Patricia Routledge is the defendant - again!! She plays Dr Barbara Baxter, who is the defendant in a libel case against Fulchester Plastics. Following a newspaper article about the company describing their own new health and safety measures, Dr Baxter wrote a critical letter which was later published in the same newspaper. Fulchester Plastics allege that the letter is defamatory.
A few familiar faces in this case. Patrica Routledge needs no introduction. Also appearing are (Sir) Ben Kingsley as her defence counsel, perhaps best known for his titular roles in Ghandi and Silas Marner. Character actress Liz Smith (Mrs Flynn) will be familiar as Nan in The Royle Family. John Carson (Arnold Griffiths) appeared in the Peter Davison Doctor Who adventure "Snakedance", as well as numerous other popular TV programmes over the years.
A few familiar faces in this case. Patrica Routledge needs no introduction. Also appearing are (Sir) Ben Kingsley as her defence counsel, perhaps best known for his titular roles in Ghandi and Silas Marner. Character actress Liz Smith (Mrs Flynn) will be familiar as Nan in The Royle Family. John Carson (Arnold Griffiths) appeared in the Peter Davison Doctor Who adventure "Snakedance", as well as numerous other popular TV programmes over the years.
Category
📺
TVTranscript
00:00:00And you agree, do you, Dr. Baxter, that you are the author of that letter which was published
00:00:14in the Fullchester Gazette and which attacked the safety policy of Fullchester Plastics?
00:00:18Yes, I wrote it.
00:00:20Would you read the letter to the court, please, Dr. Baxter?
00:00:22Dear sir, in last week's paper you carried a full-page advertisement on the subject of
00:00:28vinyl chloride used in the manufacture of PVC at Fullchester Plastics Incorporated.
00:00:34In this advertisement, Mr. Brian Jones, present manager of the plant, stated that there was
00:00:40no danger to health from vinyl chloride now that the new safe levels had been introduced.
00:00:47Since I have been in practice in Fullchester, several of his employees, who were also patients
00:00:52of mine, have fallen ill, and in 1971 one of them died from cancer of the liver and lung.
00:01:00New so-called safe levels may have been introduced after vinyl chloride became widely known as
00:01:06a cancer danger in 1974, but there is ultimately no safe level of exposure to a chemical known
00:01:13to cause cancer.
00:01:14Dr. Barbara Baxter is the defendant in a libel action brought by Fullchester Plastics.
00:01:20Following a newspaper advertisement published by Fullchester Plastics describing new health
00:01:24and safety measures now in operation at the plant, Dr. Baxter wrote a critical letter which
00:01:29was printed in the local newspaper.
00:01:31The company allege that her letter is defamatory.
00:01:33She does not deny this.
00:01:35Her defence is simply that everything she wrote was true and justified.
00:01:39The jury in this trial has been selected from members of the public whose names appeared
00:01:42on the Electoral Register and who are eligible for jury service.
00:02:04Their current advertisement must be viewed in the light of similar assurances in the past.
00:02:09It is nothing new for Fullchester Plastics to claim that levels are safe.
00:02:15They have made the same sort of claim many times over the past years.
00:02:19It is misleading and grossly irresponsible for them to claim that their new levels of vinyl
00:02:24chloride are safe.
00:02:26And in the light of their past record, it is difficult to accept that the advertisement
00:02:31was published in good faith and not out of an overriding concern to allay fear and keep
00:02:37open the Fullchester plant.
00:02:39Yours faithfully, Barbara Baxter, Doctor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery.
00:02:43Dr. Baxter, when you first started general practice in Fullchester, did you take a special
00:02:48interest in the manufacture of PVC right away?
00:02:51Well, no, not really.
00:02:52I was interested in the plant in a general way, but no more so than in any other factory
00:02:56in the area.
00:02:57I have always been interested in occupational health, in illnesses connected with work.
00:03:03Why was that?
00:03:03I grew up in a mining village.
00:03:05My father was the local doctor there.
00:03:07As a child, I saw a lot of men suffering and dying from the effects of breathing in coal
00:03:13dust over a period of many years.
00:03:15It's the same with asbestos dust and vinyl chloride and many other of those chemicals...
00:03:19Dr. Baxter, are you saying that vinyl chloride is some sort of dust as well?
00:03:23No, my lord.
00:03:24Vinyl chloride is a liquid gas used in the manufacture of PVC.
00:03:29I see, a liquid gas, but people don't breathe it in, do they?
00:03:34Yes, my lord.
00:03:35Vinyl chloride becomes a gas on contact with air, then you breathe it in.
00:03:39Oh.
00:03:40And what happens when people breathe it in?
00:03:43What symptoms does it produce?
00:03:44Well, in very high concentrations, it produces giddiness.
00:03:48It was once considered for an anaesthetic.
00:03:50But in lower concentrations, it causes a range of illnesses.
00:03:55The one that's received the most publicity is, of course, cancer.
00:03:58Vinyl chloride has been linked to a very rare cancer of the liver, hermangiosarcoma.
00:04:05Then there's another disease known as acroosteolysis, which is a disease of the bones, usually found
00:04:12in the hands of workers who clean out the drums in which the PVC is made.
00:04:16Then there are a whole lot of symptoms, tiredness, stiffness, shortage of breath, thickening
00:04:23of the skin, which seems to be related to acroosteolysis.
00:04:27Thank you, Dr. Baxter.
00:04:28Please continue, Mr. Lee.
00:04:30Thank you, my lord.
00:04:31Dr. Baxter, when did you first start to think that there might be a connection between the
00:04:35PVC plant and disease?
00:04:36Well, it wasn't really until I went to Russia in 1961.
00:04:39I was one of a medical delegation in that year.
00:04:42And while I was there, I heard about a study which had been made in 1949 and which found
00:04:48a link between vinyl chloride and liver abnormalities.
00:04:53I knew that as a result, the Russians set the levels of vinyl chloride to which workers
00:04:58might be exposed very low.
00:05:00Did you do anything about this information?
00:05:02Indeed.
00:05:02On my return, I made a point of looking up the summary of the article in chemical abstracts
00:05:08for 1950.
00:05:09And did this confirm what you'd been told in Russia?
00:05:13Yes, it did.
00:05:14So, did you do anything with this information?
00:05:18Well, I wrote to Mr. Jones' predecessor asking him if he was aware of the findings.
00:05:23And did you receive any reply to this letter?
00:05:25As far as I can remember, I received a card saying that my letter was receiving attention.
00:05:30And did you hear anything further on the subject?
00:05:32No.
00:05:32Do you have this card, Dr. Baxter?
00:05:35Oh, no, I'm afraid not, my lord.
00:05:37It was rather a long time ago.
00:05:39I see.
00:05:41Dr. Baxter, after you were alerted to the dangers of vinyl chloride by reading the abstract of
00:05:45this Russian study, did there come a time when you noticed symptoms in patients of your
00:05:49own who worked for the plaintiff?
00:05:50Oh, yes, but it wasn't for quite a while.
00:05:52Because of what the Russian study had said, I was looking specifically for liver disease,
00:05:56you see.
00:05:57Now, the first case that I picked up was that of a patient of mine, Thomas Chapman, who worked
00:06:05at the PVC plant.
00:06:06And how long ago was this?
00:06:08Oh, this was in 1967.
00:06:11That's to say it was in 1967 that I reached a diagnosis.
00:06:14Mr. Chapman had been complaining of symptoms for a long while before that.
00:06:17Could you explain what enabled you to reach your diagnosis?
00:06:20Yes, I mean, it wasn't any great insight or clairvoyance on my part.
00:06:25I happened to notice an article in the British Medical Journal.
00:06:28It was written by two medical researchers employed by ICI, who also manufacture PVC.
00:06:35And it was about two workers who were suffering from acro-osteolysis, which is the bone disease
00:06:40I mentioned earlier.
00:06:41I remember thinking, as soon as I read it, oh, that's what it is.
00:06:46And then I was absolutely certain about Mr. Chapman, even though he wasn't manifesting
00:06:51clinical signs anything like as strong as those described in the article.
00:06:57The article begins on page five of the agreed bundle of documents, my lord.
00:07:02Yes, I have it here.
00:07:03Will you be calling Mr. Chapman as a witness, Mr. Lee?
00:07:06Yes, my lord.
00:07:07And this article shows a somewhat disturbing picture of deformed hands.
00:07:12Are Mr. Chapman's hands deformed in this manner, Dr. Baxter?
00:07:15No, my lord.
00:07:16And yet you say that he suffered from this bone disease, acro-osteolysis, is that it?
00:07:22If you will read the article as well as looking at the pictures, my lord, you'll see that
00:07:26it does refer to other symptoms apart from deformed hands.
00:07:29Yes, I am perfectly able to read, Dr. Baxter.
00:07:32The trouble is that this article describes a large number of symptoms.
00:07:37Will you tell us precisely which ones Mr. Chapman suffered from when he consulted you?
00:07:42Well, I did make precise notes at the time.
00:07:44May I refer to them, my lord?
00:07:46Yes, by all means.
00:07:47Now, the first notes are from March 1966.
00:07:53He was complaining of coldness in his hands and shoulders and a loss of power in his hands.
00:07:59He was also complaining of feeling tired and lethargic.
00:08:01On examination, doctor, were you able to observe any other signs or symptoms?
00:08:06Well, not at the time, but he came to see me again in May of that year, and on that occasion
00:08:11I saw his hands turn from white to purple to pink within a matter of seconds.
00:08:16He also complained of a tingling discomfort as this was happening.
00:08:20Now, I sent him to the hospital for blood tests, but nothing showed up.
00:08:24And then in December of that year...
00:08:27This is still 1966.
00:08:29That's right.
00:08:30In December 66, his condition was worse, and I could see a thickening of the skin on the
00:08:35wrists and hands.
00:08:36He couldn't flex his wrists properly.
00:08:38I sent him to hospital again for tests, this time with rheumatoid arthritis specifically in
00:08:43mind.
00:08:44But again, we drew a blank.
00:08:45So, how long after this was it that you were able to reach your diagnosis?
00:08:50Oh, in 1967, when I read the BMJ article.
00:08:53So, if your diagnosis is correct, it shows that prior to this time, 1967, the levels of
00:09:00vinyl chloride at Fulchester Plastics were dangerously high.
00:09:03Precisely.
00:09:05Did you inform the plaintiffs of your suspicions concerning Mr. Chapman, Dr. Baxter?
00:09:09Yes, I did.
00:09:10I wrote to Mr. Jones, enclosing a copy of the BMJ article on the subject of the ICI research.
00:09:18With what result?
00:09:20With absolutely no result at all.
00:09:21Mr. Jones did not reply.
00:09:23When you received no reply from the plaintiffs, Dr. Baxter, did you take any further action?
00:09:28Indeed I did.
00:09:29I went to see Mr. Jones.
00:09:30This was in 1967?
00:09:32Yes, it was.
00:09:33And what transpired on that case?
00:09:35Well, I asked him what he thought of the article.
00:09:37He said he hadn't read it.
00:09:39Ah, but he did admit that he had received it.
00:09:41Well, he didn't say that he hadn't.
00:09:43I assumed that he had.
00:09:44I'd sent it to him.
00:09:47Now, did you inform him about Mr. Chapman?
00:09:51Naturally, I did.
00:09:52And what was his reaction?
00:09:54He said the plant had been operating for a number of years without anything like this happening.
00:09:58He accused me of looking for trouble, of putting ideas into patients' heads.
00:10:03And after you'd been to see Mr. Chapman, after you'd been to see Mr. Jones, about Mr. Chapman, when was the next time that you had dealings with Mr. Jones?
00:10:10In December 1967, when Mr. Chapman was sacked.
00:10:15Mr. Chapman was sacked.
00:10:17I see.
00:10:17What was the reason for this?
00:10:19Well, the official explanation was that he'd been off work for too long.
00:10:23I see.
00:10:24Dr. Baxter, would you tell the court about the other patient whom you suspected of having a disease caused by vinyl chloride?
00:10:32Oh, yes.
00:10:33Mr. Flynn.
00:10:33Yes.
00:10:35Now, Mr. Flynn was also a patient of mine.
00:10:38He died in 1971 of cancer of the lung.
00:10:42But there was also evidence of liver abnormality, which had puzzled the hospital.
00:10:46They wanted to do a post-mortem, but Mrs. Flynn refused permission, and Mr. Flynn's body was cremated.
00:10:53Now, did you inform Mr. Jones of your suspicions concerning Mr. Flynn?
00:10:57Yes, I did.
00:10:57I wrote to him on October the 23rd, 1970, the court has copies of this letter, outlining Mr. Flynn's case and referring him to the 1949 Russian study.
00:11:09Again, I received no reply.
00:11:11Did you take any further action?
00:11:13Not at the time, but when vinyl chloride was implicated in cases of liver cancer in 1974,
00:11:19I suggested to Mrs. Flynn that she approach the company and that she also get in touch with her husband's union.
00:11:26When she had no joy, I went along to see Mr. Jones again myself.
00:11:30Now, what was the date of this visit?
00:11:32Oh, this must have been July 1974, the end of July.
00:11:37Now, you went to see Mr. Jones with what in mind, exactly?
00:11:41I thought it possible that the company might agree to compensate Mrs. Flynn.
00:11:46And you put this to Mr. Jones?
00:11:48Oh, yes.
00:11:48And what was his reaction to your suggestion?
00:11:52He began shouting at me.
00:11:54Shouting?
00:11:54Yes, Mr. Jones is the proud owner of a very healthy pair of lungs.
00:11:58Dr. Baxter, just tell the court the words that Mr. Jones used in his reply to your suggestion, please.
00:12:05That there was no question of compensation, that his plant had always conformed to the accepted standards of safety,
00:12:14nobody could accuse him of negligence, no deaths had ever been caused at his plant by exposure to vinyl chloride.
00:12:20Then he rang for a security guard shouting, throw her off the premises.
00:12:24Did you leave at this point?
00:12:25Yes, there was very little else I could do.
00:12:29Have you seen Mr. Jones since then?
00:12:31Not until today.
00:12:32Now, in their recent advertisement, the one which prompted your letter to the Fulchester Gazette,
00:12:40Fulchester Plastics claim that they have reduced the level of vinyl chloride to which their workers are exposed even further than before.
00:12:48Yes.
00:12:48And they claim that this new level is safe and that it poses no danger whatever to human health.
00:12:57Yes.
00:12:57Now, in your letter to the press that has led to this libel action, doctor, you claim that this advertisement of theirs is misleading and irresponsible.
00:13:05Now, would you explain to the court why you say that?
00:13:07Yes.
00:13:09Most cancers take between 15 to 20 years to develop.
00:13:14We are only now seeing the effects of high exposures of 20 years ago.
00:13:20It will be another 20 years before we know absolutely whether the present levels cause cancer.
00:13:28It is very misleading to tell people that the latest accepted standard is safe.
00:13:35Nobody knows.
00:13:36That's the truth of the matter.
00:13:50Dr. Baxter, you spoke of a visit to the Soviet Union, didn't you?
00:13:55Yes.
00:13:56You admire the way things are organised there, I take it?
00:13:59I admire the way some things are organised, yes.
00:14:01I believe you stood for Parliament in 1970, Dr. Baxter.
00:14:05Yes, I did.
00:14:05Would you please tell this court for which party you stood?
00:14:08Really, my lord, Dr. Baxter's political beliefs can have no possible bearing on the results of this case.
00:14:14My lord, my clients contend that Dr. Baxter's harassment of them stems from her political motivations.
00:14:20Her political opinions, therefore, are central to this case.
00:14:22Yes, you may proceed, Miss Dunwoody.
00:14:26As your lordship pleases.
00:14:27Dr. Baxter, for which party did you stand in 1970?
00:14:31I stood as candidate for the Communist Party.
00:14:34You favour the Communist system.
00:14:36I'm a Communist. It's hardly likely I wouldn't favour a Communist system.
00:14:40So, of course, as a Communist, I suppose you would be prepared to engage in subversive activities to bring down the capitalist system.
00:14:46Oh, yes, Red's under the bed.
00:14:47You must be quite aware that the Communist Party in this country has for some years now believed in change by parliamentary process.
00:14:58Hence my standing as a candidate for the Communist Party in the 1970 general election.
00:15:03But you would describe yourself as an anti-capitalist?
00:15:07Certainly I am.
00:15:09Dr. Baxter, it has been your intent all along, has it not, in your dealings with Fulchester Plastics to discredit this company,
00:15:15and through unfavourable publicity to force them to close down production,
00:15:19knowing full well the repercussions this would have on other industries and on the economy of the country.
00:15:24You're talking rubbish.
00:15:25But I'm right, am I not, in thinking that the end of all PVC production is what you would like to see?
00:15:31What I would like to see is the production of PVC made safe for human beings.
00:15:37But if it cannot be made 100% safe?
00:15:40In that case, I think that people are more important than plastic.
00:15:43Now, you claim to have known about a study done in Russia in 1949.
00:15:51You read Russian, do you, Dr. Baxter?
00:15:53No, I do not.
00:15:54What I said was that I was told about a study when I visited Russia in 1961.
00:15:59And so you came back to this country,
00:16:01and with a conscientiousness quite outstanding among busy family doctors,
00:16:05you took the trouble to trace the abstract of this article.
00:16:08I happen to live on the doorstep of a PVC plant.
00:16:12I dare say if I hadn't, I wouldn't have bothered.
00:16:14Did you send a copy of this abstract to Mr. Jones's predecessor?
00:16:17No, I didn't.
00:16:19Photocopying wasn't nearly so widespread in those days as it is now.
00:16:22I summarised the contents.
00:16:24Yet there's no record of this letter on the company's files.
00:16:27I can hardly be held responsible for that.
00:16:29And you cannot find the acknowledging card you claim to have received from them?
00:16:34I did receive it.
00:16:35We have only your word for that.
00:16:37You see, the point I'm getting at, Dr. Baxter,
00:16:39is that it's very easy now, with all that's been written about PVC and vinyl chloride,
00:16:44to lay claim to an earlier knowledge of the subject.
00:16:48What I find that is not credible, Dr. Baxter,
00:16:50is that in 1961, you should have been unique in this country
00:16:55in knowing of an obscure Russian study done in 1949.
00:16:59But that's precisely my point.
00:17:01I should not have been unique.
00:17:03It was the responsibility of management
00:17:05to make sure that they read world literature on the subject,
00:17:09or at least that they employed doctors to do so.
00:17:11Dr. Baxter, what I'm suggesting that is surprising
00:17:14is not that management did not know of this obscure Russian study,
00:17:17but that you did.
00:17:19I find that very unlikely.
00:17:21Well, I did know of it.
00:17:23You see, following from that,
00:17:24I'd like to ask you about Mr. Flynn.
00:17:27Now, Mr. Flynn died in 1971, I think you said?
00:17:30Yes, that's right.
00:17:31And you also said that you, or the hospital,
00:17:34thought there was some abnormality in his liver.
00:17:37Yes, the hospital thought there was a cancer there.
00:17:40Now, you also said that the reason you did not pick up,
00:17:42as you put it, Mr. Chapman's symptoms initially,
00:17:45was that you were on the lookout for liver disease.
00:17:47Yes.
00:17:48So, if we are to believe that you had been on the lookout
00:17:51for liver disease all along, since 1961, that is,
00:17:55when you claimed to have read this Russian study...
00:17:57I read the abstract.
00:17:59When you read the abstract of this Russian study,
00:18:03surely it would have been a matter of crucial importance to you
00:18:06to establish whether or not Mr. Flynn died from a cancer of the liver
00:18:09that might have been attributable to vinyl chloride.
00:18:12That's precisely why I wish there'd been a post-mortem,
00:18:15and why the hospital specialist wanted one.
00:18:18Yet, this post-mortem never took place.
00:18:20As I said earlier, Mrs. Flynn did not wish it to take place.
00:18:25Dr. Baxter, I suggest that the reason you did not insist on the post-mortem
00:18:30was that you were not on the lookout for liver disease at all,
00:18:33and that if you had read this study, as you say you had,
00:18:36you would have insisted,
00:18:38because it might have provided very important evidence indeed
00:18:40to support that paper.
00:18:42That's not true.
00:18:42I also suggest it would never have occurred to you
00:18:45to link Mr. Flynn's death with vinyl chloride,
00:18:47had there not been all the publicity about it,
00:18:50three years later, in 1974.
00:18:54And further, that neither you nor anyone else in this country
00:18:56was aware of this particular danger from vinyl chloride before then.
00:19:00Not through negligence or malice,
00:19:03but because, as you yourself have stated,
00:19:05it is an unfortunate fact that we cannot know
00:19:07what chemical substances do to human beings
00:19:10until the human beings have been exposed to them
00:19:13for some considerable time.
00:19:14I would say that animal experiments provide reasonable indication.
00:19:19Yes.
00:19:20Well, one final question, Dr. Baxter.
00:19:23With regard to your letter to the Fulchester Gazette,
00:19:26in which you allege that it is grossly irresponsible
00:19:29of my clients' Fulchester plastics
00:19:31to claim that their present levels of vinyl chloride are safe,
00:19:35are you aware that the levels at the plant
00:19:38are now well within the code of practice
00:19:40laid down by the health and safety executive?
00:19:42That is not the point.
00:19:44You still maintain that these levels are unsafe?
00:19:46It is irresponsible to guarantee that they are safe.
00:19:50So you are saying that you, an ordinary family doctor,
00:19:55know more about what is or what is not safe
00:19:57than do all the experts of the CBI, the TUC
00:20:01and the health and safety executive?
00:20:05What was the date of your husband's death, Mrs Flynn?
00:20:08He died in 1971.
00:20:10May 18th, 1971.
00:20:13And how long was he ill before he died?
00:20:15Well, a couple of years, really.
00:20:17I mean, he'd been going downhill for some time
00:20:19before he went into hospital
00:20:21and he was in hospital for six months before he died.
00:20:24Could you explain to the court what you mean by going downhill?
00:20:28Well, the first thing I noticed was the way he lost weight
00:20:31and then all his clothes seemed to look too big on him.
00:20:36Can you say what year this weight loss started?
00:20:38Yes, it would be about the end of 1968, beginning of 1969,
00:20:44sometime around then.
00:20:46And what's your husband complaining of any other symptoms about this time?
00:20:50Well, he had this pain from time to time in his stomach, about here.
00:20:56Did he go to the doctor about this?
00:20:57No, no, he wouldn't go.
00:21:00He wasn't one to bother a doctor unnecessarily.
00:21:04So when was the first time your husband actually saw Dr Baxter?
00:21:08Well, in the October of 1970, he took this pneumonia.
00:21:15It had a bad cough for quite a long time and then he went down with pneumonia.
00:21:20So we called Dr Baxter in then and that's when he went into hospital for the first time.
00:21:27Mrs Flynn, did you at any stage in your husband's illness mention his stomach pains to Dr Baxter?
00:21:33No, I didn't.
00:21:34Not until she told me that the hospital thought that there might be something wrong with his lover.
00:21:39And when was this?
00:21:40This was after he went into hospital for the last time.
00:21:45He went in in January.
00:21:46January 1971.
00:21:48And what happened?
00:21:52One day I went in to visit him and he told me that they had a liver specialist in to see him
00:21:58and they were going to do some tests.
00:22:01Well, of course, hospitals don't tell you very much.
00:22:05So I rang Dr Baxter up about it.
00:22:08And what did she have to say?
00:22:09And she said, yes, they were puzzled.
00:22:12And then she went on to ask me how long he'd worked at the PVC plant and what departments he'd been in and that.
00:22:21Did she say why she was asking you this?
00:22:24Yes.
00:22:24She said that some people believed that you did get the disease from working with PVC.
00:22:33Yes.
00:22:33Now, Mrs Flynn, after your husband's death, the hospital asked you if they could do a post-mortem, didn't they?
00:22:40Yes.
00:22:41And what was your attitude to this?
00:22:43Oh, I didn't like the idea.
00:22:45Well, you see, he'd suffered such a lot before he's died.
00:22:48I didn't want any more messing about with him.
00:22:51So, you refused permission?
00:22:53Yes, yes.
00:22:54Did Dr Baxter speak to you on the subject of a post-mortem?
00:22:58No, no, not Dr Baxter.
00:23:00It was all between me and Dr Gill.
00:23:03The liver specialist.
00:23:04Yes, yes.
00:23:05Was the subject of the post-mortem ever mentioned to you afterwards by Dr Baxter, Mrs Flynn?
00:23:09Not until 1974.
00:23:13Dr Baxter said she thought it would be worth my while writing to the company and that I might get some compensation.
00:23:22She said that she thought we would have enough evidence even without the post-mortem.
00:23:27And did you write to the company?
00:23:28Yes.
00:23:29And what happened?
00:23:31I got a letter back saying that unless I could prove that my husband had died of cancer of the liver caused by vinyl chloride, there was nothing they could do.
00:23:45Which, of course, you could not do.
00:23:47No.
00:23:48Not been being cremated, you see.
00:23:50The cases in Forchester Crown Court are fictitious.
00:24:18Join us again tomorrow when the case of Fullchester Plastics against Dr Barbara Baxter will be resumed in the Crown Court.
00:24:25Barbara Baxter, a Fullchester doctor, is being sued for libel by Fullchester Plastics because of a letter she wrote to the local paper claiming that for many years the company had ignored her warnings that vinyl chloride, used in the manufacture of PVC, is a danger to health.
00:24:53Yesterday, Mrs Flynn, the widow of a patient of Dr Baxter's, testified that Dr Baxter told her in 1971, three years before the dangers of vinyl chloride were widely recognised, that her husband's illness might be related to his work.
00:25:06The jury in the trial has been selected from members of the public whose names appear on the electoral register and who are eligible for jury service.
00:25:14Today, Mrs Flynn returns to the witness box to be cross-examined by Miss Angela Dunwoody, QC, counsel for the plaintiffs.
00:25:21Mrs Flynn, the normal procedure for someone seeking compensation from an employer is to approach the union.
00:25:52Now, did you at any time approach your husband's union?
00:25:54In 1974.
00:25:57I see. It's three years after your husband's death.
00:26:00Yes. Dr Baxter rang up the union and arranged for me to see the solicitor.
00:26:06And did you in fact see him?
00:26:07Yes.
00:26:08And did the union bring an action for damages against Fullchester Plastics on your behalf?
00:26:12No.
00:26:13No.
00:26:15Are they planning to bring one?
00:26:16No.
00:26:17No.
00:26:17Now, why is that, Mrs Flynn?
00:26:20The solicitor.
00:26:21He said, without hard evidence, I just wouldn't stand a chance.
00:26:26In other words, he didn't think you had a very strong case against Fullchester Plastics.
00:26:30Well, no. Not a watertight one, no.
00:26:32Now, of course, the evidence which would have proved or disproved your case would have been the result of an autopsy, would it not?
00:26:40A post-mortem.
00:26:41Oh, yes. Yes. He did say that a post-mortem might have proved that the thing was caused by vinyl chloride.
00:26:50Or, of course, disproved it.
00:26:52Yes. No.
00:26:53Now, it was you who refused this post-mortem, was it not?
00:26:56Yes.
00:26:57Despite the fact that you say Dr Baxter told you before your husband died that his illness might have been caused by vinyl chloride.
00:27:04Yes.
00:27:05Why was that, Mrs Flynn?
00:27:07Well, surely you must have realised that if your husband's illness had been caused by his work,
00:27:12then you, as his widow, would have been entitled to compensation from the company.
00:27:16I just didn't think about it.
00:27:17I mean, you don't think about these things at the time.
00:27:21It had such a lot of pain before I died.
00:27:24It suffered so much.
00:27:26Well, we'd all suffered.
00:27:27Watch.
00:27:28I can quite understand your distress, Mrs Flynn.
00:27:30But, with all due respect, I suggest that the reason you did not think about compensation at the time of your husband's death
00:27:38was that Dr Baxter hadn't told you then that his illness could have been caused by vinyl chloride.
00:27:44I suggest she did not tell you that until three years later, in 1974,
00:27:49when, after considerable publicity on this subject,
00:27:52she suggested that you bring an action for damages against Fultchester Plastics.
00:27:55I just didn't want one of them post-mortems.
00:27:58I was glad when it was all over.
00:28:02I just didn't want any more messing about with him.
00:28:07I call Nigel Gill.
00:28:15What religion are you to?
00:28:17Churchill.
00:28:17Take the book in your right hand and read aloud the words on the clock.
00:28:21I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth,
00:28:26the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
00:28:33You are...
00:28:34Nigel Gill?
00:28:36I am.
00:28:37What are your medical qualifications, Dr Gill?
00:28:40I'm a doctor of medicine, a bachelor of surgery,
00:28:42and a member of the Royal College of Physicians.
00:28:44My special study is the diseases of the liver and kidney.
00:28:49And you treated Mr Flynn, did you not?
00:28:51I was consulted about him.
00:28:53And what was your position at the time?
00:28:55I was a senior registrar at Fultchester Hospital.
00:28:57Why were you consulted about him?
00:28:59Well, the man was not one of my patients.
00:29:01He was admitted under the chest team because he had a lung cancer.
00:29:04But I was brought in by the consultant who was treating the case
00:29:09to look into the possibility of liver cancer, a mangiocar sarcoma.
00:29:13There was some suspicion of cancer of the liver.
00:29:15Oh, there was more than suspicion.
00:29:16The liver function test showed without any doubt that the liver was damaged
00:29:19and there was a hard abdominal mass suggesting enlargement, possibly a tumour.
00:29:23So, he did have cancer of the liver.
00:29:26Oh, yes.
00:29:27Which, it is now well known, can be caused by exposure to vinyl chloride.
00:29:31Well, one particular type of cancer can, yes.
00:29:34Did Mr Flynn have this particular kind of cancer, Doctor?
00:29:36I can't say.
00:29:38It's very possible that he did.
00:29:43Dr Gill, the real question, is it not,
00:29:46is whether the liver was the site of the primary cancer
00:29:49or of a secondary growth.
00:29:52And also, of course, the type of the cancer.
00:29:54Oh, that is so.
00:29:55Did you manage to ascertain any of these things?
00:29:57No, we didn't.
00:29:58Liver cancers are notoriously difficult to diagnose.
00:30:00The only way to be certain of the type of tumour it was
00:30:03would have been to perform an autopsy.
00:30:05I see.
00:30:06Now, did you approach Mrs Flynn for her permission to perform this autopsy?
00:30:09Yes, I did.
00:30:10She refused permission.
00:30:11And did you explain to her that the liver disease
00:30:13might have been caused by vinyl chloride?
00:30:15No, I didn't.
00:30:16I didn't know it myself at the time.
00:30:18I see.
00:30:19Dr Gill, would you explain why it is that if Mr Flynn had this possibly primary cancer
00:30:31of the liver, the death certificate gives the cause of death
00:30:34as carcinoma of the bronchus, which is cancer of the lung?
00:30:38Yes.
00:30:38Mr Flynn was admitted under the medical firm.
00:30:41That is the team of doctors that deals with chest diseases.
00:30:45He did have a lung tumour, you see.
00:30:46And it would have been one of the doctors from the chest team
00:30:49who signed the death certificate.
00:30:51It wasn't as if anyone was looking for cause of death, you see.
00:30:53The man died of cancer.
00:30:55And I suppose the houseman or whoever signed the death certificate
00:30:58just put down the most straightforward reason.
00:31:00But Mr Flynn was cremated, Dr Gill.
00:31:02And in cases of cremation, the law insists upon a second certificate.
00:31:07In fact, I believe doctors charge a fee for signing it.
00:31:10For the very good reason that the body cannot be exhumed
00:31:13to review the cause of death later on.
00:31:15Now, in Mr Flynn's case, this second certificate,
00:31:18the one that is supposed to rule out all argument,
00:31:21also states that Mr Flynn died of carcinoma of the bronchus.
00:31:25Yes, well, it's rather an academic point, isn't it,
00:31:27which tumour carried the man off.
00:31:29Mr Flynn died of cancer.
00:31:32What is in dispute is the site and type of the primary cancer.
00:31:37Which you are saying was the rare cancer of the liver
00:31:40attributable to vinyl chloride?
00:31:42I'm saying nothing of the kind.
00:31:43What I'm saying is there were aspects of the case at the time
00:31:45which puzzled me.
00:31:46I cannot say definitely that this was the type of cancer
00:31:49associated with vinyl chloride.
00:31:51What I'm saying is the possibility cannot be ruled out.
00:31:54Despite the fact that both the cremation and the death certificate
00:31:57give another cause of death?
00:31:59Despite that fact, yes.
00:32:01Would you please tell the court, Mr Chapman,
00:32:06how long you worked for Fullchester Plastics?
00:32:08Yeah, I was there from 1962 to 1967.
00:32:11And would you tell us what job you did?
00:32:13I was an autoclave cleaner.
00:32:14And an autoclave is the drum in which the PVC is made.
00:32:17Am I right?
00:32:17Yeah, that's right.
00:32:20Approximately 12 feet high, 8 feet in diameter,
00:32:23rather like a huge cement mixer.
00:32:25Am I right?
00:32:25Yeah, you could say that, yeah.
00:32:27Now, could you just describe to the jury
00:32:29how you cleaned one of these drums?
00:32:31Yeah, well, when I was there,
00:32:33what we did was we washed down the autoclave first with oses.
00:32:37And then they blew air through it for a bit
00:32:38to get the level of vinyl chloride down inside.
00:32:41And then you go into it and you chip away
00:32:43what was left on the sides and on the steering rod
00:32:45because PVC sets hard when it's cool, see?
00:32:48Now, when you were put on the job of cleaning these drums,
00:32:50did the management tell you that vinyl chloride was dangerous?
00:32:54No, the only thing they told us was that it was an explosive hazard.
00:32:57They didn't mention the fact that it had once been thought of for an anaesthetic.
00:33:00But, I mean, we all knew that if you got too big a whiff of it,
00:33:03it could make you dizzy.
00:33:04Was there anything else you knew about vinyl chloride,
00:33:07Mr Chapman, that the management hadn't told you?
00:33:09Yeah, well, I knew that when I was in the autoclave,
00:33:12I used to get this cold, freezing feeling
00:33:14round my ankles and round my wrists and round my crotch.
00:33:18Did you notice any other symptoms at this time, Mr Chapman?
00:33:21Oh, yeah, I had a whole load of them.
00:33:22I've been there, ooh, two or three years.
00:33:24I was never really well.
00:33:25I was cold all the time.
00:33:28I ate.
00:33:28I got this aching feeling across my shoulders.
00:33:31And I felt like I lost all the strength in my arms.
00:33:34I was breathless.
00:33:35And I was beginning to find married life a bit of a problem.
00:33:39In what way, Mr Chapman?
00:33:41Well, you know what I mean, don't you?
00:33:44You mean you became impotent?
00:33:45Yeah, yeah, that's it.
00:33:46Impotent, that's it.
00:33:48Did you consult Dr Baxter about any of these symptoms, Mr Chapman?
00:33:51Oh, yeah, well, I was going to see her on and off all along.
00:33:54She must have been sick of the sight of me.
00:33:56But it was in, what, 1965, beginning of 66.
00:34:00I really thought there was something serious in the matter with me.
00:34:02I mean, I thought I was a goner then.
00:34:03And what did Dr Baxter tell you?
00:34:06Well, at first she said it was bad circulation.
00:34:10And then when I told her about the bedside of things,
00:34:12she sent me to a psychiatrist.
00:34:14And then later on she said that the loss of power in my arms
00:34:17was to do with all the hammering
00:34:18because she did ask about the work, like...
00:34:21Yes, has anyone ever suggested that your illness
00:34:23might be connected with vinyl chloride?
00:34:25Yeah, Dr Baxter did.
00:34:26And when was that?
00:34:28In 1967.
00:34:30Now, she told me about an article she'd come across
00:34:33in a medical magazine
00:34:34about some other blokes with the same condition.
00:34:36What did she advise you to do?
00:34:38Well, she said I should stop off work
00:34:40and she said I should go and see Mr Jones.
00:34:42Did you?
00:34:43Yeah, I did both.
00:34:44What did Mr Jones have to say?
00:34:46Well, he said he was very sorry I was ill, he said,
00:34:49but it was nothing to do with him.
00:34:51He said they had blokes working there for 20 years
00:34:53with no symptoms, he said,
00:34:54and he said he didn't see how my illness
00:34:56could be anything to do with them
00:34:58because they kept to the accepted standards
00:35:00of vinyl chloride.
00:35:01Did you have any further dealings with Mr Jones?
00:35:03Well, no, not with him personally.
00:35:05I mean, I've been off work, what, three months
00:35:07and then they sent me my cards through the post.
00:35:09They sacked you?
00:35:10Yeah.
00:35:10Yes.
00:35:11Did they give a reason for this?
00:35:13No, they just said I've been off work too long,
00:35:15something like that.
00:35:16So, what did you do?
00:35:18Well, I went to the union, didn't I?
00:35:19But, I mean, they couldn't do anything about it,
00:35:21well, not then.
00:35:21So I thought, well, sod the lot of them
00:35:23and when I got a bit better, I got another job.
00:35:25Mr Chapman, when you saw the advertisement
00:35:27in the paper recently,
00:35:29claiming that levels at the Fulchester plant
00:35:32posed no risk to health,
00:35:34what was your reaction?
00:35:36Oh, what a load of eye wash, I thought.
00:35:37What a load of bleeding eye wash.
00:35:39You haven't worked at Fulchester Plastics
00:35:45since 1967, have you, Mr Chapman?
00:35:48No, I haven't.
00:35:49Do you really think you're in a position
00:35:50to comment, then, about the safety procedures
00:35:53at Fulchester Plastics?
00:35:54I'm not commenting on them.
00:35:55Oh, but you are, Mr Chapman.
00:35:57You just said that you thought
00:35:59the recent advertisement published
00:36:00in the Fulchester Gazette
00:36:01was a load of bleeding eye wash.
00:36:02Yeah, but it's not a question
00:36:03of what the level is, is it?
00:36:05I mean, I know Fulchester Plastics,
00:36:07I know Jones, I know what their attitude is.
00:36:08They don't want anything to get in the way
00:36:10with their production.
00:36:11So, in fact, you make your comment
00:36:13regardless of what the level actually is now?
00:36:15Yeah.
00:36:17Do you know what the level is now, Mr Chapman?
00:36:19Not exactly, no.
00:36:20I mean, I know things are better now
00:36:21than they were in my day.
00:36:23Oh, you do know that, do you?
00:36:25Yeah, well, I've heard it is.
00:36:26You have heard it is?
00:36:27Yeah.
00:36:28Mr Chapman, this sort of talks all very well in a pub,
00:36:31but I'm afraid it's not good enough
00:36:32for a court of law.
00:36:33What was the accepted standard
00:36:35for levels of vinyl chloride
00:36:37when you did work in the factory?
00:36:40You don't know, do you, Mr Chapman?
00:36:41Look, it doesn't matter anyway
00:36:43because they never kept to any levels in my day.
00:36:45Nobody ever checked.
00:36:46Oh, come now, that is quite untrue.
00:36:48You're talking about a company
00:36:50that has spent one and a half million pounds
00:36:52on controlling the levels of vinyl chloride
00:36:55in their plant.
00:36:56Ah, yeah, they have now.
00:36:57I said that, didn't I?
00:36:58I said things were better now
00:36:59than they were in my day.
00:37:01Yes.
00:37:03Now, I'd like to turn now
00:37:04to this mysterious condition
00:37:05which you and Dr Baxter have agreed between you
00:37:08was acro-osteolysis.
00:37:10Yeah.
00:37:11Have you any symptoms of this condition today?
00:37:14No, it's all cleared up now.
00:37:15Oh, so you've made a complete recovery?
00:37:18Yeah.
00:37:19Well, I'm delighted to hear that, Mr Chapman.
00:37:21And I'm right in saying, am I not,
00:37:23that you did not sue Fulchester Plastics
00:37:24for damages or unfair dismissal
00:37:27because, I suggest,
00:37:29you didn't have a very strong case.
00:37:30Now, look, the reason I didn't have a very strong case
00:37:33is because I haven't had a very good doctor, right?
00:37:35If she hadn't told me what was the matter with me,
00:37:37I could have gone and worked in there
00:37:38till my bleeding fingers dropped off.
00:37:40Yes, Mr Chapman,
00:37:41you're here to give evidence
00:37:42to the truth or falsity
00:37:44of the allegations made by Dr Baxter
00:37:47in her letter to the Fulchester Gazette.
00:37:50And you will do that best
00:37:51by answering counsel's questions
00:37:53in a civil manner.
00:37:55Yeah, but Dr Baxter did tell me in 1967
00:37:57that I had PVC disease
00:37:59and at that stage,
00:38:00Jones's lot weren't bringing levels down for anyone.
00:38:02Mr Chapman...
00:38:03Yeah, all right.
00:38:03I'm sorry, my lord.
00:38:05So you did not sue Fulchester Plastics for damages?
00:38:09Not yet, I haven't.
00:38:10I wonder how the history of your mysterious illness
00:38:13would stand up in court when you do, Mr Chapman.
00:38:15Mr Jones,
00:38:28when you became plant manager
00:38:30at Fulchester Plastics in 1963,
00:38:33were any safety standards applied?
00:38:36Yes.
00:38:37There were accepted levels of vinyl chloride
00:38:39which were always followed.
00:38:40And you continued to follow them?
00:38:42Oh, yes.
00:38:42Now, what were these standards in 1963, Mr Jones?
00:38:47The standards recommended
00:38:48by the American Conference of Government
00:38:50and Industrial Hygienists,
00:38:52which were 500 parts per million.
00:38:54That is, 500 parts of vinyl chloride
00:38:57for every million parts of air.
00:38:59Well, now, of course, you operate your plant
00:39:01at considerably lower levels of vinyl chloride.
00:39:03Oh, yes.
00:39:04We've always tried to keep
00:39:05well within the past accepted standards.
00:39:09In 1975,
00:39:11the Health and Safety Executive
00:39:12in this country
00:39:13got together with both sides of industry
00:39:15and produced what is known
00:39:16as the Code of Practice.
00:39:18And what levels did this Code of Practice suggest?
00:39:21Ten parts per million.
00:39:23Averaged out over an eight-hour shift.
00:39:25And so your plant now conforms
00:39:26to this standard of
00:39:27ten parts per million, does it?
00:39:29Oh, yes.
00:39:30As a matter of fact,
00:39:31we're now well within that range.
00:39:32Does this imply, would you say, Mr Jones,
00:39:34that the levels at which the plant
00:39:36was operated at in the past
00:39:38were unsafe?
00:39:39Well, in the light of what we know now,
00:39:43yes, they were.
00:39:44But we didn't know that then.
00:39:46Nobody did.
00:39:47When did you first become aware that...
00:39:50When did you first become aware
00:39:51of the danger of vinyl chloride, Mr Jones?
00:39:53Well, we learned that the American standards
00:39:56of the American Conference
00:39:57of Government and Industrial Hygienists
00:39:59were reduced to 500 parts per million
00:40:02in 1972.
00:40:04I suppose that was the first warning.
00:40:05But it was in 1974, of course,
00:40:09that we first learned
00:40:10that vinyl chloride could cause cancer.
00:40:13And what made you realize this?
00:40:16Well, Goodrich in America
00:40:17had publicly announced
00:40:18that the deaths of three of their workers
00:40:20from a particular cancer of the liver
00:40:22had been attributable to vinyl chloride.
00:40:25Now, did you take any action
00:40:27when you heard about this?
00:40:29Oh, yes.
00:40:30The immediate reduction of levels
00:40:31of vinyl chloride
00:40:32for the Fulchester plant.
00:40:33And had the factory inspectorate
00:40:35as it was then called
00:40:36been in touch with you at that stage?
00:40:38No, they came in almost immediately afterwards
00:40:40with their recommendations.
00:40:41So now, would you please tell the jury,
00:40:43Mr Jones,
00:40:44what measures have been taken
00:40:45at the Fulchester plant
00:40:46to lessen the concentrations
00:40:48of vinyl chloride
00:40:48to which your workers were exposed?
00:40:50Certainly.
00:40:52Since January 1974,
00:40:55the company have improved
00:40:56ventilation in the plant.
00:40:58They've eliminated leaks
00:41:00in the piping
00:41:00by replacing all our old valves
00:41:03with a new and extremely reliable variety.
00:41:08Thirdly,
00:41:09we've instituted a new cleaning process
00:41:10in the autoclaves,
00:41:12whereby high-pressure water jets
00:41:14get the bulk of the PVC
00:41:15off the walls and the agitator.
00:41:18This means the work of the men
00:41:19working in the autoclaves
00:41:20is much easier than it was before.
00:41:24The PVC just falls off the walls.
00:41:25Fourthly,
00:41:28we're automating
00:41:29the cleaning process
00:41:30in the autoclaves
00:41:30as fast as we can.
00:41:32You say the PVC
00:41:33falls off the walls.
00:41:35This isn't waste matter, then.
00:41:36No, my lord.
00:41:37Quite the reverse.
00:41:38It's top-quality PVC.
00:41:40I see.
00:41:42But the most important innovation,
00:41:43which we made just this year,
00:41:45with the union's blessing,
00:41:46is the institution
00:41:48of fixed-point monitoring.
00:41:51What's that?
00:41:52It's a system we organise
00:41:53with the shop steward, my lord,
00:41:55whereby air is sampled
00:41:57at 32 points within the plant.
00:42:00These pick-up points
00:42:01are connected to a central monitor.
00:42:04If the level rises above
00:42:05the accepted one,
00:42:08which is now a maximum
00:42:09of 25 parts per million,
00:42:12an alarm sounds,
00:42:13and the area is evacuated.
00:42:15I see.
00:42:16Now, these 32 points,
00:42:18are they just in the factory
00:42:21itself,
00:42:22or are they included
00:42:23in the drums
00:42:24that the men have to enter
00:42:25to clean?
00:42:26The 32 points are all
00:42:27within the general
00:42:27working environment, my lord.
00:42:29But every man
00:42:30who enters an autoclave
00:42:31carries a probe,
00:42:33which he switches on
00:42:34when he goes in,
00:42:36and it then registers
00:42:37on the central monitor.
00:42:38So that the 25 parts per million
00:42:40that you're talking about
00:42:41obtains within the drums
00:42:43as well as anywhere else?
00:42:44That's right, my lord.
00:42:46And, um,
00:42:47if I may just make it clear, my lord,
00:42:49that 25 parts per million
00:42:51is a maximum level.
00:42:53Over an eight-hour shift,
00:42:55the level does not exceed ten,
00:42:57and is usually closer to five.
00:42:59Five parts per million?
00:43:00That's right, my lord.
00:43:02Thank you, Mr. Jones.
00:43:04Is everything that ought to be done
00:43:06to ensure workers' safety
00:43:08and health being done
00:43:10at Fullchester Plastics?
00:43:11It is, my lord.
00:43:14Miss Stonewood.
00:43:15My lord.
00:43:15Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.
00:43:20Mr. Jones.
00:43:22You say
00:43:23that the first inkling
00:43:25you had that vinyl chloride
00:43:27might be dangerous
00:43:28came in 1972,
00:43:30when the, uh,
00:43:31American body
00:43:32from which you took
00:43:33your accepted standard
00:43:34reduced that standard
00:43:35from 500 to 200 parts per million.
00:43:37That's correct.
00:43:38But Dr. Baxter
00:43:39had first approached
00:43:39your company eleven years
00:43:41previously, Mr. Jones.
00:43:42It was in 1961
00:43:43that she learned
00:43:44of the Russian study
00:43:45and wrote to your predecessor
00:43:47about it.
00:43:47That was before my time.
00:43:49Ah.
00:43:49There was no record
00:43:50of any such letter
00:43:51in the company files.
00:43:51But, of course,
00:43:52the abstract of the Russian study
00:43:53was there to see,
00:43:55for anyone who wanted
00:43:55to see it,
00:43:57from 1950,
00:43:59the year of its publication onwards.
00:44:00Had you yourself
00:44:01knowledge of this study?
00:44:03No, I hadn't, no.
00:44:04And I don't think
00:44:05I could have even expected
00:44:05to know of it,
00:44:06in all reason.
00:44:08Did you know of any
00:44:09other research,
00:44:10Mr. Jones?
00:44:11Did you, for instance,
00:44:11know of the research
00:44:14done by workers
00:44:16at Dow Chemicals,
00:44:17as a result of which
00:44:18levels of vinyl chloride
00:44:19at that company's plants
00:44:20were reduced
00:44:21to 50 parts per million
00:44:23at the time
00:44:24when the accepted standard
00:44:25elsewhere in the industry
00:44:26was still 500?
00:44:28Were you aware
00:44:28of that fact?
00:44:29I wasn't aware of it, no.
00:44:30Don't you think
00:44:31you should have been
00:44:31aware of it, Mr. Jones?
00:44:33Now, look,
00:44:33I'm a busy man.
00:44:35I can't be expected
00:44:35to keep up
00:44:36with every obscure
00:44:36research project.
00:44:38I'm a plant manager.
00:44:40I have a lot of other
00:44:41things to consider
00:44:41as well as possible
00:44:42health hazards.
00:44:43I see.
00:44:44So while Dow Chemicals
00:44:45reduced their levels
00:44:46of vinyl chloride
00:44:47to 50 parts per million
00:44:48in 1961,
00:44:50you, who were too busy
00:44:51to look into health matters,
00:44:52continue to run your plant
00:44:53at 10 times that level
00:44:54for another 11 years.
00:44:55I've told you,
00:44:57we tried to keep
00:44:58our levels well within
00:44:59the accepted standards
00:44:59of the time,
00:45:01but I had no knowledge
00:45:01of the dangers.
00:45:03No one in this country had.
00:45:04Dr. Baxter had,
00:45:05Mr. Jones.
00:45:06She approached
00:45:06your company in 1961.
00:45:08Yes, you said that before
00:45:09and I've answered you.
00:45:11I was not at Fuchester
00:45:12in 1961.
00:45:14I can hardly be held
00:45:15responsible for the plant
00:45:16when I wasn't even there.
00:45:17All right,
00:45:17you were there in 1967,
00:45:18Mr. Jones,
00:45:19when Dr. Baxter told you
00:45:20she thought she'd come
00:45:21across a patient
00:45:21in the early stages
00:45:22of acroosteolysis,
00:45:24a disease associated
00:45:25with vinyl chloride.
00:45:26Dr. Baxter came to me
00:45:27with some garbled assertions,
00:45:29but she seemed to me,
00:45:30she still seems to me
00:45:32to be a troublemaker.
00:45:34A woman with a bee
00:45:35in her bonnet,
00:45:35a woman with a down
00:45:36unprofitable industry
00:45:37and free enterprise.
00:45:38You say she came to see you
00:45:39with some garbled assertions,
00:45:41Mr. Jones.
00:45:42Dr. Baxter is a very
00:45:43cogent lady.
00:45:44She came to discuss with you
00:45:46an article in the
00:45:46British Medical Journal.
00:45:47She came to consult with you
00:45:49about a patient of hers
00:45:50who was giving her
00:45:51cause for concern,
00:45:52a patient who was
00:45:53an employee of yours.
00:45:54She came seeking
00:45:55your cooperation.
00:45:56The last thing Dr. Baxter
00:45:57would seek from a man
00:45:58in my position
00:45:58is cooperation.
00:45:59The woman is a
00:46:01rabid communist.
00:46:03She came, as I say,
00:46:03with some garbled story.
00:46:05And the only thing
00:46:06that came across
00:46:06loud and clear
00:46:07was that she was
00:46:09threatening Fulchester
00:46:09Plastics with legal action.
00:46:11I see.
00:46:12So, a reputable lady doctor,
00:46:14well thought of
00:46:14by her patients,
00:46:15approaches you
00:46:16on the subject
00:46:17of a patient
00:46:18about whom she's worried
00:46:19and you leap to the conclusion
00:46:20that she's threatening you
00:46:21with a legal action.
00:46:22I suggest that that is
00:46:23the reaction of a man
00:46:24who's well aware
00:46:25that safety measures
00:46:26were not all they might have been.
00:46:27You can suggest it
00:46:28if you like,
00:46:28but it's not true.
00:46:30Now, this matter of the article
00:46:32which Dr. Baxter sent to you
00:46:33in 1967,
00:46:35Mr. Jones...
00:46:35She did not send me an article.
00:46:38I had no knowledge
00:46:39of the article.
00:46:40The first time I set eyes on it
00:46:41was in my solicitor's office.
00:46:43I saw a photocopy of it
00:46:44when we were preparing
00:46:45for this case.
00:46:45We are referring to the article
00:46:47from the British Medical Journal
00:46:48dated 16th September, 1967.
00:46:50Yes.
00:46:51You hadn't seen it
00:46:52until this year?
00:46:53No.
00:46:54You mean your company
00:46:55had not informed you
00:46:56or drawn your attention
00:46:57to it at the time
00:46:58it came out?
00:46:58No, they hadn't.
00:47:00Ah, well then.
00:47:01Did you inform them
00:47:02of Dr. Baxter's approach
00:47:03to you on the subject
00:47:04of the article?
00:47:05I keep telling you
00:47:06I had no knowledge
00:47:06of the article.
00:47:07Well, in that case,
00:47:09Mr. Jones,
00:47:10either Dr. Baxter is lying
00:47:11or you are.
00:47:12Well, I'm telling you
00:47:13the truth, sir.
00:47:13Well, of course,
00:47:14even without seeing
00:47:15the article
00:47:15you might have informed
00:47:16your company
00:47:17of Dr. Baxter's
00:47:18approached you
00:47:18on the subject
00:47:18of Mr. Chapman.
00:47:20Did you do so?
00:47:21No, I didn't.
00:47:22Oh.
00:47:23May we know why not?
00:47:25I didn't consider
00:47:25the allegation
00:47:26she was making
00:47:27had sufficient foundation.
00:47:28Really?
00:47:30May we now turn
00:47:31to the subject
00:47:32of Mr. Flynn's death?
00:47:33The cases
00:48:01in Fulchester Crown Court
00:48:03are fictitious.
00:48:04Join us again tomorrow
00:48:05when the case
00:48:05of Fulchester Plastics
00:48:07against Dr. Barbara Baxter
00:48:08will be concluded
00:48:09in the Crown Court.
00:48:24Barbara Baxter,
00:48:25a Fulchester doctor,
00:48:27is being sued
00:48:27for libel
00:48:28by Fulchester Plastics
00:48:29because of a letter
00:48:30she wrote
00:48:30to the local paper
00:48:31in which she claims
00:48:33that for many years
00:48:34the company
00:48:34had ignored her warnings
00:48:35that vinyl chloride
00:48:36used in the production
00:48:38of PVC
00:48:38is a danger to health.
00:48:41The jury in this case
00:48:42has been selected
00:48:42from members of the public
00:48:43whose names appear
00:48:44on the electoral register
00:48:45and who are eligible
00:48:46for jury service.
00:48:48Mr. Jeremy Lee,
00:48:49counsel for Dr. Baxter,
00:48:50is about to continue
00:48:51his cross-examination
00:48:52of Mr. Brian Jones,
00:48:54manager of the Fulchester plant
00:48:55and one of the plaintiffs.
00:48:57Mr. Jones,
00:49:17I'd now like to ask you
00:49:19about the time
00:49:20when Dr. Baxter approached you
00:49:21on the subject of Mr. Flynn.
00:49:23Yes?
00:49:23That was in 1974.
00:49:25Yes.
00:49:26Mrs. Flynn wrote to me
00:49:27at the end of that year.
00:49:28Did she mention
00:49:29the possibility
00:49:29of a connection
00:49:30between her husband's illness
00:49:31and his working
00:49:32for Fulchester Plastics?
00:49:33Yes.
00:49:34She said Dr. Baxter
00:49:35had suggested it to her.
00:49:36What was your reaction to this?
00:49:38I thought it was
00:49:39a pointless notion
00:49:40to have put
00:49:40into Mrs. Flynn's head.
00:49:42There wasn't a shred
00:49:43of evidence
00:49:43that vinyl chloride
00:49:44had anything to do
00:49:45with her husband's death.
00:49:47As far as Dr. Baxter
00:49:48was concerned,
00:49:49she was just jumping
00:49:50on the publicity bandwagon.
00:49:52Mr. Jones,
00:49:53would it be correct
00:49:53to say that
00:49:54at this time
00:49:55when publicity
00:49:56about vinyl chloride
00:49:57was reaching its height
00:49:58that it was very important
00:49:59to you
00:50:00that Mr. Flynn's death
00:50:01should not be counted
00:50:02among those
00:50:03attributable to vinyl chloride?
00:50:04It was neither important
00:50:05nor unimportant.
00:50:07There was no connection.
00:50:08That
00:50:08we will never know,
00:50:10Mr. Jones.
00:50:11Now, subsequent
00:50:12to your exchange of letters
00:50:13with Mrs. Flynn,
00:50:13Dr. Baxter came to see you,
00:50:14I believe.
00:50:15Yes, she did.
00:50:16And on that occasion
00:50:17the relations between you
00:50:18became so acrimonious
00:50:19that you had her
00:50:20escorted off the premises?
00:50:21She refused to leave.
00:50:23But why did you want her
00:50:24to leave, Mr. Jones?
00:50:25She'd been in my office
00:50:26quite some time.
00:50:28She'd no business
00:50:29being there
00:50:29in the first place.
00:50:31Now, look,
00:50:33Mrs. Flynn,
00:50:35I should say Mr. Flynn,
00:50:36had been dead
00:50:37three years.
00:50:39If there hadn't been
00:50:40all this publicity
00:50:41in the press,
00:50:42it would never have occurred
00:50:43to her to connect
00:50:44his death
00:50:44with vinyl chloride.
00:50:45If there hadn't been
00:50:45all this publicity
00:50:46in the press,
00:50:47Mr. Jones,
00:50:47it would never have occurred
00:50:48to you to connect
00:50:49any disease
00:50:49with vinyl chloride.
00:50:50As far as Dr. Baxter
00:50:51is concerned,
00:50:52she's just using
00:50:52the publicity as a stick
00:50:53to beat Forchester Plastics.
00:50:56She doesn't care
00:50:56about Mrs. Flynn
00:50:57or anyone else.
00:50:58All she cares about
00:50:59is that we might
00:51:00be closed down.
00:51:01Yes, she said
00:51:03we ought to be closed down.
00:51:05She mentioned
00:51:06the possibility
00:51:06of Mrs. Flynn's suing us.
00:51:07You seem to have been
00:51:08very concerned
00:51:09with the possibility
00:51:09of legal action
00:51:10throughout, Mr. Jones.
00:51:11In fact,
00:51:11it seems to have been
00:51:12your only concern.
00:51:13Were you afraid
00:51:13of this matter
00:51:14coming to court?
00:51:15Afraid?
00:51:15Don't talk rubbish, man.
00:51:16You seem to have
00:51:16overlooked one thing.
00:51:18It was I
00:51:18who brought this case
00:51:19to court.
00:51:20Would I have done that
00:51:21if I'd had anything to hide?
00:51:23Now then, Mr. Jones,
00:51:25if we could just return
00:51:26for a moment
00:51:26to the subject
00:51:27of acro-osteolysis,
00:51:29the disease
00:51:29which causes bone damage.
00:51:30You have had
00:51:31some cases confirmed
00:51:31among your workers
00:51:32since 1969,
00:51:34I believe?
00:51:35Yes.
00:51:35There were four cases
00:51:36that have been confirmed.
00:51:37And what is happening
00:51:38about these four cases?
00:51:39Are you paying
00:51:40these men compensation?
00:51:41The whole matter
00:51:42is under review.
00:51:44Thank you,
00:51:44Mr. Jones.
00:51:45Now,
00:51:46just one more question.
00:51:48Are you aware
00:51:49that the American
00:51:50Occupational Health
00:51:51and Safety Association
00:51:53has ruled
00:51:54that the levels
00:51:55of vinyl chloride
00:51:56in American plants
00:51:57are to be reduced
00:51:58to one part per million
00:52:00as from January 1976?
00:52:02One part per million?
00:52:03Yes.
00:52:03It's not feasible.
00:52:07Not feasible,
00:52:08Mr. Jones.
00:52:09Other firms
00:52:09are already trying
00:52:10to do this up.
00:52:11Other firms, maybe.
00:52:14But as it is,
00:52:14we have several alarms
00:52:15a week.
00:52:16This entails
00:52:17stoppages in production
00:52:18while the area
00:52:19is evacuated.
00:52:21To set levels low
00:52:22would mean
00:52:22even more stoppages.
00:52:23Ah,
00:52:24so what you're saying
00:52:26is it isn't the safety
00:52:27or otherwise
00:52:28of ten parts per million.
00:52:29It's the practicability.
00:52:30I'm obliged to you,
00:52:31Mr. Jones.
00:52:32Thank you very much.
00:52:33Mr. Jones.
00:52:38Mr. Flynn
00:52:39worked at Fultchester Plastics
00:52:40between 1945 and 1968,
00:52:43did he not?
00:52:44That's correct,
00:52:45I think, yes.
00:52:46And Mr. Chapman
00:52:47worked there
00:52:47between 1962 and 1967?
00:52:51I believe so.
00:52:52Now,
00:52:52the levels of vinyl chloride
00:52:54were much higher then,
00:52:55were they not?
00:52:57Ah, yes.
00:52:58The accepted standard
00:52:59was higher, you see,
00:53:01because of the state
00:53:02of knowledge
00:53:02of vinyl chloride
00:53:03at that time.
00:53:04Quite so.
00:53:04And even with
00:53:05these much higher levels,
00:53:07there was still
00:53:08no clear link
00:53:09between the illnesses
00:53:10of Mr. Flynn
00:53:11and Mr. Chapman
00:53:11and vinyl chloride.
00:53:13No.
00:53:14And that's exactly
00:53:15the point.
00:53:16So with present levels,
00:53:18we can be certain
00:53:18we're safe.
00:53:20But the men
00:53:20of the plant
00:53:21are safe.
00:53:22Mr. Griffiths,
00:53:25you're representing
00:53:25your company here today.
00:53:27Would you please
00:53:28tell the jury
00:53:28the position you hold
00:53:29within Fultchester Plastics?
00:53:31Yes, I'm on the board
00:53:32of directors
00:53:33and I'm also chairman
00:53:34of a committee
00:53:34set up within the company
00:53:35with responsibility
00:53:37for health and safety.
00:53:39It's my job
00:53:40to advise the company
00:53:41on policy decisions
00:53:42with regard to safety planning.
00:53:43And how long
00:53:44have you held this position?
00:53:45The committee as such
00:53:47has only been in existence
00:53:48since 1974.
00:53:50But my particular interest
00:53:51in safety
00:53:52goes back a long time
00:53:53before that.
00:53:54When were you
00:53:55first aware
00:53:55that vinyl chloride
00:53:56was a health hazard?
00:53:58Well, we've always known
00:53:59that it's a substance
00:54:00to be treated
00:54:00with great respect.
00:54:02But of course,
00:54:02it was only in 1974
00:54:04that we became aware
00:54:05that it was a cancer risk.
00:54:06Prior to 1974,
00:54:08you had no knowledge
00:54:09of this?
00:54:09No.
00:54:10And in the light
00:54:11of the knowledge
00:54:11you had prior to 1974,
00:54:13would you say
00:54:14that the safety precautions
00:54:15then were adequate?
00:54:17In the light
00:54:17of the knowledge
00:54:18that we had then,
00:54:19yes, I would.
00:54:20We advised our plant managers,
00:54:22including Mr. Jones,
00:54:23in whom I may say
00:54:24we have the highest confidence,
00:54:25to adhere
00:54:26to the accepted standards
00:54:27laid down in America
00:54:29for dangerous substances.
00:54:32Was there any legal obligation
00:54:33on you
00:54:34to recommend these standards,
00:54:35Mr. Griffiths?
00:54:36No, no, no.
00:54:37But it was felt
00:54:38within the company
00:54:38that as a responsible management,
00:54:41we should ensure
00:54:42that any dangerous substances
00:54:43in use in our plants
00:54:44should be kept at levels
00:54:45that were well within
00:54:46the accepted standard.
00:54:47And that, I may say,
00:54:48has been our policy
00:54:49with regard to all dangerous substances,
00:54:51not only vinyl chloride.
00:54:53And then, of course,
00:54:54in the light of fresh evidence,
00:54:56these accepted standards
00:54:57were changed.
00:54:58Yes, that is so.
00:54:59It is in their very nature
00:55:00that they should change.
00:55:02Now, would you please explain
00:55:03why this is so, Mr. Griffiths?
00:55:05Yes, you see,
00:55:06these standards
00:55:07are worked out
00:55:08on the best information available
00:55:10from industrial experience,
00:55:12from experimental human studies
00:55:14and animal studies,
00:55:16and where possible,
00:55:16from a combination
00:55:17of all three.
00:55:19So, as fresh evidence
00:55:20comes to light,
00:55:22so the accepted standard
00:55:23on any particular substance
00:55:25may change,
00:55:26as has been seen
00:55:27with vinyl chloride.
00:55:29And we find that
00:55:30this standard
00:55:31is as good a guide
00:55:32as any
00:55:32to safe practice.
00:55:34Now, Mr. Jones
00:55:35has testified
00:55:36to this court
00:55:37that the current
00:55:38average level
00:55:38of vinyl chloride
00:55:39in the Fulchester plant
00:55:40is 10 parts per million
00:55:42over an eight-hour shift.
00:55:45Are you yourself
00:55:46satisfied
00:55:47that this is
00:55:48a safe level of exposure?
00:55:49Yes, I am.
00:55:50I think on the basis
00:55:51of all the evidence
00:55:52that's available,
00:55:53we can now be quite certain
00:55:54that we are operating
00:55:55our plant within safe limits.
00:55:57But we are, of course,
00:55:58trying to bring the level
00:55:59down even further
00:55:59so that we can be
00:56:01absolutely certain.
00:56:03Can you now give
00:56:03the jury
00:56:04some sort of estimate
00:56:05of the cost
00:56:06of these new safety measures
00:56:07to court as to plastics?
00:56:09Yes, indeed, I can.
00:56:10The total cost amounts
00:56:12to something in the region
00:56:13of one and a half million pounds.
00:56:15And I may add
00:56:16that if these measures
00:56:17prove as efficacious
00:56:18as I believe they are,
00:56:20then I consider,
00:56:21and indeed the company considers,
00:56:23that it is money well spent.
00:56:24Mr. Griffiths,
00:56:36you say that this health
00:56:38and safety committee
00:56:39within your company
00:56:40of which you are chairman
00:56:41has only existed
00:56:43since 1974?
00:56:45As a formal committee, yes.
00:56:46Since vinyl chloride
00:56:48became a public issue?
00:56:50And the timing
00:56:50is purely coincidental.
00:56:52We've always had people
00:56:53whose special concern
00:56:54was health and safety.
00:56:56It was just formalized
00:56:57in 1974.
00:56:59Formalized?
00:57:00I see.
00:57:00Why was that,
00:57:01Mr. Griffiths?
00:57:02Some sort of
00:57:02public relations gimmick,
00:57:04was it?
00:57:06It certainly wasn't
00:57:07a gimmick, no.
00:57:08It was simply
00:57:09a recognition
00:57:10of the fact
00:57:10that with a constantly
00:57:11expanding range
00:57:13of new chemicals
00:57:14in use,
00:57:15some slightly more
00:57:16formal responsibility
00:57:17was required
00:57:17for health and safety.
00:57:18I see.
00:57:19And might one
00:57:19infer from that
00:57:20that prior to 1974
00:57:22your company's interest
00:57:24in health and safety
00:57:25was not all
00:57:26it might have been?
00:57:27Now, I think that
00:57:28that would be
00:57:28the wrong inference
00:57:29to draw.
00:57:30You see,
00:57:30the whole plastics industry
00:57:31has expanded
00:57:32and diversified
00:57:33enormously
00:57:34over the past 25 years.
00:57:36Now, as something
00:57:37becomes bigger
00:57:38and more complex,
00:57:39so you have to
00:57:40formalize that structure.
00:57:42Now, the formation
00:57:43of this committee
00:57:43had far more to do
00:57:44with that
00:57:45than any fears
00:57:46that the company
00:57:46may have had
00:57:47over its past record.
00:57:49In fact,
00:57:49I think our record
00:57:50is very good.
00:57:50You do?
00:57:51Yes, indeed I do.
00:57:52And yet you say
00:57:53you didn't know
00:57:53that vinyl chloride
00:57:54was a serious
00:57:55health hazard
00:57:55until 1974?
00:57:57No, we didn't.
00:57:58Mr. Griffiths,
00:57:59did you know
00:57:59of the Russian study
00:58:00done in 1949
00:58:01to which Dr. Baxter
00:58:02has referred?
00:58:03No, I didn't.
00:58:05You agree
00:58:06that you could have
00:58:06known of it.
00:58:07It was, after all,
00:58:07summarized in English
00:58:08for anyone
00:58:09who cared to look for it.
00:58:10Well, you know.
00:58:12I don't really think
00:58:13that we can be expected
00:58:14to comb every
00:58:15scientific document
00:58:16published anywhere
00:58:17in the world
00:58:18on the off chance
00:58:19that there might be
00:58:20some mention
00:58:21of one of the thousands
00:58:22of substances
00:58:23that we use.
00:58:24Don't you?
00:58:26Mr. Griffiths,
00:58:26I should have thought
00:58:27a company the size of yours
00:58:28ought to have employed
00:58:29somebody to do
00:58:30just this.
00:58:31But even if we allow
00:58:32your point
00:58:33that this was a study
00:58:34not easily accessible,
00:58:35there were other studies
00:58:36of which you might
00:58:37justifiably have been
00:58:38expected to know.
00:58:40Did you, for instance,
00:58:40know of the study
00:58:41published by Toulson
00:58:42of Dow Chemicals
00:58:43in 1961?
00:58:46That was the one
00:58:46that showed liver damage
00:58:48in experimental animals.
00:58:49Liver and kidney damage,
00:58:51yes.
00:58:52No, we didn't know
00:58:52about that at the time.
00:58:54As a result of that study,
00:58:55Mr. Griffiths,
00:58:55Dow Chemicals
00:58:56reduced their levels
00:58:57of vinyl chloride
00:58:58to 50 parts per million
00:59:0013 years
00:59:02before your company
00:59:03got around to doing it.
00:59:05Were you aware of that?
00:59:05No, I wasn't aware of it.
00:59:11Don't you think
00:59:11you should have been
00:59:12aware of it,
00:59:12Mr. Griffiths?
00:59:13No, I don't think
00:59:14there's any should about it.
00:59:16You see,
00:59:17there was no reason
00:59:18why we should have
00:59:19been known about this.
00:59:20Because we were adhering
00:59:21to the accepted standard
00:59:22laid down
00:59:24by the American Conference
00:59:25of Governmental
00:59:26and Industrial Hygienists.
00:59:27You see, Mr. Griffiths,
00:59:28it's not at all clear to me
00:59:30what your company
00:59:31was doing
00:59:32about vinyl chloride.
00:59:34I've just told you.
00:59:35We were adhering
00:59:36to the accepted standards
00:59:37of the time.
00:59:39And, of course,
00:59:40we often operated
00:59:40at levels of vinyl chloride
00:59:42well within those standards.
00:59:44Mr. Griffiths,
00:59:45had you instructed
00:59:46your managers
00:59:46to notify you
00:59:47of any illness
00:59:48occurring among your workers
00:59:49which might have had
00:59:49a cause related
00:59:50to the working environment?
00:59:51I would think
00:59:52that any intelligent manager
00:59:54such as Mr. Jones,
00:59:55if he came across
00:59:56such a thing,
00:59:56would automatically inform us.
00:59:58You would indeed,
00:59:59though, of course,
00:59:59Mr. Jones did not inform you
01:00:00either of Mr. Chapman
01:00:02or Mr. Flynn.
01:00:03I don't think
01:00:04that in either of these
01:00:05cases he had anything
01:00:06to inform Mr. Biden.
01:00:08Oh.
01:00:09Were you aware
01:00:10of the 1967 article
01:00:12published in the
01:00:13British Medical Journal
01:00:13to which Dr. Baxter
01:00:14has referred, Mr. Griffiths?
01:00:15Yes, I was aware of that.
01:00:17Did you inform Mr. Jones
01:00:18of it?
01:00:20I believe I did mention it
01:00:21on one of his visits
01:00:22to London, yes.
01:00:23You believe?
01:00:25I did mention it.
01:00:27And you didn't suggest
01:00:28any action
01:00:29to lower levels
01:00:30of vinyl chloride
01:00:30in your plant?
01:00:31I said that we must be sure
01:00:33that we always tried
01:00:34to keep well within
01:00:35the accepted standard.
01:00:37And of course,
01:00:37it was only a year or two
01:00:38after that
01:00:39that the level
01:00:39did come down.
01:00:40Not a year or two,
01:00:41Mr. Griffiths,
01:00:42but five years.
01:00:43The article was in 1967.
01:00:46The standard did not
01:00:47come down till 1972.
01:00:48And it was not
01:00:49until 1974
01:00:50when vinyl chloride
01:00:51became widely publicized
01:00:53as a substance
01:00:54which caused cancer
01:00:55that you brought
01:00:55your level down to 50.
01:00:57Look,
01:00:57I have said all along
01:00:58that we have kept
01:00:59well within
01:01:00the accepted standard.
01:01:02Until 1972
01:01:03that was 500
01:01:04and then it was
01:01:05lowered to 200.
01:01:07And then as soon
01:01:07as it was realized
01:01:08that even that level
01:01:09was dangerous
01:01:09we did our utmost
01:01:11to lower it again
01:01:12as quickly
01:01:12as we possibly could.
01:01:13I see.
01:01:14So if the accepted standard
01:01:16had not been brought down
01:01:17presumably
01:01:17you would still
01:01:18be operating your plant
01:01:19at the higher concentrations.
01:01:21If the accepted standard
01:01:22hadn't been changed
01:01:23it would have meant
01:01:24that there was
01:01:24no good reason
01:01:25to change it.
01:01:26So you admit
01:01:27that you depend
01:01:27upon the judgment
01:01:28of others,
01:01:29Mr. Griffiths?
01:01:29In this respect, yes.
01:01:30So in fact
01:01:30you and your company
01:01:32don't know
01:01:33whether the present levels
01:01:34of 10 parts per million
01:01:35are safe or not.
01:01:36You are depending
01:01:37upon the accepted standard.
01:01:39I'm confident
01:01:39that an average of 10
01:01:41and a maximum
01:01:42of 25 parts per million
01:01:43does not endanger health.
01:01:45Yes, but why
01:01:46are you so confident
01:01:47Mr. Griffiths?
01:01:47Because it's
01:01:48the accepted standard.
01:01:49Surely if the health
01:01:50and safety executive
01:01:51thinks it's good enough
01:01:52it should be good enough
01:01:53for us.
01:01:54However, having said that
01:01:55I must emphasize
01:01:56that we are endeavoring
01:01:57to bring our levels
01:01:58down even lower.
01:01:59Mr. Griffiths,
01:02:00are you aware
01:02:01that the American
01:02:01Occupation, Health
01:02:02and Safety Association
01:02:03have ruled
01:02:04that from January
01:02:05of this year
01:02:05all American PVC plants
01:02:07must reduce
01:02:08their levels of vinyl
01:02:09chloride to
01:02:09one parts per million?
01:02:11Yes, we on the
01:02:12safety committee
01:02:12have been informed
01:02:13that other companies
01:02:14are trying to bring
01:02:15their level down
01:02:16to one part per million
01:02:17and we're looking
01:02:18into it.
01:02:19I see.
01:02:20Mr. Jones has said
01:02:21that it would not
01:02:22be feasible
01:02:22at Fulchester
01:02:24to bring levels
01:02:24down that low.
01:02:26Well, it's certainly
01:02:26true to say
01:02:27that we are doing
01:02:28our best within
01:02:29the limits
01:02:29of technical feasibility.
01:02:31But that,
01:02:32you see,
01:02:32techniques improve
01:02:34all the time
01:02:34and as they improve
01:02:36so our standards
01:02:37improve.
01:02:38But it's
01:02:38practicability
01:02:40rather than safety
01:02:41which is governing
01:02:42your present levels.
01:02:43Well, look,
01:02:44you know,
01:02:45we really cannot
01:02:46do the technically
01:02:47impossible, you know.
01:02:49And if we had
01:02:49to make PVC,
01:02:50which of course
01:02:51is perfectly safe,
01:02:52and I think
01:02:52that most people
01:02:53would agree
01:02:54is an extremely
01:02:54useful substance,
01:02:56then we have
01:02:57to ensure
01:02:57that the limits
01:02:58to which our
01:02:59workers are exposed
01:03:00are as low
01:03:01and as safe
01:03:02as possible.
01:03:03And this we have
01:03:04done at Fulchester
01:03:05Plastics.
01:03:08And at the request
01:03:09of the management
01:03:10of Fulchester
01:03:10Plastics,
01:03:11I have been
01:03:12conducting some
01:03:12experiments on rats
01:03:14as to the effect
01:03:14of vinyl chloride.
01:03:16We have also,
01:03:17I may say,
01:03:17conducted an extensive
01:03:18study at the
01:03:19University Department
01:03:20of Industrial Health
01:03:21of the existing
01:03:21literature on the subject.
01:03:23And are you convinced,
01:03:24Professor Williams,
01:03:25that the present
01:03:26levels of vinyl chloride
01:03:27within the Fulchester
01:03:28Plants are not
01:03:29dangerous to health?
01:03:31On the knowledge
01:03:32we have available
01:03:32at the present time,
01:03:33I'm quite convinced
01:03:34that present levels
01:03:35offer no danger
01:03:36to human health.
01:03:38Now, would you
01:03:38please explain
01:03:39to the court,
01:03:39Professor,
01:03:40the basis
01:03:40for this conclusion?
01:03:42Yes.
01:03:42The findings
01:03:43of all the research
01:03:43conducted so far,
01:03:45and there's been
01:03:45a considerable amount
01:03:46of research
01:03:47on vinyl chloride now,
01:03:49indicate that
01:03:49that the higher
01:03:50the levels
01:03:51of vinyl chloride
01:03:52to which animals
01:03:52are exposed,
01:03:53the greater number
01:03:54of tumours,
01:03:55including cancer
01:03:56of the liver.
01:03:57Would you please
01:03:57explain to the court,
01:03:58Professor,
01:03:59the implications
01:04:00of these findings
01:04:00for Fulchester Plastics?
01:04:02Yes.
01:04:02What it means
01:04:02is that Fulchester Plastics,
01:04:04which is operating
01:04:05with an average
01:04:05of 10 parts per million,
01:04:07has a 40 parts per million
01:04:09margin of safety
01:04:10before the level
01:04:11at which vinyl chloride
01:04:12causes cancer in rats.
01:04:14Now, what about
01:04:15the other ill effects
01:04:16of vinyl chloride,
01:04:17Professor?
01:04:18Do the present levels
01:04:19eliminate those?
01:04:20Well, clearly,
01:04:21the lower the levels,
01:04:22the smaller the risks.
01:04:23I think these levels
01:04:24minimise the risks.
01:04:26I repeat,
01:04:27are you satisfied
01:04:28with the present
01:04:29safety measures
01:04:29in operation
01:04:30at Fulchester Plastics?
01:04:32I am.
01:04:33I think the plastics industry,
01:04:35including Fulchester Plastics,
01:04:36the company
01:04:37with which I've had
01:04:38most dealings,
01:04:39has responded
01:04:40to the scientific findings
01:04:41in an exemplary manner.
01:04:43I think if other industries
01:04:44were to respond
01:04:45to health risks
01:04:46with the alacrity
01:04:46and conscientiousness
01:04:47that this industry has,
01:04:49then we would have
01:04:50travelled a long way
01:04:50in dealing with
01:04:51the problems
01:04:52of industrial health.
01:04:54Finally, Professor,
01:04:55do you think
01:04:56that Fulchester Plastics
01:04:57were justified
01:04:58in making the claims
01:04:59that they do
01:04:59in their advertisement?
01:05:00I do, indeed.
01:05:01I think Fulchester Plastics
01:05:03can be justly proud
01:05:04of their record.
01:05:06I think it's a real achievement
01:05:07to have brought levels down
01:05:08as low as they have.
01:05:10And I think that these levels,
01:05:11as far as anyone
01:05:12can reasonably tell
01:05:13on evidence to date,
01:05:14are safe.
01:05:16Thank you very much,
01:05:17Professor.
01:05:17You've been most helpful.
01:05:22You keep using
01:05:23certain phrases,
01:05:25Professor.
01:05:26The knowledge we have
01:05:27available at the present time.
01:05:30Evidence to date.
01:05:31Phrases like that.
01:05:32Yes.
01:05:33So, would it be right
01:05:34to say that there is still
01:05:35some doubt in your mind
01:05:36as to the claims
01:05:38made for present
01:05:38so-called safe levels
01:05:40of vinyl chloride?
01:05:41Not at all.
01:05:41I'm a scientist,
01:05:42that's all.
01:05:42It would be a very
01:05:44foolish scientist
01:05:45who forgot that conclusions
01:05:46are always contingent
01:05:47upon results
01:05:48available to date.
01:05:49In other words,
01:05:51you are providing yourself
01:05:52with a let-out
01:05:53if the body count
01:05:5420 years hence
01:05:56does not bear out
01:05:57your present conclusion.
01:05:58I'm simply abiding
01:05:59by the rules
01:06:00of sound scientific practice.
01:06:02I shan't wait
01:06:03for a body count,
01:06:03I assure you.
01:06:05If my results suggest
01:06:06danger at lower levels,
01:06:07or if I read
01:06:08of any other studies
01:06:09whose results suggest that,
01:06:10I shall go to the management
01:06:11of Fulchester Plastics
01:06:12at once.
01:06:13It is to be hoped
01:06:14they listen to you
01:06:15more sympathetically
01:06:16than they did to
01:06:16Dr. Baxter, Professor.
01:06:17And in the meantime,
01:06:19men are being exposed
01:06:20to levels of vinyl chloride
01:06:21which may or may not
01:06:23be safe.
01:06:24So, you have two lots
01:06:25of experimental data, Professor.
01:06:27The rats in your laboratory
01:06:28and the men
01:06:29at Fulchester Plastics.
01:06:30Oh, come, that's
01:06:31very sensational stuff,
01:06:32you know.
01:06:33The men working
01:06:34at Fulchester Plastics
01:06:35at present
01:06:36are exposed to only
01:06:37a fifth of the amount
01:06:38of vinyl chloride
01:06:39which is known
01:06:39to cause cancer occasionally,
01:06:41very occasionally in rats.
01:06:43It is my belief
01:06:44that that level
01:06:44is safe for human beings.
01:06:45But cancer of the liver
01:06:47is not the only tumour
01:06:48caused by vinyl chloride,
01:06:49Professor,
01:06:50and there are also
01:06:51other abnormalities
01:06:52caused by vinyl chloride?
01:06:53Yes, but it has been
01:06:54consistently true
01:06:55throughout our experiments
01:06:56that the higher
01:06:57the level of vinyl chloride
01:06:59to which animals
01:06:59are exposed,
01:07:00the greater number
01:07:01of tumours
01:07:01and other abnormalities.
01:07:03And conversely,
01:07:03as the level falls,
01:07:05so does the incidence
01:07:06of tumours
01:07:07and other diseases
01:07:07fall too.
01:07:08Nevertheless,
01:07:09I put it to you, Professor,
01:07:10that while men
01:07:11are being exposed
01:07:12to any detectable level
01:07:14of vinyl chloride,
01:07:15there is an element
01:07:16of risk.
01:07:17If there is an element
01:07:18of risk,
01:07:19it's a minute one.
01:07:21Well, then,
01:07:22do you agree
01:07:22that a minute
01:07:23element of risk exists?
01:07:25I suppose so.
01:07:27But look,
01:07:28the whole of life
01:07:28is a risk.
01:07:31There are 2,500 people
01:07:33killed on the roads
01:07:34of this country
01:07:35every year.
01:07:37Statistically,
01:07:37there is a much higher
01:07:38chance of a man
01:07:39working in this plant
01:07:40dying in a road accident
01:07:41or from cancer
01:07:42of the lungs
01:07:43or a heart attack
01:07:44than there is
01:07:44of him developing
01:07:45this particular cancer
01:07:46of the liver
01:07:46associated with
01:07:48vinyl chloride.
01:07:49I am as sure
01:07:50as I can be
01:07:50of anything in this life
01:07:51that the present
01:07:52levels of vinyl chloride
01:07:54at Fulchester Plastics
01:07:55are safe
01:07:56and that the claims
01:07:57made by the management
01:07:58have been made
01:07:59in good faith.
01:08:00Notwithstanding
01:08:00the court ruling
01:08:01of the American
01:08:02Occupation, Safety
01:08:03and Health Association
01:08:04that levels of
01:08:05vinyl chloride
01:08:05be reduced to
01:08:06one part per million
01:08:07as from January 1976?
01:08:09Yes,
01:08:09notwithstanding
01:08:10that ruling.
01:08:11Dr. Baxter's defense
01:08:16in this action
01:08:16is that the facts
01:08:18contained in her letter
01:08:19were true
01:08:20and that the comments
01:08:21therein were fair
01:08:22and genuine.
01:08:24By genuine,
01:08:25I mean not inspired
01:08:26by some spite
01:08:27or other
01:08:28and she has the burden
01:08:30of satisfying you
01:08:31of the validity
01:08:32of her defense.
01:08:34Dr. Baxter
01:08:34doesn't dispute
01:08:35that Fulchester
01:08:37Plastics
01:08:37are conforming
01:08:38as they have
01:08:39in the past
01:08:40with the accepted
01:08:41standards of safety
01:08:43within the industry.
01:08:45You might
01:08:45well ask yourselves
01:08:47whether it is
01:08:48reasonable
01:08:49to claim
01:08:50as she does
01:08:51that any risk
01:08:52however slight
01:08:53however minute
01:08:54justifies the closing
01:08:56of a PVC plant.
01:08:59And you might
01:08:59also ask yourself
01:09:01whether Dr. Baxter
01:09:02is being vindictive
01:09:04or not
01:09:04when she singles
01:09:06out Fulchester
01:09:07Plastics.
01:09:07Now in civil cases
01:09:10such as this
01:09:11the standard of proof
01:09:14is not as heavy
01:09:16as it is in criminal cases
01:09:17so the proof
01:09:18need not be proof
01:09:20beyond all reasonable doubt
01:09:21but only proof
01:09:23within the balance
01:09:24of probabilities.
01:09:26So Dr. Baxter
01:09:27has the burden
01:09:29of proving to you
01:09:30that it is more probable
01:09:32than not
01:09:33that the allegations
01:09:34contained in her letter
01:09:35are true.
01:09:37Will you now retire
01:09:38elect a foreman
01:09:40and consider your verdict?
01:09:42All stand.
01:09:56Members of the jury
01:09:57will your foreman
01:09:58please stand?
01:09:58Have at least ten of you
01:10:01agreed upon your verdict?
01:10:02Yes.
01:10:03What is your verdict?
01:10:04Do you find for the plaintiff company
01:10:06or for the defendant?
01:10:07For the defendant.
01:10:10Very well.
01:10:11There must be judgment
01:10:12for the defendant
01:10:13costs
01:10:15Miss Dunwoody.
01:10:17My lord
01:10:17I do not think
01:10:18I can avoid paying costs.
01:10:19No
01:10:20Miss Dunwoody
01:10:21however much
01:10:22we may disagree
01:10:22with the jury's verdict
01:10:24the winner takes all.
01:10:25There will be judgment
01:10:27for the defendant
01:10:27and an order
01:10:28that the plaintiff
01:10:29pay the defendant's costs.
01:10:31Ablaj my lord.
01:10:32All stand.