O'Donovan v. Irish Dunlop Company Ltd. & Ors

The plaintiff is suing the defendant because he worked in Dunlops in Cork between 1946 and 1976, and alleges that, in the production of rubber tyres, chemicals (specifically, 2-napthylamine) were released in the work place and that he was exposed to same and that this exposure caused the bladder cancer which first manifested itself some twenty two years later. More accurately the plaintiff alleges that exposure to these chemicals at some time between 1946 and 1976 (i.e. up to fifty years prior to first symptoms) caused his cancer.

In his affidavit grounding the application for discovery, Mr. Cantillon, the Plaintiffs solicitor, advises that an application for early trial was made to His Honour Judge Lavan on the 11 th April 2002. Perhaps this was on account of the Plaintiffs age. An early hearing could be obtained for this case in the Circuit Court. The measure of damages for two years of discomfort, the shock of diagnosis and surgery, and a few years of uncertainty (actual and prospective) seems to be well within that Court's jurisdiction.

To succeed in his action the plaintiff must prove his exposure to carcinogens as alleged. He must prove on the balance of probability that this exposure, rather some other of the many causes of cancer (e.g. genetic, viral, environmental, hormonal etc.) caused his cancer: I note on p.398 of the Oxford Handbook of Oncology, 2002, that "cigarette smoking is known to increase 2-6 fold the risk of developing bladder cancer", and on p.4 that "environmental factors appear to have a major role in the aetiology of most types of cancer, accounting for over 80% of human cancer".

The plaintiff will also have to prove that his employer failed to take reasonable care of him in his work place. He will have to prove, in other words, that the plaintiff ought to have known, as at the dates of exposure, the risks of causing cancer to workers, and that there was some reasonable step or steps which they could have taken (given the state of technology at the time) to shield the plaintiff from such exposure. At the very least, the Plaintiff argues he should have been advised to have his urine checked regularly after he left the job.

It is for this uphill evidential battle that the plaintiff seeks to arm himself by seeking discovery of the defendant's files and papers going back fifty years.