Plainly, however, the longer the delay, the more serious the outcome. ", 38. By this time, however, he had sustained serious brain damage. I think that the Judge was right. 77. * The Board failed to ensure that those running the contest knew which hospitals in the vicinity had a neurosurgical capability. He sued the owner, Mr Usherwood and the Popular Flying Association ("the PFA"). The Board accepted these recommendations and promulgated them by way of guidance. He was taken on a stretcher to an ambulance which was standing by which took him to North Middlesex Hospital. 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. Mr Watson received resuscitation and neuro-surgery in hospital in circumstances that I shall describe when I come to deal with causation. James George, James George. 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. 14. To hold that, in such circumstances, the head teacher could properly ignore the matter and make no attempt to deal with it would fly in the face, not only of society's expectations of what a school will provide, but also the fine traditions of the teaching profession itself. Search for more papers by this author. [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. In the leading judgment Hobhouse L.J. 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. "The Board does not create the danger. The doctors should decide between them who will remain ringside and who will undertake the emergency treatment should the need arise. If, which I doubt, this conclusion represents any step beyond what is already settled law, I am fully persuaded it is a proper one to take.". 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. Resuscitation equipment should be at ringside along with person(s) capable of using it". Only about twenty-five British boxers succeeded in earning a full-time living from the sport. 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. held that. The Board called to give evidence Mr Peter Richards, a Consultant Neuro-Surgeon with Charing Cross Hospital between 1987 and 1995. Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users . In any event I believe that this point vanishes when causation is considered. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, who noted that the BBBC had a duty not only to ensure that injuries did not occur, but that injuries were properly treated. 107. 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. 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. 3.5.2 For British and Commonwealth Championship contests only, or 104. Had he been asked in the period before the Eubank/Watson fight to advise on precautions in relation to the risk of serious head injury, he said that he would have given the same advice as Mr Hamlyn. The board lost its. If Mr Watson has no remedy against the Board, he has no remedy at all. [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 the event Mr Walker did not put this pleaded Ground of Appeal at the forefront of his argument. 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. Stabilise the patient's condition by maintaining an air way and maintaining ventilation. Learn. The brain benefits from the increased supply of oxygen and from a reduction in intra-cranial pressure in so far as this was attributable to excessive carbon dioxide. 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.". Nearly half an hour elapsed between the end of the fight and the time that he got there. 122. The architect, by reason of his contractual arrangement with the building owner, was charged with the duty of preparing the necessary plans and making arrangements for the manner in which the work should be done. Many sports involve a risk of physical injury to the participants. 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. Flashcards. Once resuscitation, or stabilisation has taken place, the next stage is neuro-surgery to remove the haematoma and seal any ruptured veins or arteries. 4. 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. On 24 September 1999 Ian Kennedy J., gave judgment in favour of Mr Watson against the Board. None of the three doctors present went to his assistance until requested to do so. There had been a number of similar cases in the 1980's. He was brought in by the education authority to assist it in carrying out its educational functions. 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. Had the Board's rules required Mr Hamlyn's protocol to be put in place, the doctors present could have been expected to have resorted to resuscitation. By then, so he submitted, the evidence established that the damage would have been done. The comparison drawn by Mr Walker between the Board and a rescuer is not apt. No one can take part, in any capacity, in professional boxing in this Country who is not licensed by the Board and, at the same time, a member of it, for the two are essentially synonymous. The Kit Fox aircraft is an aircraft which is designed for this purpose. Saville L.J. 31. Each case involved the performance by the local authority of duties imposed under statute for the benefit of children. 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 propose to develop the relevant facts more fully in the context of each of these issues. .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. 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. ii) the duty alleged is not directly, through the servants or agents of the Board to provide proper facilities and administer proper treatment to those injured. [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. The move is being made as a cost-cutting measure in the wake of the Michael Watson case. 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. The rise in pressure inside the skull caused by the haematoma results in distortion of the brain. All these matters lead me to conclude that the Judge was right to find that the Board was under a duty of care to Mr Watson. [2] He was given no oxygen, and first sent to a hospital which lacked a neurosurgery unit. 13. 2. The promoters and the boxers do not themselves address considerations of safety. I find this distinction between instructions as to duties and instructions as to how to perform duties elusive and over subtle. The first of these to enter the ring, Dr Shapiro, reached Mr Watson seven minutes after the fight had been stopped, i.e. 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. 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. Boxing could not, however, have survived as a legal sport without strict regulation, one aim of which is to limit the injuries inflicted in the ring. Only full case reports are accepted in court. 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. The Board held itself out as treating the safety of boxers as of paramount importance. This would mean an appointment of a Senior Medical officer specifically for the major event and then two other doctors on duty to ensure that there were always two doctors at the ringside while a major contest was taking place.". 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. . Capital and Counties plc v. Hampshire County Council, Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority. 92. contains alphabet). The latter have the role of protecting the public in general against risks, which they play no part in creating. 114. I agree that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Lord Phillips M.R. 120. "What emerges is that, in addition to the forceability of damage, necessary ingredients in any situation giving rise to a duty of care are that there should exist between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed, a relationship characterised by the law as one of "proximity" or "neighbourhood" and that the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope upon the one party for the benefit of the other". Once the defendant had become involved in the activity which gives rise to the risk, he comes under the duty to act reasonably in all respects relevant to that risk. Establish an accurate diagnosis as to the intracranial pathology. 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. 44. 58. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. In each case it was alleged that the professional in question negligently failed to diagnose dyslexia. 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. * the treatment actually provided to Mr Watson. Since the seminal case of Condon v Basi [1985] . We have been referred to no case where a duty of care has been established in relation to the drafting of rules and regulations which have governed the conduct of third parties towards a claimant. The Board's Medical Committee had issued detailed advice to Medical Officers in relation to their duty at the ringside which was in force at the time of the Watson/Eubank fight. 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. My reaction is the same as that of Buxton L.J. In Caparo v Dickman the Court recognised a duty of care owed by auditors to all the members of a company. 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. Dr Shapiro examined Mr Watson and put a Brookes Airway into his mouth to maintain his airway. Had the Board said nothing, it might not be liable, but once it gave advice by setting rules, it came to be responsible. It has the ability to require of promoters what it sees as good practice. In the second case he reached the following conclusions of principle at p.766: "In my judgment a school which accepts a pupil assumes responsibility not only for his physical well being but also for his educational needs. 2. Therefore, it is said, it is nothing to the point that the social workers and psychiatrist only came into contact with the plaintiffs pursuant to contracts or arrangements made between the professionals and the local authority for the purpose of the discharge by the local authority of its statutory duties. 101. 35. Mr Morris told the court that he would expect the Medical Committee, and its Chief Medical Officer, to keep abreast of developments in sports medicine that impacted on the safety of boxers in the ring. There was no contract between the parties, but boxers had to fight under the Board's rules. As Mr Morris accepted, by reason of its control over boxing 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. Instead he argued that even if resuscitation had been used, it would have been used too late to affect the outcome. 20. [1997] QB 1004 at 1034. radio I have already indicated that I do not accept the basis of the challenge of the Judge's finding that the protocol in place ought to have included a requirement for a doctor to attend immediately where a fight was stopped because a boxer could no longer defend himself. ii) rules designed to restrict the physical injuries that may be caused in the course of the fight; iii) rules designed to secure that a boxer receives appropriate medical attention when injured in the course of a fight. I consider that these were proper findings on the evidence and that Mr Watson's case on breach of duty was made out. They did not have the expertise in providing such resuscitation; nor did they have the necessary equipment. He makes a diagnosis and advises the education authority. iii) Those taking part in the activity, and Mr Watson in particular, relied upon the Board to ensure that all reasonable steps were taken to provide immediate and effective medical attention and treatment to those injured in the course of the activity. 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. Obviously a full report should then be sent to the relevant Area Council or Board and the sooner this is done, from a medical view point, the better.". This reasoning was followed by the House of Lords in Phelps v Hillingdon Borough Council [2000] 3 WLR 776. The ambulance took him to North Middlesex Hospital, which was less than a mile away. The Board had, or had access to, specialist expertise in relation to appropriate standards of medical care. That phrase can be misleading in that it can suggest that the professional person must knowingly and deliberately accept responsibility. The position is directly analogous with a hospital conducted, formerly by a local authority now by a health authority, in exercise of statutory powers. Lord Browne-Wilkinson answered this question in the affirmative. On the law relied upon by the Judge, this was all that Mr Watson needed to succeed. "There is always a risk, and the pool from which professional boxers tend to be recruited is unlikely to be one with an innate or well-informed concern about safety, and one may ask why should the individual boxer not rely on the Board's arrangements? 2. 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)). 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. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this It was Mr Walker's submission that there was no reliance. Questions of what was fair and reasonable did not arise. These make it necessary: i) to identify the principles which are relied upon as giving rise to a duty of care in this case. (Rules 8.5 and 8.6). In these circumstances there was insufficient proximity between the Board and the objects of the duty. A . Thus the criteria identified by Hobhouse L.J. There are a number of problems with this submission. For these reasons I would dismiss this appeal. Citation. The issue is whether the standard of reasonable care required the Board to change their practice in order to address the risks of such injuries before the Watson/Eubank fight. d) The rule that a boxer must be medically examined before every contest. They have not succeeded. Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE Case No: QBENF1999/1137/A2 COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (THE HON MR JUSTICE IAN KENNEDY) Tuesday 19th December 2000 THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS LORD JUSTICE MAY LORD JUSTICE LAWS Respondent/Claimant One group of cases involved statutory duties imposed on local authorities for the purpose of protecting children from child abuse. There is no statutory basis for this. 61. In particular they are boxers. However, despite an English doctor's professional duty to offer their assistance, thi. 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. All involved in a boxing contest were obliged to accept and comply with the Board's requirements. This can, of itself, result in the restriction of the supply of oxygen to the brain. The leading case in terms of the duty of care owed by governing bodies in UK law is Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134, where the governing body was held to be liable for the horrific injuries suffered by Michael Watson in his boxing bout with Chris Eubank. Lord Bridge went on to state that these ingredients were insufficiently precise to be used as practical tests and to commend the desirability of proceeding by analogy with established categories of negligence. 57. In his Witness Statement Mr John Morris, General Secretary of the Board said "The Board believes as I do, that the safety of the boxers is of great importance and takes precedence over commercial and other interests". Michael Watson MBE, born 15 March 1965, is a British former professional boxer who competed from 1984-1991. An operation was carried out to remove a moderate size haematoma and to close such veins as were found to be oozing blood. 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. Mr Watson suffered such an injury when he was knocked down in the eleventh round. ii) to identify any categories of cases in which these principles have given rise to a duty of care, or conversely where they have not done so.
High School Ultimate Frisbee Teams,
Brian Libman Blackstone,
Articles W
