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. The Judge did not find that the lapse of time between Mr Watson becoming unconscious and Dr Shapiro being called to assist was critical. 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. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. "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? 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. 95. Mr Hamlyn said, and I accept, that there would have been very few British neurosurgeons who at this time would have questioned the need to put up a line and administer this diuretic in a case such as the present. 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. The owner of the aircraft took off, with the Plaintiff onboard as a passenger. Afternoon in a Yellow Room, by Charles Edwar, CHRONICLES - The Unz The following rules fall into this category: 3.8 The promoter shall procure that two doctors, who must be approved by the Area Medical Officer, attend at all promotions, one of whom must be seated at the ringside at all times during the contest. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1734 - Law Journals Case: Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1734 Case Report: Andrew Risk v Rose Bruford College [2013] EWHC 3869 (QB) 12 King's Bench Walk (Chambers of Paul Russell QC) | Personal Injury Law Journal | March 2014 #123 's examination of the ship, and that the cargo owners simply relied on the undertakings of the shipowners, it is in my view impossible to force the present set of facts into even the most expansive view of the doctrine of voluntary assumption of responsibility.". 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. 119. Thus, it has members who pay membership fees or subscriptions in return for which it provides them with facilities. Similarly none of the particular difficulties which arise in relation to economic loss arise in relation to the causing of personal injury. It is not necessary for a supposed tortfeasor to have created the danger himself. The Judge accepted that this was the case but ruled that in the final analysis that it was for the Court to determine whether even the most widely followed practice was acceptable. 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. Against that judgment the Board now appeals. I confess I entertain no doubt on how that question should be answered. It is sometimes said that there has to be an assumption of responsibility by the person concerned. In this case the following matters are particularly material: 1. Mr Watson was one of a defined number of boxing members of the Board. In order that, when complete, the aircraft can obtain first a provisional and then a full certificate of airworthiness, the assembly of the aircraft has to be supervised and checked by an inspector. 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. 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. "One can summarise the aims of treatment of a patient who has been rendered unconscious as the result of a head injury as follows: 1. The doctors who were actually present were not aware of the desirability of immediate resuscitation of a victim with a brain haemorrhage. 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.". The promoters and the boxers do not themselves address considerations of safety. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control: Negligent Rule-Making in the Court of Appeal. Match. Michael Watson faces 400,000 compensation limit - The Telegraph 74. Hearn refuses to give up fight after Benn v Eubank thrown into chaos by The acceptance of the call in this case established the duty of care. 12. First he submitted that the Board exercises a public function which it has assumed for the public good. A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media Had the Board said nothing, it might not be liable, but once it gave advice by setting rules, it came to be responsible. Committees - UK Parliament This point was put to the Judge. 50. Of course.these three matters overlap with each other and are really facets of the same thing. 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. There is no statutory basis for this. Learn. 106. English case law has developed, with various twists and turns, in the problematic field of factual causation. 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. Nevertheless, defendants will likely seek to argue that their breach of duty made no difference to the claimant's eventual outcome - an argument that the British Boxing Board of Control ran unsuccessfully in the Watson case. agreed with Hobhouse L.J. While this may not be true of the volunteer who offers assistance at the scene of an accident, it will be true of a body whose purpose is or includes the provision of such assistance. 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. I can summarise the position as follows. Mr Watson suffered some, at least, of these secondary effects, which were the cause of his permanent brain damage. 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. This submission involves considering the timing of events and the Judge's findings in relation to the impact of these on causation. 55. It acts as a regulatory rule making body. 97. The Board's authority is essentially based upon the consent of the boxing world. 107. James George, James George. Thus a person may be liable for directing someone into a dangerous location (e.g. Mr Watson brought an action against the Board. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. "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". Insurance and the tort system | Legal Studies | Cambridge Core 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. Each venue must have a room set aside exclusively for medical purposes. The defendant in each case was a local authority. Considerations of insurance are not relevant. He did not, however, identify any obvious stepping stones to his decision. 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. In that case Hobhouse L.J. He would thus have developed the subdural haemorrhage in the most favourable circumstances possible, short of doing so in hospital with staff around him. 115. expressed a similar view in Marc Rich & Co. v Bishop Rock Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 1071 at 1077: "Whatever the nature of the harm sustained by the plaintiff, it is necessary to consider the matter not only by inquiring about foreseeability but also by considering the nature of the relationship between the parties; and to be satisfied that in all the circumstances it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. In accordance with normal practice, the medical officers for the contest were nominated by the Southern Area Council. Dr Whiteson did not give evidence. The latter have the role of protecting the public in general against risks, which they play no part in creating. The Board contends:-. 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. In Clay v. Crump & Sons Ltd [1964] 1 QB 133 a building worker was injured when a wall collapsed on him. There was no contract between the parties, but boxers had to fight under the Boards rules. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd [2001] QB 1134 (CA) - BB was not insured but Court said it is irrelevant because a duty of care is decided regardless . It is not clear why the ambulance took so long to reach the hospital. 36. At p.1172 he summarised his conclusion as follows:-. 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. That, however, did not prove to be the position. 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.". This can, of itself, result in the restriction of the supply of oxygen to the brain. They support the proposition that the act of undertaking to cater for the medical needs of a victim of illness or injury will generally carry with it the duty to exercise reasonable care in addressing those needs. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (1999) (QBD) During a professional boxing contest, the claimant suffered a sub-dural haemorrhage resulting in irreversible brain damage which left him with, among other things, a left-sided partial paralysis. [1988] 1 AC 1074 at 1090; and Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] 1 AC 750 at 783. Moreover, it is clear that no such duty of care exists, even though there may be close physical proximity, simply because one party is a doctor and the other has a medical problem which may be of interest to both". Such a concept belongs to the law of trespass not to the law of negligence".. "Where the plaintiff belongs to a class which either is or ought to be within the contemplation of the defendant and the defendant by reason of his involvement in an activity which gives him a measure of control over and responsibility for a situation which, if dangerous, will be liable to injure the plaintiff, the defendant is liable if as a result of his unreasonable lack of care he causes a situation to exist which does in fact cause the plaintiff injury. The propeller was mismatched to the gearbox.