Lord Oliver at p.633 also emphasised the difficulty of using the three requirements as a practical guide to the existence of a duty of care. 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. The police have been held to owe no duty to respond to a 999 call or, having done so, to exercise reasonable care to prevent a burglary Alexandrou v. Oxford [1993] 4 All ER 328 [1994] 4 All ER 328. 128. 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. Match. B. [8], "BBC Sport Poignant end to Watson's epic journey", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watson_v_British_Boxing_Board_of_Control&oldid=1049029766, This page was last edited on 9 October 2021, at 12:23. They did not have the expertise in providing such resuscitation; nor did they have the necessary equipment. That regulation has been provided by the Board. 12. 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. Mr Watson received resuscitation and neuro-surgery in hospital in circumstances that I shall describe when I come to deal with causation. Nor do I see why the fact that the Board is a non profit-making organisation should provide it with an immunity from liability in negligence. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this 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. 74. 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. A boxer member of the Board would not be aware of the details of all these matters. Lord Phillips MR Gazette 22-Mar-2001, Times 02-Feb-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 2116, [2001] QB 1134, [2001] PIQR 16 Bailii, Bailii England and Wales Citing: Considered Perrett v Collins, Underwood PFA (Ulair) Limited (T/a Popular Flying Association) CA 22-May-1998 The plaintiff was a passenger in an aircraft which crashed, and there was a preliminary issue as to the liability to him of those who certified that the aircraft was fit to fly. In a Witness Statement in the present proceedings, Mr Watson stated that this accorded with his understanding as a boxer that the Board undertook responsibility for all the medical aspects of boxing, including the medical supervision of boxing contests, in the United Kingdom. 51. This is a further factor which tends to establish the proximity necessary for a duty of care. The Judge did not rely upon the specific evidence given by Mr Watson about reliance. In an open letter to BMA delegates, written some time in the 1980's, Dr Whiteson, the Chief Medical Officer to the Board, wrote "The British Boxing Board of Control is justifiably proud of its reputation of being in the vanguard of the protection of professional boxers." 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. [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". The facts of this case are not common to other sports. [2], The case first went to the High Court of Justice, where Kennedy, J, gave his judgment on 24 September 1999, awarding Watson around 1 million in damages. 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. 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". I think that the Judge was right. 123. The Board had, or had access to, specialist expertise in relation to appropriate standards of medical care. First, Watson is apparently the first reported case in which the English 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. The Board argued that this demonstrated that the standard applied by the Judge was too high. So far I have not dealt with the question of reliance by Mr Watson on the exercise of care by the Board. change. It is not sufficient for the doctor to be in the vicinity of the ring as in the case of an emergency the speed of the doctor's reactions in treating this are all important. He held that he was left in no doubt that the Board was in breach of its duty in that it did not institute some such system or protocol as that which Mr Hamlyn was later to propose. The educational psychologist was professionally qualified. In Caparo Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, and in many subsequent cases, the House of Lords and this Court have approved the approach to the development of the law of negligence recommended by Brennan J. in the High Court of Australia in Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 60 A.L.R. "It is these sorts of accidents which provoke the changes". Mr Watson was put on a stretcher, which was placed on a trolley and wheeled towards the ambulance. 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. [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. The Board set out by its rules, directions and guidance, to make comprehensive provision for the services to be provided to safeguard the health of the boxer. The provision made by those rules in relation to medical assistance was plain. 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. He held that anyone with the appropriate expertise would have advised the adoption of such a system. 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. Finally I return to Perrett v. Collins, the only case referred to by Ian Kennedy J. when considering the question of duty of care. Later, after referring to Lord Bridge's speech in Caparo at p.261, he said: "Thus when a case fits into a category where the existence of a duty of care and a potential liability in the tort of negligence has already been recognised, the more elusive criteria to which Lord Bridge referred for dealing with cases that go beyond the recognised category of proximity do not arise.". 24. 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. 85) or a producer may be liable for the absence of an adequate warning on the labelling of his product (e.g. The fight was terminated at 22.54. 75. "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. First published on Wed 5 Oct 2022 07.44 EDT The murky business of boxing was thrown into a fresh crisis when the promoter Eddie Hearn refused to accept a ruling by the British Boxing Board. The Notice of Appeal contended that there was no evidence that, had the rules contended for by Mr Watson been in place, he would have been treated any differently; the Judge should have found that none of the doctors present, nor the ambulance man, would have intubated the claimant, whatever equipment had been available, because he was breathing spontaneously. Clearly, they look to the Board's stipulations as providing the appropriate standard. A doctor must be available to give immediate attention to any boxer should this be required. Thus, it has members who pay membership fees or subscriptions in return for which it provides them with facilities. So far as the promoter was concerned, these delimited his obligations. This care was insufficient, and as such Watson was in a coma for 40 days, and spent 6 years in a wheelchair. 503 at p.517, per Lord Justice Cotton). Mr Walker urged that a duty of care should not be imposed upon the Board because it was a non profit-making organisation and did not carry insurance. 71. In Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2000), the claimant was the famous professional boxer Michael Watson. 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. 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. 132. It is, however, clear that the test is an objective one: Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd., [1995] 2 AC 145, 181. Order: Appal dismissed with costs on the issues of liability and causation here and below, those costs to be assessed forthwith on to Legal Services Assessment; 18,000 in Court to be paid out in part satisfaction of those costs forthwith; detailed assessment on standard basis; Legal Services Commission taxation; application for permission to appeal to House of Lords refused. 59. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Alexandrou v Oxford (1933), Maguire v Harland & Wolff PLC (2005), Calvert v William Hill (2008) and more. 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. A number of authorities show that an acceptance of the role (usually under statutory powers or duties) of protecting the community in general from foreseeable dangers does not carry with it a legal duty of care to safeguard individual members of the community from those dangers. 22. In my view the Claimant makes his case on causation when he shows, as he has done, that with the protocol in place he would have been attended from the outset by a doctor skilled in resuscitation, who would have made any necessary inquiries of the neurosurgeons at St. Bartholomews, who would themselves have been on notice. It was the evidence of Mr Watson's experts that, while brain damage of the type I have described is cumulative, what happens in the first ten minutes is particularly critical. 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. 30. The latter have the role of protecting the public in general against risks, which they play no part in creating. 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. Applied Barrett v Ministry of Defence CA 3-Jan-1995 The deceased was an off-duty naval airman. 49. 25Watson v British Board of Boxing Control Ltd [2001] QB 113419, 20 it was claimed that had Watson received immediate resuscitation he would not have been as badly brain damaged, the Court agreed saying that because the Board were in sole charge of safety arrangements there was sufficient proximity for the board of control to owe a duty of care Michael Alexander Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd, World Boxing Organisation Incorporated: CA 19 Dec 2000 The claimant was seriously injured in a professional boxing match governed by rules established by the defendant's rules. Thus the. so-called requirements for a duty of care are not to be treated as wholly separate and distinct requirements but rather as convenient and helpful approaches to the pragmatic question whether a duty should be imposed in any given case. 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 referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. 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. It seems to me that the authorities support a principle that where A places himself in a relationship to B in which B's physical safety becomes dependent upon the acts or omissions of A, A's conduct can suffice to impose on A, a duty to exercise reasonable care for B's safety. The move is being made as a cost-cutting measure in the wake of the Michael Watson case. Had the Board said nothing, it might not be liable, but once it gave advice by setting rules, it came to be responsible. The article examines this regulatory framework; where traditional attitudes about the social desirability of sport and acceptance of harm support an autonomous self-regulatory approach, often insulated from the full application of the criminal law. 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. He held the Commonwealth middleweight title from 1989-1991. . The Plaintiffs were children with dyslexia. The local hospital was close to the boxing ring and therefore the transfer occurred very quickly and during this period of time, as far as I can ascertain, his condition was satisfactory and the insertion of an endotrachael tube was not absolutely necessary. expounded the relevant principles of law in the following passages: "A minimum requirement of particularity and contemplation is required. It is not possible to measure even on the balance of probabilities where the damage would have stopped if the protocol had been followed. 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. In Caparo v Dickman the Court recognised a duty of care owed by auditors to all the members of a company. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. 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. I do not consider that a conscious reliance by the patient on the hospital to exercise care is an essential element in this duty of care. 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. The evidence certainly supports the proposition that it was Mr Watson's injuries, and the subsequent advice given by Mr Hamlyn, that caused the Board to change its practice. The material passages of this advice were as follows:-. Indirect Influence on the Occurrence of Injury. These cases were distinguished in Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 WLR 1158. Mr Watson suffered such an injury when he was knocked down in the eleventh round. The referee stopped the fight in the final round when Watson appeared to be unable to defend himself. [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. As part of the health service it should owe the same duty to members of the public as other parts of the health service. It was accepted that, if the survey had been negligent the loss of the cargo was a foreseeable consequence. The board, however, went far beyond this. 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. The judgment is attacked root and branch. In that case Hobhouse L.J. 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. 93. Administrative, Personal Injury, Negligence, Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.135634. In these circumstances there was insufficient proximity between the Board and the objects of the duty. 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. 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. Herbert Smith, London. Moreover, since the professionals could foresee that negligent advice would damage the plaintiffs, they are liable to the plaintiffs for tendering such advice to the local authority Like the majority in the Court of Appeal, I cannot accept these arguments. Center circle: In the center circle, jot down the name of your stated goalin this case, Create an Audio Educational Program. He emphasised that the Board does not provide medical treatment or employ doctors. I do not believe there is any difference in principle between giving advice about safety and laying down rules to provide for safety. 120. That, however, did not prove to be the position. Mr Watson was the third boxer on whom Mr Hamlyn had operated for similar injuries. 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. As a result of the delay the patient sustained brain damage. 55. The patient is then artificially ventilated through this tube with oxygen. Dealing with the arguments of policy advanced on behalf of PFA, Buxton L.J. Lord Steyn stated:-, "Since the decision in Dorset Yacht Co. v The Home Office [1970] AC 1004, it has been settled law that the elements of foreseeability and proximity as well as considerations of fairness, justice and reasonableness are relevant to all cases whatever the nature of the harm sustained by the plaintiff..". Sharpe v Avery [1938] 4 All E.R. His comment that "it would only have added three minutes or so if he had waited until he was summoned" suggests to the contrary. 76. 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. The Board had given notice that he would be called as a witness and submitted the witness statement from him. A Respondent's Notice was served contending that the Judge could and should have drawn an adverse inference from his failure to give evidence.