Michael Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE IAN KENNEDY |
| Judgment Date | 24 September 1999 |
| Neutral Citation | [1999] EWHC J0924-5 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | 94 W 1081 |
| Date | 24 September 1999 |
[1999] EWHC J0924-5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
Royal Courts of Justice,
Strand,
London WC2A 2LL.
Mr Justice Ian Kennedy
94 W 1081
MR R. WALKER, Q.C. and MR S. WORTHINGTON appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
Mr C. MACKAY, Q.C. and Mr N. BLOCK appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
( )
Friday, 24 September 1999.
Michael Watson claims damages from the British Boxing Board of Control Limited ('the Board') for personal injuries he sustained on 21 September 1991 in a professional boxing contest. He suffered a subdural haemorrhage and is now an invalid. His case is that the Board owed him a duty of care to provide appropriate medical assistance at the ringside, but they failed to do so, and that in consequence a largely remediable condition became irremediable. The Board denies that it owed him the duty he alleges, and contends that it did all that he was entitled to ask of them; in any case, his die was cast from the moment he was injured.
The Claimant was born in 1965 in East London and turned professional at the age of 19. In 1989 he became Commonwealth Middleweight Champion and his career began to prosper. By 1991 he was 26 and at the height of his powers.
In June of that year he fought Chris Eubank for the vacant World Boxing Organisation Middleweight Championship. Eubank won on points. The match was hard fought and the decision controversial.
The contest with which this action is concerned was thus a re-match and was fought at Super-Middleweight over 12 rounds. It took place at Tottenham Hotspur Football Club in N17. It was expected to be fiercely contested and it was.
The Claimant was winning. By the end of the tenth round he was, by common consent, ahead by three rounds. In the eleventh, the Claimant again had the better of it, until about the middle of the round. Then Eubank landed some heavy punches. Though he appeared to have been hurt, the Claimant recovered himself. He began to dominate the round again and knocked Eubank down. As he got up, Eubank struck the Claimant two very heavy blows, so heavy and effective that had the bell not gone for the end of the round it seems unlikely that the Claimant would have continued.
During the inter-round break the Claimant twice said that he was all right. His corner told him to waste time during the final round: he had only to stay on his feet to be the winner. When the bell went for its start the Claimant should have touched gloves with his opponent; he did not do so, but hung back. The referee pulled him forward, and the fight resumed. Eubank landed a flurry of blows, none very effective, it would seem: the Claimant offered no resistance. As Eubank renewed his attack, the referee, sensing that the Claimant could no longer defend himself, stopped the bout. No-one now questions the correctness of that decision.
It was then 2254 hours. The Claimant was helped back to his corner. There was chaos in the ring for quite some time, as well as serious fighting between rival supporters in the audience. The evidence, unsurprisingly, is not perfectly precise as to what followed. Mr Tibbs, the trainer, says that when he took hold of the Claimant he rested his head on Mr Tibbs' shoulder. He then felt the Claimant's body slump. He recalls asking for a stool, helping the Claimant to sit down, and trying to speak to him. Getting no response, Mr Tibbs called for a doctor. He says he had to ask several times. He asked whoever was close, but it seemed a long time before a doctor came.
The Board had required the promoters to secure the attendance of three approved doctors. The promoters had done so, and those doctors were at the ringside.
Dr Shapiro, who was the first to enter the ring, estimates that it was seven minutes after the fight was stopped that he was called. His estimate is accepted as accurate. Dr Shapiro had been standing at the ring with the other doctors since the contest had ended.
Dr Shapiro had the Claimant lowered to the canvas where he examined him with the aid of a torch. The Claimant was unconscious and not reacting to painful stimuli. He was breathing. In his contemporaneous report, Dr Shapiro wrote that it was satisfactory and the pulse was palpable. Dr Shapiro has no better recollection than that. He put a Brooks Airway into the Claimant's mouth to maintain his airway. Examination of the pupils showed them to be fixed and dilated, an indication of brain injury. The Claimant had, as Dr Shapiro suspected, suffered a subdural haemorrhage.
The Board had also required that an ambulance be in attendance; it was, crewed by Mr Wright, who was a trained paramedic, and Mr Corley, who drove. The two were sitting some 60 feet from the ring. Because of the confusion they were not at first aware of the doctor's signal, but then went to the ring. Mr Corley went back for the trolley/stretcher while Mr Wright helped the doctors.
The Claimant was put on a pole stretcher and lifted out of the ring. That stretcher was put on to the trolley and he was wheeled to the ambulance. Dr Shapiro was holding the airway in place. Mr Wright was holding the Claimant's neck lest there was a fracture of the cervical spine. Mr Wright estimates that took four minutes. It is agreed that the trolley went into the tunnel leading under the football stand at 2308.
Thus far the times fit, but hereafter they are less clear. Mr Wright estimated that the journey to the North Middlesex Hospital, where they went, would ordinarily take three to four minutes but only two minutes when driving 'on the bell.' Mr Corley put the journey time at 5–10 minutes. The time of reception recorded by the hospital is 2322 at p. 3/477 and is agreed. The distance is less than a mile, and it may be that the apparent delay is explained by the ambulance having to make its way through a disorderly crowd, which there certainly was at the end of the contest.
In the ambulance was Mr Westwood, responsible for the Claimant's security men. He told me that the ambulance was devoid of modern equipment and did not even seem to have a radio, that he was alone in the back with Dr Shapiro and that there was a state of panic. Both ambulancemen told me that theirs was a front line ambulance fitted out as such ambulances were in London in 1991. Dr Shapiro continued to care for the Claimant's airway and Mr Wright for his neck. I cannot picture either Mr Wright or Dr Shapiro being in a state of panic. I am unable to proceed on the basis of Mr Westwood's present recollection of these events. He was very upset, naturally enough.
The Claimant was treated at the hospital. The immediate examination showed him to be unconscious, though flexing to pain, he was breathing spontaneously. His plantar reflexes were upgoing, an indication of a serious neurological disturbance. The conventional resuscitation procedures were followed. He was incubated and ventilated, viz., an endotracheal tube was inserted and he was given oxygen. A venous line was inserted and 100 ml infusion of 20% Manitol was started. Manitol is a diuretic which acts particularly against a swelling of the brain. He was also catheterised.
It is not apparent whether the Claimant had to be paralysed for the intubation to take place. There is no record in the North Middlesex notes of the administration of any paralytic agent, nor in the St Bartholomew's notes of his having been so treated before the first operation. (Compare pp. 3/493b and d in the box 'Intubation') If it had been possible to intubate the Claimant without evoking his gag response, something which would bring its own dangers if it did happen, this would, by common consent, mean that he had certainly been in need of intubation.
Again it is not apparent whether the Manitol was administered before consultation with the Bart's neurosurgeons or on their advice, but such a consultation did take place. The Claimant was for immediate transfer for the North Middlesex had no neurosurgical department. The same ambulance was waiting, but the Claimant was held at the North Middlesex until 2355, as I infer, to ensure that he was safely stabilised for the journey. He was observed (3/479) . His pupils remained fixed and dilated, though the right went down from size 8 to size 4 by 2350, as I assume, rather than 0050 as recorded. His Glasgow Coma Scale score was 3, the worst score possible. The nurses found him unresponsive. His pulse, blood pressure and respiration were themselves unremarkable.
The Claimant arrived in the scanning room at Bart's at 0030 on 22 September. The left pupil had come down in size and was perhaps reacting to light. The scan revealed a right-sided acute subdural haematoma with gross shift of the midline structures. He was taken thence to theatre. The operation to evacuate the haematoma appears to have begun at 0130.
At operation a moderate sized haematoma was removed, where veins were found to be oozing the flow was stopped by diathermy and packing, the dura was noted to be vascular, no cerebral contusion was noted, the dura was left open and the bone flap loosely replaced. The Claimant was taken to the ICU, where he arrived at 0445.
Mr Hamlyn, a consultant neurosurgeon at St Bartholomew's, and a central witness for the Claimant, had arrived at 0400. He has recorded a history that before being brought to Bart's the Claimant had fixed and dilated pupils and had been paralysed and ventilated, and that on arrival at Bart's the right pupil was fixed and dilated whereas the left was down to 4 mm and reacting. When he made his own examination, as I assume before the Claimant reached the ICU, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial