.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. 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. In fact the Board had required a third doctor to be present and that an ambulance should be in attendance. 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. I am left with the clear impression that the Board's medical advisers have not looked outside their personal expertise. 79. As already stated, no tournament is allowed to commence or continue without one doctor sitting ringside. If any doubt arises concerning a boxer's condition then referral to a local hospital for emergency treatment or advice should be undertaken and a report sent to the Board. 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. The ambulance took him to North Middlesex Hospital, which was less than a mile away. 95. He did so, notwithstanding, so it was alleged, that the mismatch between gearbox and propeller made the aircraft unairworthy. Finally I return to Perrett v. Collins, the only case referred to by Ian Kennedy J. when considering the question of duty of care. Mr Watson was put on a stretcher, which was placed on a trolley and wheeled towards the ambulance. Mr Watson was the third boxer on whom Mr Hamlyn had operated for similar injuries. In laying down Rules for the benefit of boxers generally, however, Mr Walker submitted that the Board was under no duty of care. '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.". [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. 51. 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. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . It has the ability to require of promoters what it sees as good practice. 21. Next the Board argued that the presence of an ambulance, with resuscitation equipment, should have satisfied the Judge that this aspect of medical care was adequately provided. So in my view is an educational psychologist or psychiatrist and a teacher including a teacher in a specialised area, such as a teacher concerned with children having special educational needs. Mr Walker's challenge to these findings was based on a single point. 87. the Hillsborough cases: e.g. Such duty does not depend on the existence of any contractual relationship between the person causing and the person suffering the damage. 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. All involved in a boxing contest were obliged to accept and comply with the Board's requirements. The decision is of interest for several reasons. In these circumstances the claim against Mr Usherwood was a conventional claim for carelessness causing direct and foreseeable personal injury. 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. 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. On a preliminary issue the House of Lords held that the classification society had no duty of care to the cargo owners. Stabilise the patient's condition by maintaining an air way and maintaining ventilation. Considerations of insurance are not relevant. These considerations lead to the final point made by Mr Walker in the context of proximity. 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. They argued that if they had failed to exercise reasonable care, this was not the direct cause of the Plaintiff's injuries - the direct cause being that the aircraft had been designed in a manner that made it unairworthy. 106. Such treatment had been standard form in hospitals for many years prior to 1991. 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. (Rule 5.9(c)). Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. 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. The present case can only be decided on the basis of an intense and particular focus on all its distinctive features, and then applying established legal principles to it.". 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. 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. In these circumstances, it is no cause for surprise that the equipment was not in fact used. 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. 83. His answer was that he was sure that these things were discussed but he could not remember. observed that there was no evidence of any of the asserted potential effects of a finding of negligence against PFA. 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. I would simply comment that if the Board were given the statutory function of directing what medical assistance should be provided to boxers at the stadium, I consider that it would be at least arguable that they owed boxers a duty of care in exercising that function. This involved taking precautions or giving instructions for them to be taken so that the work could be done with safety. 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. If it had in place the appropriate protocols for provision of medical care, the claimants injuries would not have been so severe. 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 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. 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.". An ambulance should be on site from the start of the tournament, possibly with a crew of trained para-medics. This Court held that the Ministry of Defence had been under no duty of care to prevent the deceased from abusing alcohol to the extent that he did. 80. A duty of care at this stage had been conceded by the Ministry of Defence, but in Capital and Counties v. Hampshire this Court commented at p.1038 that this was not surprising as the deceased was under the command of the officer concerned. The Law Commission in its 1994 Consultation Paper No.134 "Criminal Law: Consent and Offences Against the Person" recognised that boxing was an anomaly in English law. He gave evidence that he agreed with Mr Hamlyn's views. * Enter a valid Journal (must Search for more papers by this author. .Cited Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd ChD 12-Mar-2008 The claimant said that the defendant bookmakers had been negligent in allowing him to continue betting when they should have known that he was acting under an addiction. 76. Held: A certifying . No reasonably competent educational psychologist, exercising reasonable skill and care, would have given such advice. Learn. 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. 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.