English case law has developed, with various twists and turns, in the problematic field of factual causation. In view of this, they said that there should have been available at the ringside resuscitation equipment and doctors who knew how to use this. The time was now 23.08. In these circumstances the claim against Mr Usherwood was a conventional claim for carelessness causing direct and foreseeable personal injury. Match. In the event, without explanation, he was not tendered as a witness and objection was taken to the use of his witness statement. The purpose of his assessment was to enable him to give expert advice to the education authority about the child. His evidence was that it was his practice to use it where a patient was experiencing breathing difficulties. Mr Walker accepted that if Mr Watson had specifically asked the Board for advice as to the precautions that he ought to have in place for his fight, and the Board had given advice, the Board would have been under a duty to exercise care in giving that advice. 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 . This contention had some similarities to submissions made in relation to the Popular Flying Association in Perrett v Collins. at p.258 as follows: "The third defendants are a trading company incorporated under the companies Acts. 15. considered the question of whether it was fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care. 94. . The Judge summarised his findings on the facts as follows:-. That regulation has been provided by the Board. The peculiar features of the duty of care alleged are as follows: i) the duty alleged is not to take reasonable care to avoid causing personal injury. See Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 and Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145. (Vowles v Evans and the Welsh Rugby Union Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 318), governing bodies for failing to provide in their rules for appropriate medical provision at ringside in a boxing match (Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134), . He suffered severe brain damage after being injuredduring a match. In Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2000), the claimant was the famous professional boxer Michael Watson. Lord Browne-Wilkinson answered this question in the affirmative. At the North Middlesex Hospital he was intubated, that is an endotrachael tube was inserted, and he was given oxygen. 23. 343, Denning L.J. Apart from issues of statutory duty, the question arose in each group of cases whether (i) the local authorities owed, at common law, a duty of care to the children when considering their needs and (ii) whether professionals advising on the needs of children owed a duty of care to those children which, if broken, rendered the local authorities vicariously liable. 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. Moreover, the tendering of any advice will in many cases involve interviewing and, in the case of doctors, examining the child. These can be divided into three categories: i) rules designed to ensure that a boxer is not permitted to fight unless he is fit. This did not, however, affect the position so far as responsibility for the safety of the boxers was concerned. A case that is instructive is the English case of Watson v British Boxing Board of Control ([2001] 2 WLR 1256), the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC) was held liable for the injuries sustained by Michael Watson. 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. 95. If he volunteers his assistance, his only duty as a matter of law is not to make the victim's condition worse. Lord Nicholls posed and answered the following question at p.802: "Take a case where an educational psychologist is employed by an education authority. I see no reason why the rules should not have contained the provision suggested by the Judge. 8. 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. At this meeting Mr Hamlyn expressed the view that it was vital that at the ringside there should be the right doctors with the right equipment. An example of the ongoing review of safety standards was the Board's decision, in August 1991, that: "In future three Board Medical Officers would be appointed when a major contest was taking place. In his Witness Statement, Mr Morris accepted that the following averment in the Statement of Claim was "basically correct": "at all material times, by reason of the effective control over boxing that the Board assumed, 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. I turn to the law. Mr Watson received resuscitation and neuro-surgery in hospital in circumstances that I shall describe when I come to deal with causation. 76. 110. 22. He inferred that professional boxers would be unlikely to have an innate or well informed concern about safety. 3.5.2 For British and Commonwealth Championship contests only, or Thus the criteria identified by Hobhouse L.J. Saville L.J. The nature of that duty was recently considered by this Court in Capital and Counties PLC v. Hampshire C.C. The facts of this case are not common to other sports. It made provision in its Rules for the medical precautions to be employed and made compliance with these Rules mandatory. The role of Mr Usherwood was distinct and independent from the role of the constructor of the plane. This duty involved the exercise of professional skills in investigating the circumstances of the plaintiffs and (in the Newham case) conducting the interview with the child. There is no doubt that once the relationship of doctor and patient or hospital authority and admitted patient exists, the doctor or the hospital owe a duty to take reasonable care to effect a cure, not merely to prevent further harm. Held: A body which had responsibility for licensing and setting conditions for the boxing matches was liable in negligence when, having assumed responsibility for the boxers medical care, the standards it set were inadequate. 10. 81. 86. The head teacher, being responsible for the school, himself comes under a duty of care to exercise the reasonable skills of a headmaster in relation to such steps as a reasonable teacher would consider appropriate to try to deal with such under-performance. That case involved four further claims by children against local education authorities for, among other things, negligently failing to address their special educational needs. The phrase means simply that the law recognises that there is a duty of care. The relevant findings of the Judge were as follows:-. In the first case, he held at pp.761-2: "The claim is based on the fact that the authority is offering a service (psychological advice) to the public. In answer to a claim by the workman, the architect argued that his only duty was the contractual duty that he owed to the owners of the building. I think that the Judge was right. 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. depending upon the court's attitude to the case before it. * The Board failed to ensure that those running the contest knew which hospitals in the vicinity had a neurosurgical capability. He went on to hold that, in relation to the child abuse cases, the statutory scheme was incompatible with the existence of a direct common law duty of care owed by the local authorities. It would seem impossible to contend that the plaintiff would not be affected by the decisions and plans drawn up by the architect.". 74. It made provision in its rules for the medical precautions to be employed and made compliance with these rules mandatory.. There was evidence that the Board's Medical Committee met regularly to consider medical precautions. By the time he received resuscitation in hospital he had sustained permanent brain damage which such treatment would have prevented. The North Middlesex Hospital had no neurosurgical department, so Mr Watson was transferred by ambulance, still unconscious, to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Mr Watson brought an action against the Board. Nearly half an hour elapsed between the end of the fight and the time that he got there. I can summarise the position as follows. 103. Test. . Establish an accurate diagnosis as to the intracranial pathology. A boxer member of the Board would not be aware of the details of all these matters. Secondly, to identify any categories of cases in which these principles if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[320,100],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_5',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Cited by: Cited Binod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council CA 20-Feb-2004 The defendant council had carried out research into a water supply in India in the 1980s. 87. 133. Where a blow to the head results in immediate impairment or loss of consciousness, this is normally the result of temporary deformation of the brain caused by acceleration or deceleration of movement of the head. 101. 112. 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. 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. In my judgement in the present cases, the social workers and the psychiatrist did not, by accepting the instructions of the local authority, assume any general professional duty of care to the plaintiff children. The physical safety of boxers has always been a prime concern of the Board. Mr Watson's injuries were not, however, without precedent. 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. If such head teacher gives advice to the parents, then in my judgment he must exercise the skills and care of a reasonable teacher in giving such advice. I conclude that the Judge correctly found that the Board owed Mr Watson a duty of care. In an article on injuries in professional boxing written in 1981, Dr Whiteson stated: "My task as Senior Medical Officer is to control the medical aspects of boxing and in this to liaise closely with Area Medical Officers and with the team of medical experts which includes neurologists and orthopaedic, plastic and ophthalmic surgeons". * the treatment actually provided to Mr Watson. 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. There was no contract between the parties, but boxers had to fight under the Boards rules. I turn to the distinctive features of this case. The Board had, or had access to, specialist expertise in relation to appropriate standards of medical care. The distinction between negligent misstatement and other forms of conduct ceases to be legally relevant, although it may have a factual relevance to foresight or causation. He further alleged that had he received that treatment, he would not have sustained permanent brain damage. Radio Times - February 1117 2023 - Free ebook download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read book online for free. The position as to the selection of doctors for a contest that prevailed in 1991 was as follows. They have not succeeded. No reasonably competent educational psychologist, exercising reasonable skill and care, would have given such advice. .Cited Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council HL 5-Jul-2006 Preliminary Report of Risk No Duty of Care The claimant sought damages after suffering injury after the creation of water supplies which were polluted with arsenic. The child was in a singularly vulnerable position. Held: A certifying . For example, the relationship between the parties may be such that it is obvious that a lack of care will create a risk of harm and that as a matter of common sense and justice a duty should be imposed.. Again in most cases of the direct infliction of physical loss or injury through carelessness, it is self-evident that a civilised system of law should hold that a duty of care has been broken, whereas the infliction of financial harm may well pose a more difficult problem. 2. 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. This was drawn to the attention of the duty Petty Officer, who organised a stretcher, had the rating carried to his cabin and placed on his bunk in the recovery position, in a coma. Since the seminal case of Condon v Basi [1985] . 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. Mr Watson was one of a defined number of boxing members of the Board. 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. 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. A preliminary issue was tried as to whether Mr Usherwood and the PFA owed the Plaintiff a duty of care. He was also given an injection of Manitol, a diuretic that can have the effect of reducing swelling of the brain. Questions of what was fair and reasonable did not arise. He sued the owner, Mr Usherwood and the Popular Flying Association ("the PFA"). Instead he argued that even if resuscitation had been used, it would have been used too late to affect the outcome. 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. 21. Thereafter the effect of delay was less important, although brain damage occurred cumulatively until death. In support of that proposition Mr. Walker relied upon X v Bedfordshire CC and Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923. 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. He would only use it to overcome breathing difficulties. 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. The Judge referred (Transcript p.17) to the question of whether to attach a duty of care to the facts of the present case would be an acceptable incremental extension of established liabilities, or too long a step. The Board argued that, until they received such advice, they could not reasonably be expected to alter their recommendations and rules in relation to ringside treatment. The Board, however, went far beyond this. This can, of itself, result in the restriction of the supply of oxygen to the brain. 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. 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. At the third stage, questions of `proximity' and of what is `fair, just and reasonable' have to be considered. 1, 43-44, where he said: "It is preferable, in my view, that the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories, rather than by a massive extension of a prima facie duty of care restrained only by indefinable `considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed.". He held the Commonwealth middleweight title from 1989-1991. . Therefore, it is likely that injuries arising from such play occur frequently but when do they occur as an act of negligence? In Smoldon v Whitworth [1997] PIQR P133 the duty of care had been conceded in the context of a school colts game and similarly, boxing came under scrutiny in Watson v British Boxing. 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. 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. . The child's parents will seldom be in a position to know whether the psychologist's advice was sound or not. Mr Block, the Secretary of the Board's Southern Area Council, reported to the Board that the arrangements in place were satisfactory and that the tournament could receive the Board's approval. Try and prevent and/or treat raised intracranial pressure. The Board exercises its control of professional boxing through a system of eight Area Councils, subject to overall control by Stewards and Committees. iii) that the breach of duty alleged did not cause Mr Watson's injuries. 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. The Board contends:-. A primary injury such as that described can have secondary consequences which are much more serious. Throughout, the child was very dependent upon the expert's assessment. In the chaos that then ensued, Mr Watson was surrounded by his team, which included a number of bodyguards. These recommendations Mr Hamlyn set out in a detailed paper for the Board two days later. The Board's assumption of responsibility in relation to medical care probably relieved the promoter of such responsibility. An analogy can be drawn with the duty of an employer, whose activities involve a particular health risk, to make provision for its employees to receive appropriate medical attention - see Stokes v. Guest Keen & Nettlefold (Bolts & Nuts) [1968] 1 WLR 1776. "Until he collapsed, I would hold that the deceased was in law alone responsible for his condition. 9.39.3 (added to the Rules on 25 May 1991)). There an operation was carried out to evacuate a sub-dural haematoma. 31. They did not have the expertise in providing such resuscitation; nor did they have the necessary equipment. It can also result in disturbance of the processes of breathing so that insufficient air is taken into the lungs to ensure adequate oxidation of the blood. Its experience, contacts and resources exceed his own. Had the ambulance been, in fact, just as satisfactory, this would have meant that the absence of a Rule requiring such a facility would have had no causative effect. Subsequently they were incorporated in the Rules by an addition to Regulation 8. The comparison drawn by Mr Walker between the Board and a rescuer is not apt. 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. This has left him paralysed down the left side and with other physical and mental disability. This contention had some similarities to submissions made in relation to the Popular Flying Association in. Attempts have been made, within Parliament and outside, to bring about the banning of the sport of boxing. Mr Usherwood, who alone of those involved had technical expertise, might be the only person who had been negligent. rejected the submission that any negligence on the part of Mr Usherwood was only an indirect cause of the crash. Watson v British Boxing Board, above Michael v South Wales Police, above ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust . (Compare also Clay v AJ Crump & Sons Ltd [1964] 1 QB 533 in which an architect had complete control over whether a dangerous wall was left standing and Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd [2001] QB 1134 in which the Board had control over the medical services provided at boxing matches.) The Judge's findings in relation to breach of duty appear from the following passages in his judgment: "The standard response where the presence of subdural bleeding is known or suspected has been agreed since at least 1980, which is to intubate, ventilate, sedate, paralyse, and in Britain at least, to administer Manitol. Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 13. The setting of rules could be akin to the giving of advice and thus had an indirect influence on the occurrence of the injury. 91. 122. Thus in Capital and Counties v. Hampshire this Court held that a fire brigade was under no common law duty to answer a call for help or, having done so, to exercise reasonable skill and care to extinguish the fire. 97. The arrival of the ambulance was greatly delayed without any reasonable explanation. These considerations lead to the final point made by Mr Walker in the context of proximity. That, however, did not prove to be the position. 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. 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? 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. 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. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. As for the argument that the local authorities were vicariously liable for negligence on the part of those giving them advice, Lord Browne-Wilkinson held at pp.752-3: "The claim based on vicarious liability is attractive and simple. The Board had, or had available, medical expertise. But the fact that the carrying out of the retainer involves contact with and relationship with the child cannot alter the extent of the duty owed by the professionals under the retainer from the local authority. At the end of the contest one doctor remains ringside, the other should follow both contestants back to the dressing room and should at least check that both boxers are in a satisfactory condition and if not instigate any treatment that is required, preferably in the treatment room provided. In the final round, Watson lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital, arriving there nearly half an hour after the end of the fight and received resuscitation treatment. Mr. Usherwood was the person who was carrying out this role in relation to Mr. Collins' assembly of this aircraft. In 1991, a world title fight between Michael Watson and Chris Eubank took place in London under the BBBC Rules. Flashcards. 117. Herbert Smith, London. 104. 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. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe. 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. 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. 99. ", The Regime Applying to the Contest Between Watson and Eubank. The Board next drew attention to evidence that a member of the public having sustained brain damage in a road accident would not expect to receive from the ambulance attending the scene the resuscitation service which the Judge held should have been available at the ringside.