|
Legal
Actions Expose Further Risks For Sport ...
The
second article from "The ANZSLA Commentator" is written by
Simon Gardner of the Sports Law Centre at Anglia Polytechnic
University, Chelmsford. He reports in an article titled
"Duty of Care Raised for Boxing Administrators" as follows:
"The
English decision of British Boxing Board of Control v Watson
(2000) Court of Appeal, unreported, raises similar issues to the
Australian High Court case of Agar v Hyde; Agar v Worsley
(2000). The case arose out of injuries sustained by Michael
Watson following his fight with Chris Eubank for the World Boxing
Organisation Super-Middleweight title, which took place in London on
21st September 1991. The Board lost its appeal against the
decision of the High Court delivered in 1999, which ruled that Watson
was entitled to around £1m in compensation.
The
Court of Appeal was at pains to indicate that this case broke new
ground in the law of negligence. The Court agreed with the trial
judge's view that there was sufficient nexus between the Board and a
professional boxer who fought in a contest to which such rules applied
so as to be capable of giving rise to a duty of care. The Board
needed to take reasonable steps to try to minimise or control, whether
by rules or other directions, the risks inherent in the sport.
|
|
The
issue was simply whether proper care was used in making provisions for
medical treatment of Watson, and the ordinary test of reasonable skill
and care was the correct one to apply. Serious brain damage
represented the most serious risk posed by the sport, and the judge
was entitled to find that the risk should have been addressed by the
adoption of a resuscitation facility at ringside, something that
anyone with the appropriate expertise would have advised. It was
the duty of the Board, and of those advising it on medical matters, to
be prospective in their thinking and to seek competent advice as to
how a recognised danger could be best combated. This they had
failed to do and were therefore liable. This decision has sent a
clear message to sport's governing bodies concerning the financial
costs of failing to practice appropriate risk management
strategies."
The
third action refers to a Supreme Court case still to be heard where
former Carlton (Australian Football League) premiership player Adrian
Whitehead is suing the club and club doctor Phillip Perlstein for
negligence and breach of duty of care. Now 25 years old,
Whitehead has not played football since 1997 and claims a foot injury
he aggravated while playing under the influence of a local anaesthetic
prematurely ended his career.
....Continued page
3
|
