Only full case reports are accepted in court. In my judgment, there must be an affirmative answer to that question. The Board had given notice that he would be called as a witness and submitted the witness statement from him. Search for more papers by this author. In particular they are boxers. i) that it owed no duty of care to Mr Watson; ii) that if it owed the duty alleged, it committed no breach; and. A book of rules and regulations 58 pages in length provides, in detail, for the manner in which professional boxing is to be carried on. At the hospital Mr Watson was given the conventional resuscitation procedure - that is intubation, ventilation, oxygen and an infusion of Manitol. It is always better to err on the side of caution and even if a boxer has recovered sufficiently to leave the ring unaided, if and when he returns to the dressing room he exhibits any sign of persistent concussion or admits to any persistent headaches, visual disturbance or vomiting he should be immediately transferred to the local hospital where the expert advice of Neurologists and Neurosurgeons can be obtained. If his condition was satisfactory, he could have been transferred for resuscitation to hospital, there have his condition stabilised and thereafter be transferred to a Neurosurgical Unit for more definitive investigation and treatment. 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. As part of the health service it should owe the same duty to members of the public as other parts of the health service. 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 subject matter of the advice and activities of the professionals is the child. It seems to me that, but for the intervention of the Board, the promoter would probably owe a common law duty to the boxer to make reasonable provision for the immediate treatment of his injuries. 94. Mr Walker's challenge to these findings was based on a single point. 2. He suffered severe brain damage after being injuredduring a match. I found this submission unrealistic. 91. 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. 39. 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. (Vowles v Evans and the Welsh Rugby Union Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 318), governing bodies for failing to provide in their rules for appropriate medical provision at ringside in a boxing match (Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134), . 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. By this time, however, he had sustained serious brain damage. In particular, the Board controlled the medical assistance that would be provided. 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. The North Middlesex Hospital had no neurosurgical department, so Mr Watson was transferred by ambulance, still unconscious, to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Any loss of consciousness was short lived - he regained his feet and walked to his corner. In an opinion read by Phillips MR, the court upheld Kennedy's decision, noting that it "broke new ground". "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. .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. 66. 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. I am left with the clear impression that the Board's medical advisers have not looked outside their personal expertise. 3. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE Case No: QBENF1999/1137/A2, (1) BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL LIMITED, (2) WORLD BOXING ORGANISATION INCORPORATED, (Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of, Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street, Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, Mr C Mackay, QC and Mr Neil Block (instructed by Myers Fletcher & Gordon) appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Claimant. 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. In other words, as there were no circumstances which made it unfair or unreasonable or unjust that liability should exist, there is no reason why there should not be liability if the arrival of the ambulance was delayed for no good reason. He could have been treated on the spot, and had an endotrachael tube inserted, been ventilated and thereafter transferred directly to a Neurosurgical Unit where CT scan facilities were available. 2. Lord Phillips in the Court of Appeal described the case as a unique one because here, rather than . By then, so he submitted, the evidence established that the damage would have been done. Questions of what was fair and reasonable did not arise. The purpose of his assessment was to enable him to give expert advice to the education authority about the child. 103. 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. But at the same time it countenances and gives its blessing to contests where the safety arrangements are those of its making. My reaction is the same as that of Buxton L.J. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. Many sports involve a risk of physical injury to the participants. Licence holders are also required to comply with the Board's policy in respect of matters not dealt with by specific rules. These facts bring the Board into close proximity with each individual boxer who contracts with a promoter to fight under the Board's rules. I find this distinction between instructions as to duties and instructions as to how to perform duties elusive and over subtle. 72. (Rule 5.9(c)). 85. On 24 September 1999 Ian Kennedy J., gave judgment in favour of Mr Watson against the Board. 8. 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. 96. This has relevance to a number of the points discussed above. It is a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that personal injuries already sustained are properly treated. It carried out this function by making and imposing rules dealing with the safety of boxers, by approving medical officers and by giving detailed guidance as to the qualifications and equipment those officers should bring to the ringside. The General Medical Council clearly states that a doctor must offer help when off-duty, if an emergency arises. [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. 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. 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 child's parents will seldom be in a position to know whether the psychologist's advice was sound or not. Considerations of insurance are not relevant. for the existence of a duty of care were present. There are features of this case which are extraordinary, if not unique. 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. I propose to develop the relevant facts more fully in the context of each of these issues. In 1991 its income was some 314,000 of which some 51,000 represented licence and application fees and about 224,000 `tournament tax', which I understand to represent a small percentage of the takings at boxing tournaments. Letang v Cooper - Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 - Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd -. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. His conclusions as to duty are to be found in the following passages from his judgment. The next ground advanced by the Board in support of the contention that the Judge applied too high a standard, was that there was no evidence that any other boxing authority in the World imposed more rigorous requirements than those of the Board's rules. Of these, the vast majority were semi-professional. 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. 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. During the match Watson was knocked out by Eubank, and it was 7 minutes before doctors attended him; eventually 3 doctors and an ambulance were needed. 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. . 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. The evidence of the expert witnesses called on behalf of Mr Watson was that the first ten minutes after loss of consciousness were critical. In any event, option B was the one that was undertaken. The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. 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. 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. [1988] 1 AC 1074 at 1090; and Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] 1 AC 750 at 783. 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. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Calvert v William Hill (2008). Thereafter, when the defendant assumed responsibility for him, it accepts that the measures taken fell short of the standard reasonably to be expected. This contention had some similarities to submissions made in relation to the Popular Flying Association in Perrett v Collins. England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor. Dr Whiteson did not give evidence. Stabilise the patient's condition by maintaining an air way and maintaining ventilation. 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. 12. This has left him paralysed down the left side and with other physical and mental disability. Herbert Smith, London. The members of the Board are those who are involved in professional boxing. Mr Watson's injuries were not, however, without precedent. Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 Q.B.D. The time was now 23.08. It is to make regulations imposing on others the duty to achieve these results. I consider that these were proper findings on the evidence and that Mr Watson's case on breach of duty was made out. There he arrived in the scanning room at 00.30 on 22nd September. the concern of the Board for the physical safety of boxers is reflected in many of the Board's rules and regulations. He gave evidence that the WBO imposed no medical requirements in respect of the fight and that in these circumstances, the ordinary Board rules and policy would and did apply. See Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 and Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145. I do not believe there is any difference in principle between giving advice about safety and laying down rules to provide for safety. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. said: "In my opinion authorities who run a hospital, be they local authorities, government boards, or any other corporation, are in law under the selfsame duty as the humblest doctor. In the event Mr Walker did not put this pleaded Ground of Appeal at the forefront of his argument. .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. These rules included provisions for medical inspection of boxers and for the attendance of two doctors at a fight. To my mind it is difficult in such a situation to profess a concern for safety and to deny a duty such as I have described. ii) The Board assumed responsibility for determining the details of the medical care and facilities which would be provided by way of immediate treatment of those who received personal injuries while taking part in the activity. Without it, the system of personal injury compensation would not have survived. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control 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 agreed time of reception at the hospital was 23.22. If wrong information had not been given about the arrival of the ambulance, other means of transport could have been used". As already mentioned the referee is in sole charge of the contest, but if a boxer is counted out and fails to rise it is the doctor's duty to get into the ring as quickly as possible and institute emergency treatment should this be required. Again I disagree. I agree that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Lord Phillips M.R. Professor Teasdale had some reservations about the effectiveness of some of this, but he accepted that this was standard practice. The judgment is attacked root and branch. Test. In Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2000), the claimant was the famous professional boxer Michael Watson. In an article on injuries in professional boxing written in 1981, Dr Whiteson stated: "My task as Senior Medical Officer is to control the medical aspects of boxing and in this to liaise closely with Area Medical Officers and with the team of medical experts which includes neurologists and orthopaedic, plastic and ophthalmic surgeons". 65. In theory the medical officers at a contest would be appointed and paid by the Promoter from the body of approved doctors. This point was put to the Judge. 23. He received only occasional visits of inspection by the duty ratings. Outside circles: Next, divide the goal into the major categories of tasks you'll need to accomplish to achieve the greater goalin this case, Title, Studio, Topics, Audience, and so on. 42. 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. 25. These cases were distinguished in Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 WLR 1158. 119. Hobhouse L.J. The association exists to facilitate amateurs to enjoy facilities for flying light aircraft. A defendant seeking to disturb the findings of fact of a trial Judge in relation to causation undertakes a hard task. The Judge held that on these facts Mr Watson was entitled to recover for his injuries in full, relying on the authorities of McGhee v The National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1; Wiltshire v Essex A.H.A. Held: There is a close link between the tests in law for proximity . Match. An ambulance should be on site from the start of the tournament, possibly with a crew of trained para-medics. James George, James George. Elr, Recueil JP 01.02 3 a) Case of Michels v USOC (United States Court of Appeals - 7th circuit, 16 August 1984)40 B. 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. 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. He would only use it to overcome breathing difficulties. 8. Center circle: In the center circle, jot down the name of your stated goalin this case, Create an Audio Educational Program. The patient is then artificially ventilated through this tube with oxygen. "The role of Medical Officer at a Professional Boxing Tournament is a very important one and requires an adequate working knowledge of sports medicine, the diagnosis and treatment of acute medical conditions and a working knowledge of the training and dietary requirements of a Professional Boxer and Athlete. There was a contrast with a fire or a crime, where an unlimited number of members of the public could be affected and the damage could be to property or only economic. [7] Paying the compensation granted to Watson, which was eventually reduced to 400,000, led to the BBBC selling their London headquarters and moving to Wales. 36. It is not clear why the ambulance took so long to reach the hospital. The facilities include a scheme which enables members to construct and fly their own light aircraft. Whilst unattended he vomited and died as a result of inhaling his own vomit. The present case can only be decided on the basis of an intense and particular focus on all its distinctive features, and then applying established legal principles to it.". Nothing that I have heard persuades me that there was any impracticality, whether in terms of manpower or in cost to the promoters, in the Board having included such a requirement in their rules. Each emphatically concluded that it was. In the second place it was not practical to use this equipment while the ambulance was on the move. The plaintiffs submitted that that which is most closely analogous is that of doctor and patient or health authority and patient. 85) or a producer may be liable for the absence of an adequate warning on the labelling of his product (e.g. Learn. 40. In accordance with normal practice, the medical officers for the contest were nominated by the Southern Area Council. The Plaintiffs were children with dyslexia. An example of the ongoing review of safety standards was the Board's decision, in August 1991, that: "In future three Board Medical Officers would be appointed when a major contest was taking place. I think that the Judge was right. When considering whether the Board owed Watson a duty of care, Ian Kennedy J. examined at some length the role played by the Board in imposing, by rules and regulations, the safety standards to be observed by those involved in professional boxing in this country. It is not possible to measure even on the balance of probabilities where the damage would have stopped if the protocol had been followed. 67. Each area had a Chief Medical Officer, whose duties included the approval of doctors who wished to serve as medical officers at boxing matches. No contest shall take place unless fully trained personnel are able to operate such resuscitation equipment are present throughout the promotion.". 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. 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. agreed with Hobhouse L.J. Mr Watson belonged to a class which was within the contemplation of the Board. In its statutory context the ambulance service is more properly described as part of the National Health Service than as a rescue service. 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 normal duty of a doctor to exercise reasonable skill and care is well established as a common law duty of care. The Board has argued that until this accident no-one had suggested that they should institute this protocol. It is sometimes said that there has to be an assumption of responsibility by the person concerned. In the leading speech Lord Slynn advanced the following statement of principle at pp.790-1: "As to the first question, it is long and well-established, now elementary, that persons exercising a particular skill or profession may owe a duty of care in the performance to people who it can be foreseen will be injured if due skill and care are not exercised, and if injury or damage can be shown to have been caused by the lack of care.