2. These cases establish that where A advises B as to action to be taken which will directly and foreseeably affect the safety or well-being of C, a situation of sufficient proximity exists to found a duty of care on the part of A towards C. Whether in fact such a duty arises will depend upon the facts of the individual case and, in particular, upon whether such a duty of care would cut across any statutory scheme pursuant to which the advice was given. 115. 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. 124. I conclude that the Judge correctly found that the Board owed Mr Watson a duty of care. Had the Board said nothing, it might not be liable, but once it gave advice by setting rules, it came to be responsible. At the outset, however, I propose to identify some significant features of the present case, which place it outside any established category of duty of care in negligence. Michael Watson was injured in a boxin 3. In a nutshell, his case was that the resuscitation treatment that he received at the North Middlesex Hospital should have been available at the ringside, but was not. The latter have the role of protecting the public in general against risks, which they play no part in creating. The Board was involved in an activity which gave it, not merely a measure of control, but complete control over and a responsibility for a situation which would be liable to result in injury to Mr Watson if reasonable care was not exercised by the Board. 428 Nield J. drew a distinction between a casualty department of a hospital that closes its doors and says no patients can be received, in which case he would, by inference, have held there was no duty of care, and the case before him where the three watchmen, who had taken poison, entered the hospital and were given erroneous advice, where a duty of care arose. Dr Shapiro examined Mr Watson and put a Brookes Airway into his mouth to maintain his airway. Lord Browne-Wilkinson answered this question in the affirmative. 67. It seems to me that the authorities support a principle that, where A places himself in a relationship to B in which Bs physical safety becomes dependant upon the acts and omissions of A, As conduct can suffice to impose on A a duty to exercise reasonable care for Bs safety. and 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. 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. If wrong information had not been given about the arrival of the ambulance, other means of transport could have been used". It is to make regulations imposing on others the duty to achieve these results. 6. 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..". Explore the crossword clues and related quizzes to this answer. 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. 80. 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. iii) to decide whether these principles should be applied so as to give rise to a duty of care in the present case. 127. about 23.01. 2. Mr. Usherwood was the person who was carrying out this role in relation to Mr. Collins' assembly of this aircraft. Later in the judgment the Judge suggested, by implication, that the Board's rules should have included a requirement that a boxer who was knocked out, or seemed unfit to defend himself, should be immediately seen by a doctor. The psychologist sees the child and carries out an assessment. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. James George, James George. He distinguished the fire and police `rescue' cases on the ground that: "This was not a case of general reliance, but specific reliance. 13. 116. Applied Barrett v Ministry of Defence CA 3-Jan-1995 The deceased was an off-duty naval airman. 20. 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. He won a historic High Court case in Sept 1999, raising questions about the future of the professional sport in the UK. There was evidence that the Board's Medical Committee met regularly to consider medical precautions. 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. In that case Hobhouse L.J. It trades under the name of the "Popular Flying Association" and it appears that either its main role or one of its main roles is to run that association. Instead he argued that even if resuscitation had been used, it would have been used too late to affect the outcome. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control The Importance of Evidence in Proving a Breach of Duty Rugby Rugby is a dangerous sport with heavy body collisions between players and regularly, multiple players at any given time. 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. On the law relied upon by the Judge, this was all that Mr Watson needed to succeed. 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. Mr Watson's injuries were not, however, without precedent. . Hobhouse L.J. [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. The Board held itself out as treating the safety of boxers as of paramount importance. 25. The duty alleged is a duty owed to a determinate class - professional boxers who are members of the Board. Held: A certifying . The comparison drawn by Mr Walker between the Board and a rescuer is not apt. The final question is, to what extent? The broad function of the Board is to support professional boxing. There an operation was carried out to evacuate a sub-dural haematoma. Watson claimed that the British Boxing Board of Control had been under a duty of care to ensure that all reasonable steps were taken to provide immediate and effective medical attention and treatment in the event of his sustaining an injury, and he argued that the Board had breached that duty by not providing resuscitation treatment at ringside. 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? I turn to the law. Next Mr Walker argued that the Board did not create the danger of injury or the need for medical assistance. 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. agreed with Hobhouse L.J. 43. 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 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE Case No: QBENF1999/1137/A2, (1) BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL LIMITED, (2) WORLD BOXING ORGANISATION INCORPORATED, (Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of, Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street, Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, Mr C Mackay, QC and Mr Neil Block (instructed by Myers Fletcher & Gordon) appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Claimant. 90. 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.