In a decision which could have major costs implications for the State, the High Court has directed that the Minister for Health and the State be joined as co-defendants in what is regarded as a test action for damages taken by a smoker against three tobacco companies.
Mr Vincent Mallon, Forrest Hills, Rathcoole, Co Dublin, is suing for damages for personal injury as a consequence of his addiction to cigarettes manufactured, imported or distributed in the State by the three firms.
He contends he has a cause of action against the State defendants - the Minister for Health, Ireland and the Attorney General - arising from their alleged failure to protect and vindicate his right to life and his health and bodily integrity through the alleged failure to regulate and control the sale and distribution of tobacco products.
Yesterday's decision could result in the State having to pay substantial damages in actions being taken by smokers. If the plaintiffs are successful, it would be for the courts to apportion liability between tobacco companies and the State.
Some 200 smokers have already begun proceedings against tobacco companies but the decision of the Master of the High Court, Mr Edmund Honohan SC, to grant a motion that the Minister for Health, Ireland and the Attorney General be added as co-def- endants in one action has added a new dimension to the litigation.
The several actions being taken are at various stages of processing but it is unlikely any will come on for full hearing in the High Court until next year.
Before Mr Honohan yesterday was an application to add the three State defendants to the action by Mr Mallon against John Player and Sons Ltd, P.J. Carroll and Co Ltd and Gallaher (Dublin) Ltd.
In an affidavit, Mr Peter McDonnell, solicitor, said Mr Mallon had brought his action to recover damages for personal injury, loss and damage suffered by him as a consequence of his addiction to tobacco products, namely cigarettes, manufactured and/or imported into and/or distributed in the State by the three companies.
He had been advised by senior counsel that Mr Mallon had a cause of action against the proposed (State) defendants in respect of the damage suffered by him as a consequence of his addiction to tobacco products.
Mr Mallon's claim against the three proposed defendants resulted from their failure to protect and/or vindicate his life and health and bodily integrity, Mr McDonnell said. Mr Mallon would allege the proposed defendants failed properly or at all to regulate the sale and/or importation and/or distribution of tobacco products in the State. He also alleged, as a result of that failure on the part of the proposed defendants, he had suffered personal injury, damage and loss.
Mr McDonnell said he was advised the proposed defendants ought to have been joined as defendants at the commencement of the proceedings and that their presence before the court was necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the matter.
In a statement yesterday, Beauchamps McDonnell Legal Alliance, which represents several plaintiffs, said its claim was that successive ministers for health and governments failed to regulate the sale of cigarettes and to protect consumers from the dangers of smoking.