousness on his stool. An ambulance should be on site from the start of the tournament, possibly with a crew of trained para-medics. The Board exercises its control of professional boxing through a system of eight Area Councils, subject to overall control by Stewards and Committees. The background to this case was described by Hobhouse L.J. 3.5.2 For British and Commonwealth Championship contests only, or 116. (Rule 5.9(c)). 65. If it was held liable it might withdraw from its work, or have to pass on the cost of increased insurance to the detriment of small aircraft operators. These can be divided into three categories: i) rules designed to ensure that a boxer is not permitted to fight unless he is fit. [3] Watson spent 40 days in a coma and 6 years in a wheelchair, with doctors initially predicting that he would never walk again. This reasoning was followed by the House of Lords in Phelps v Hillingdon Borough Council [2000] 3 WLR 776. In his Witness Statement, Mr Morris accepted that the following averment in the Statement of Claim was "basically correct": "at all material times, by reason of the effective control over boxing that the Board assumed, the Board was in a position to determine, and did in fact determine, the measures that were taken in boxing to protect and promote the health and safety of boxers. But the claimant does not come even remotely . A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media 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. 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. 8. 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. Thereafter, when the defendant assumed responsibility for him, it accepts that the measures taken fell short of the standard reasonably to be expected. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control: Negligent Rule-Making in the Court of Appeal. In the final round, Watson lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital, arriving there nearly half an hour after the end of the fight and received resuscitation treatment. In any event, option B was the one that was undertaken. 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 Board had, or had access to, specialist expertise in relation to appropriate standards of medical care. Only full case reports are accepted in court. These cases turned upon the assumption of responsibility to an individual. Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users . Only about twenty-five British boxers succeeded in earning a full-time living from the sport. If so, it is misguided. iii) that the breach of duty alleged did not cause Mr Watson's injuries. Saville L.J. "If the protocol had been in place, and Dr Shapiro had been required to go straight to the ring, he would have begun the necessary procedures within a minute or two of the collapse and so by 23.00. At this meeting Mr Hamlyn expressed the view that it was vital that at the ringside there should be the right doctors with the right equipment. On the evidence I consider that the Judge was entitled to find that, even if resuscitation had not been commenced until after help was summoned, it would probably have resulted in a significantly better outcome for Mr Watson. Try and prevent and/or treat raised intracranial pressure. Dr Ross, who was a member of the Medical Committee for a number of years before the Watson fight, was asked whether he remembered discussions about treatment in the ring of head injuries before that fight. I consider that the Judge could properly have done so. In the first place the paramedic in the ambulance was not trained to use resuscitation equipment as a matter of course where a head injury was involved. As a result of the delay the patient sustained brain damage. Whilst unattended he vomited and died as a result of inhaling his own vomit. QUIZ. After recovering consciousness, he sued the BBBC in negligence, and was awarded approximately 1 million by the High Court of Justice, who determined that the relationship between the BBBC and Watson was sufficient to create a duty of care. 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.