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. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . The Board did not insure against liability in negligence. 104. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. In delivering the leading speech Lord Browne-Wilkinson observed at p.739: "The question whether there is such a common law duty and if so its ambit, must be profoundly influenced by the statutory framework within which the acts complained of were done.". I consider that the Judge could properly have done so. The child has a learning difficulty. 51. 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. He would thus have developed the subdural haemorrhage in the most favourable circumstances possible, short of doing so in hospital with staff around him. In Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd,l the Court of Appeal has upheld an unprecedented decision that a regulatory body can be liable for negligence in the exercise of its rule-making functions. So far as the promoter was concerned, these delimited his obligations. 85. change. 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. Herbert Smith, London. 29. Mr Watson's injuries were not, however, without precedent. The final question is, to what extent? 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. In these circumstances there was insufficient proximity between the Board and the objects of the duty. That regulation has been provided by the Board. 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. While it might be possible to rationalise the reason for the duty by postulating that there is a general reliance by citizens upon the National Health Service to provide reasonable care in the case of a medical emergency, English law has set its face against this line of reasoning. iii) to decide whether these principles should be applied so as to give rise to a duty of care in the present case. He criticised the Judge for saying that there was no difference in principle between "giving advice about safety and laying down rules to provide for safety". In these circumstances the Board should owe no greater duty of care than that imposed on a rescuer, that is a duty to exercise reasonable care not to make the situation worse, but no duty to reduce the damage that would have occurred in any event had the rescuer not intervened - see Capital and Counties plc v. Hampshire County Council. 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. Moreover, the tendering of any advice will in many cases involve interviewing and, in the case of doctors, examining the child. In Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2000), the claimant was the famous professional boxer Michael Watson. 50. The arrival of the ambulance was greatly delayed without any reasonable explanation. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. The principles alleged to give rise to a duty of care in this case are those of assumption of responsibility and reliance. 20. He added : "If the plaintiff has been negligently injured by a failing by the PFA, I cannot see that it would be right to withhold relief from him simply on the ground that to grant that relief might cause a rise in the PFA's insurance premiums, or even cause a more expensive system of inspection to be substituted for that of the PFA.". The Articles of Association of the Board provide that its objects include: "To promote and safeguard the interests of members of the company in the United Kingdom and throughout the world including members' (being boxers) interests in boxing contests and tournaments.including..the encouragement. The material passages of this advice were as follows:-. In my view there is a quite sufficient nexus between the Board and the professional boxer who fights in a contest to which its rules obtain to be capable of giving rise to a duty in the Board to take reasonable steps to try to minimise or control whether by rules or other directions the risks inherent in the sport. Nearly half an hour elapsed between the end of the fight and the time that he got there. [1988] 1 AC 1074 at 1090; and Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] 1 AC 750 at 783. Held: There is a close link between the tests in law for proximity . 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. agreed with Hobhouse L.J. 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. Dr Shapiro examined Mr Watson and put a Brookes Airway into his mouth to maintain his airway. The body set up by the Board that gave particular consideration to safety standards was a Medical Committee, sometimes referred to as The Medical Panel, that was set up in 1950. I think that the Judge was right. 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. Such treatment had been standard form in hospitals for many years prior to 1991. "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.". 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. Ian Kennedy J. equated the formulation of rules and regulations with the giving of advice and these decisions are of relevance in this context. 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. 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. 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. The psychologist sees the child and carries out an assessment. 81. 79. 63. A defendant seeking to disturb the findings of fact of a trial Judge in relation to causation undertakes a hard task. The nature of that duty was recently considered by this Court in Capital and Counties PLC v. Hampshire C.C. Contracts between boxer and manager and boxer and promoter have to be in standard form, providing expressly that the parties will observe the Board's rules. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this Test. Despite this statement, Ian Kennedy J. suggested that where there was a potential for physical injury there was no need to go beyond the test of foreseeability in deciding whether a duty of care existed, relying on Perrett v. Collins [1998] 255. These facts produced a relationship of close proximity between the Board and those of its members who were professional boxers. Each emphatically concluded that it was. Once proximity is established by reference to the test which I have identified, none of the more sophisticated criteria which have to be used in relation to allegations of liability for mere economic loss need to be applied in relation to personal injury, nor have they been in the decided cases.". .Cited Jane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions CA 5-Nov-2004 The claimants husband died when his car skidded on hoar frost. 106. This involves intubation, or the insertion of an endotracheal tube. Appeal from 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. A Respondent's Notice was served contending that the Judge could and should have drawn an adverse inference from his failure to give evidence. Michael Watson was injured in a boxing match supervised by the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC or BBBC), which was expected to provide medical care. The history of the Board can be traced back to the middle of the nineteenth century, but the Board itself was constituted as an unincorporated association in 1929. 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. 2. 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. Many of the matters considered under the heading of proximity are also relevant to the question of whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in this case. 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.". Mr Watson's case, in essence, was that there should have been a different regime in place - Mr Walker described it as an intensive care unit at the ringside. He held that anyone with the appropriate expertise would have advised the adoption of such a system. None of the three doctors present went to his assistance until requested to do so. 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. 17. The undertaking is to use the special skills which the doctor and hospital authorities have to treat the patient. There an operation was carried out to evacuate a sub-dural haematoma. 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. 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. These facts bring the Board into close proximity with each individual boxer who contracts with a promoter to fight under the Board's rules. Indeed it is difficult to resist a conclusion that what have been treated as three separate requirements are, at least in most cases, in fact merely facets of the same thing, for in some cases the degree of foreseeability is such that it is from that alone that the requisite proximity can be deduced, whilst in others the absence of that essential relationship can most rationally be attributed simply to the court's view that it would not be fair and reasonable to hold the defendant responsible. 101. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001). Watson successfully sued the BBBC for 400,000 after being left with brain injuries following his 1991 fight with Chris Eubank. 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. First he submitted that the Board exercises a public function which it has assumed for the public good. Next the Board attacked the implicit finding of the Judge that the Rules should have required the doctor to enter the ring as soon as a boxer was counted out or deemed unfit to defend himself. 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. Subsequently they were incorporated in the Rules by an addition to Regulation 8. 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. Search for more papers by this author. This sequence can result in cumulative damage to the brain, leading sooner or later to death. The doctors who were actually present were not aware of the desirability of immediate resuscitation of a victim with a brain haemorrhage. 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. a) A requirement that a boxer must be medically examined before being granted a licence, together with a list of medical conditions that preclude the grant of a licence. But the claimant does not come even remotely . 82. d) The rule that a boxer must be medically examined before every contest. In Barrett v. Ministry of Defence [1995] 1 WLR a naval rating drank himself into a state of insensibility at the Royal Navy Air Station where he was serving. Dealing with the arguments of policy advanced on behalf of PFA, Buxton L.J. The Board assumes the responsibility of determining the nature of the medical facilities and assistance to be provided. 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. * The Board failed to require a medical examination of Mr Watson immediately following the conclusion of the contest. 70. The doctors required by the rules to be present at a contest had to be doctors who had been approved by the Board. Caring for the needs of boxers, and in particular the physical safety of boxers, is the primary object of the Board. Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile. The duty alleged is a duty owed to a determinate class - professional boxers who are members of the Board.