4. In 1991, a world title fight between Michael Watson and Chris Eubank took place in London under the BBBC Rules. 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. There are features of this case which are extraordinary, if not unique. 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. Watson successfully sued the BBBC for 400,000 after being left with brain injuries following his 1991 fight with Chris Eubank. The Board's Grounds of Appeal argued that in making policy decisions, the Board ought not to be held to be negligent unless such decisions were found to be wholly irrational. So may be an education officer performing the functions of a local education authority in regard to children with special educational needs. It is not possible to measure even on the balance of probabilities where the damage would have stopped if the protocol had been followed. In that case Hobhouse L.J. It was foreseeable that the claimant could suffer personal injuries if there was delay. Saville L.J. 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. 3. 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:-. First he submitted that the Board exercises a public function which it has assumed for the public good. "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. The numbers of those to whom the duty is alleged to be owed in the present case are not incompatible with the requirements of proximity. As I read the judgment the duty of care turned upon the acceptance by the ambulance service of the request to provide an ambulance and thus the acceptance of responsibility for the care of the particular patient. The Judge did not rely upon the specific evidence given by Mr Watson about reliance. 3. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001). Mr Watson received resuscitation and neuro-surgery in hospital in circumstances that I shall describe when I come to deal with causation. 111. While Buxton L.J. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. In Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 K.B. This care was insufficient, and as such Watson was in a coma for 40 days, and spent 6 years in a wheelchair. The settlement of Watson's case against the. In the chaos that then ensued, Mr Watson was surrounded by his team, which included a number of bodyguards. 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. 28. 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. Throughout, the child was very dependent upon the expert's assessment. Similarly none of the particular difficulties which arise in relation to economic loss arise in relation to the causing of personal injury. I propose to develop the relevant facts more fully in the context of each of these issues. 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. Boxing is the only sport where this is the object of the exercise. The Board assumes the, 89. Another example was a general direction given, at about the same time, that an ambulance and crew should be in attendance at a boxing contest. Subsequently they were incorporated in the Rules by an addition to Regulation 8. The General Medical Council clearly states that a doctor must offer help when off-duty, if an emergency arises. He contended that they were in breach of this duty with the consequence that he did not receive the immediate medical attention at the ringside that his condition required. The vessel sailed and sank a few days later with the loss of the cargo. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Dryden and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc: SC 21 Mar 2018, Perrett v Collins, Underwood PFA (Ulair) Limited (T/a Popular Flying Association), Binod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council, Jane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions, Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council, Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee (A Charity) v Poppleton, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. 9.39.3 (added to the Rules on 25 May 1991)). 3.5.2 For British and Commonwealth Championship contests only, or 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.". This stated that the Board was accepted as being the sole controlling body regulating professional boxing in the United Kingdom and stressed the importance that the Board place on ensuring the safety of boxers. 4. 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. 57. 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. In my judgment there is a clear distinction between the role of the Board and the role of a fire service or the police service. 74. Match. 24. that the negligence alleged fell into the category of directly causing foreseeable personal injury, both he and Swinton Thomas L.J. 33. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. 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. 76. Thus Mr Watson voluntarily submitted to any risk associated with inadequacy of medical safeguards. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control[2001] QB 1134was a case of the Court of Appeal of England and Walesthat established an exception to the defence of consent to trespass to the personand an extension of the duty of care expected in cases of negligence. 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. 2. 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. There an operation was carried out to evacuate a sub-dural haematoma. It has the ability to require of promoters what it sees as good practice. 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 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. 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. 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. d) The rule that a boxer must be medically examined before every contest. While I do not agree with Mr Mackay's submission that Perrett v Collins provides a close analogy to the present case, I do find helpful the formulation of legal principle by Hobhouse L.J. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above (Rule 8.1). Questions of what was fair and reasonable did not arise. He submitted that the Board would presumably owe the same duty to boxers who came from abroad to box and persons who were not yet boxers, and perhaps not even born, when the rules were made. 42. At least 20 minutes, and probably nearer 30 minutes, could have been saved. .Cited Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee (A Charity) v Poppleton CA 12-Jun-2008 The claimant was injured climbing without ropes (bouldering) at defendants activity centre. 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". The conduct of the activity of professional boxing carries with it, for the small body of men that take part in it, the need for the provision of medical assistance to treat the injuries that they sustain and minimise their adverse consequences. 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. 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. 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. Thereafter the effect of delay was less important, although brain damage occurred cumulatively until death. A . 120. 131. In the second place it was not practical to use this equipment while the ambulance was on the move. The educational psychologist was professionally qualified. Without it, the system of personal injury compensation would not have survived. In each case it was alleged that the professional in question negligently failed to diagnose dyslexia. As a result of the delay the patient sustained brain damage. The role of Mr Usherwood was distinct and independent from the role of the constructor of the plane. The statutory obligations in relation to certifying airworthiness was designed, at least in substantial part, for the protection of those who might be injured if an aircraft was certified as being fit to fly when it was not. iii) to decide whether these principles should be applied so as to give rise to a duty of care in the present case. The Board argued that this demonstrated that the standard applied by the Judge was too high. The Board, however, went far beyond this. CLUE. 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. 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. This can lead to an accumulation of carbon dioxide in the blood, which in its turn can cause swelling of the brain and a rise in intra-cranial pressure. 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. Such treatment had been standard form in hospitals for many years prior to 1991. The Board's Medical Committee met to consider these on the 22nd October 1991 and made recommendations which included the following: "1 The nearest hospital with a neurological unit should be notified of the date of each tournament held under the Board's jurisdiction and must be on alert in case of serious head injury. 105. 113. He further alleged that had he received that treatment, he would not have sustained permanent brain damage. The boxers display skill, strength and courage, but nobody pretends that they do good to themselves or others. [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. 100. The Board has argued that until this accident no-one had suggested that they should institute this protocol. 43. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. 255.". 79. 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. Only about twenty-five British boxers succeeded in earning a full-time living from the sport. 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. But once the decision is taken to offer such a service, a statutory body is in general in the same position as any private individual or organisation holding itself out as offering such a service. If authority is needed for this approach, it is to be found in the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Perrett v Collins [1998] 2 LL.L.Rep. 75. The normal duty of a doctor to exercise reasonable skill and care is well established as a common law duty of care. . 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. The agreed time of reception at the hospital was 23.22. 49. Thus the necessary `proximity' was not made out. Applied Barrett v Ministry of Defence CA 3-Jan-1995 The deceased was an off-duty naval airman. [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. In such circumstances A's conduct can accurately be described as the assumption of responsibility for B, whether `responsibility' is given its lay or legal meaning. [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. change. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. 3. I am left with the clear impression that the Board's medical advisers have not looked outside their personal expertise. James George, James George. He would thus have developed the subdural haemorrhage in the most favourable circumstances possible, short of doing so in hospital with staff around him. He had in fact sustained a brain haemorrhage and, after returning to his corner, he lapsed into unconsciousness on his stool. The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. A primary injury such as that described can have secondary consequences which are much more serious. Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 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.". 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 that. He inferred that professional boxers would be unlikely to have an innate or well informed concern about safety. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. 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. They alleged that the local authorities had provided services under which, in one case, educational psychologists and, in the other, advisory teachers provided advice to teaching staff and parents as to whether children had special educational needs. The setting of rules could be akin to the giving of advice and thus had an indirect influence on the occurrence of the injury. That case involved four further claims by children against local education authorities for, among other things, negligently failing to address their special educational needs. 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. 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. The patient is then artificially ventilated through this tube with oxygen. 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. "Here all that is clear is that on the balance of probabilities the Claimant's present state would have been materially better than it actually is. It is clear on the authorities that the duty to take reasonable care to prevent further harm and to effect a cure is founded on the acceptance of the patient as a patient, which carries with it an implicit undertaking to care for the patient's needs. Match. held at p.557: "Is this a case in which it can be said that the plaintiff was closely and directly affected by the acts of the architect as to have been reasonably in his contemplation when he was directing his mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question? 67. 48. The Board's authority is essentially based upon the consent of the boxing world. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this 20. 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 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. 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. 16. It acts as a regulatory rule making body. 84. Learn. She claimed in negligence and occupiers liability. True it is that, in the absence of a statutory power or duty, the authority could not offer such a service. 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.". 59. 96. 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. It concludes that, if account is taken of all these areas, insurance has been of vital importance to the law of tort. 118. I am in no doubt that the Judge's decision broke new ground in the law of negligence. The most material part of this reads: "The Senior Medical Officer shall arrange for full and adequate resuscitation equipment (including intubation and ventilation equipment) to be available at the ringside of the venue.