The Telecommunications industry is well aware of
the potential for future liability from any number of
sources, not necessairly health related. The recent
Telstra "COT" cases are an example. It is
understandable that carriers take steps to protect
themselves from this possibility, however when those
steps involve limiting the access to legal
representation by the public, concerns need to be
raised.
A worrying example of attempts to stifle legal
address against the industry was reported back in
1995 when a public interest group discovered the
practice of at least one major Australian
telecommunications carrier "paying off"
sections of the legal fraternity in order to avoid
future litigation.
This information comes from the NSW Public
Interest Advocacy Centre, a legal Clearing House for
public interest legal matters. To quote from their
PICK Bulletin No. 5, May/June 1995:
"In seeking to assist one public interest,
the Clearing House has been beset by obstacles which
deserve investigation in the public interest. A
resident group concerned about the health
implications of a telecommunications development in
their area [mobile phone tower] sought assistance to
challenge the development, which is adjacent to a
kindergarten, baby health centre and residential
premises. The CSIRO has released a report
substantiating some of the health concerns raised by
the residents.
Attempts by the Clearing House to secure legal
advice for the group were met with rejection from 12
member firms. According to the firms, the
corporation in question has an arrangement with 43
law firms whereby the firms undertake not to act
against it in any matter in return for receiving some
part of its legal budget.
The result: any person attempting to obtain
redress against an activity of the corporation which
appears to offend the public interest, is denied
access to lawyers with relevant experience."
This situation certainly raises a serious issue of
the power of corporations to affect the accessibility
of legal services to the community."
Mercantile
Mutual cites possible property owner liability.
As reported in The Australian, July 4th 1997,
Mercantile Mutual, a leading insurance company, has
cited the potential dangers of electromagnetic
radiation as part of its opposition to stop the
construction of a mobile phone base station on one of
its properties.
The stand by Mercantile Mutual raises the question
on the potential for future liability of property
owners who give permission for telecommunications
base stations to be operated on their property.
In a letter to Vodafone, who plan-ned to erect a
tower on the roof of one of Mercantile Mutual's
Sydney offices, located in a densely populated area,
the insurance company said, "there is an
increasing body of scientific and medical evidence of
the risk to health posed by exposure to emissions
from telecommunications base stations."
"Accordingly, in view of the potential health
risks, the location of a base station on the property
would expose an unacceptably large number of people
to electromagnetic energy and emissions"
"The risk to health may expose us as owners
of the property to liability for injury to persons
who are or who are alleged to have been exposed to
emissions from the base station. The amount of such
claims is impossible to calculate."
Vodafone, in defiance of the wishes of Mercantile
Mutual, took the case to the Telecommunications
Industry Ombudsman, who ruled that Vodafone had the
right to proceed, despite the property belonging to
Mercantile Mutual.
Under the previous National Telecommunications
Code, carriers effectively had the right to install
their infrastructure on private property without
owner's permission. However, under the new Code which
took effect on July 1, 1997, which require council
permission for many installations, councils who do
not have their own guidelines in place to protect
sensitive areas, such as schools and day care
centres, may possibly be exposed to future liability.
Mobile
phone firm sued over tumour death
Reprinted from the U.K. The Daily Mail, August
6, 1997, from Nick Hopkins in New York.
"A mobile phone company is being sued for
millions of pounds following the death of a heart
surgeon from a brain tumour.
"Dr. Dean Rittmann's family has filed a civil
suit against Motorola claiming his illness was caused
by radiation emitted from his phone. The test case
follows disturbing studies into the potential health
risks of using handsets. If it succeeds, it could
have devastating implications for the mobile phone
industry worldwide and a London law firm has already
indicated it is preparing cases of its own.
Dr. Rittmann, who lived in Texas with his wife
Ellen and four children, died aged 41 in October
1994, following a brief illness. He was a heart
transplant surgeon in Houston and had been fit and
healthy until shortly before the tumour was
diagnosed. Mrs. Rittmann is suing Motorola and two
other firms, NEC and General Electric. Her husband
owned a Motorola phone for several years and had also
used models from the other two companies. Lawyers
representing Mrs. Rittmann say she feels the firms
have not been truthful about the hazards of using the
phones. She claims that if her husband had
appreciated the dangers, "he would still be
alive".
Although the precise claim for damages has not
been set, it would run into millions, said the
lawyers. The case will have its first hearing on
September 1 at a district court in Houston, but a
full trial is not expected until next year.
British lawyer Martyn Day is investigating cases
similar to the Rittmann action and is anxious
"to hear from anyone who believes they have been
damaged by mobile phone use".
The mobile phone industry is being urged to fund
proper studies into the dangers. "It is critical
to get some answers", said Susan Putnam, a
research associate at the Harvard Centre for Risk
Analysis.
Motorola refused to discuss the case, but the
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, an
umbrella organisation for mobile phone manufacturers,
insisted: "There is no evidence to prove mobile
phones are dangerous."
Comment:
To further add to the telecommunications
industry's concern, a large legal firm in Australia
has now entered the field, according to an article in
the Sunday Herald Sun, on August 10, 1997, entitled
"Cancer watch on mobile phones" from which
the following is reprinted.
'Legal giant Slater and Gordon is preparing for
action against mobile phone makers on behalf of
people who claim to have contracted cancers or other
illnesses from regular mobile phone use. Company
partner Andrew Grech has confirmed researchers are
collating details of cases against mobile phone
manufactures overseas that could support claims by
Australians. While no Australian case is thought to
be imminent, one or more was almost certain within
the next few years, Mr Grech said.
"Mobile phones have only been in heavy use
here for the past five years and the cancers
associated with their use are slow to gestate,"
he said. In Victoria, lawyers could draw on the Trade
Practices Act to support claims for compensation, Mr
Grech said. "It would be fair to say the
scientific jury is still out on the issue of health
risks associated with mobile phone use, but the Trade
Practices Act places strict liability on manufactures
to ensure the safety of their products," he
said.
But Motorola's Australian managing director, Ron
Nissen, said scientific and medical evidence showed
cellular phones and networks were safe.'
