Preview
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
S 1
Hw
< 12
Sz
ga 13
ae
og 14
Oz 15
g
< 16
&
oO 7
n
18
19
20
2
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1076 47250 4851-9277-27]
RICHARD D. DUMONT (SBN 107967)
rdumont@selmanbreitman.com
SUZANNE E. RISCHMAN (SBN CA 124421) ELECTRONICALLY
srischman@selmanlaw.com
SELMAN BREITMAN LLP FILED
33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor Et of son Franciocn”
San Francisco, CA 94105-4537
Telephone: 415.979.0400 og /30/2020
Facsimile: 415.979.2099 lerk of the Court
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Defendant “
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
LOWELL PARISH and JANICE PARISH, Case No. CGC-19-276809
Plaintiffs, SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'
v. UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF
SOCO WEST, INC., et al., CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS; DEMAND
FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants.
Defendant SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA (hereinafter "SCOTT CO.") answers
the unverified Complaint ("Complaint") as alleged against SCOTT CO. and each and
every cause of action set forth therein on its own behalf and on behalf of no other
defendant or entity as follows:
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), SCOTT CO.
denies generally each and every allegation of the Complaint.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged by plaintiffs
therein states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against SCOTT CO.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent the Complaint asserts SCOTT CO.'s alleged "market share" liability,
1
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
vlATTORNEYS AT LAW
B
Selman Breitman LLP
1076 47250 4851-9277-27
or "enterprise liability," the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action against SCOTT CO.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that plaintiffs' claims, or some of them, are barred by the
provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure §361.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. had no property interest, ownership or control of any premises at any
time during which plaintiffs allege exposure, injury or damages due to asbestos dust
inhalation.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for
"Premises Owner/Contractor Liability" against SCOTT CO. pursuant to the ruling of the
California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; the ruling
of the California Court of Appeal in Smith v. ACandS, Inc. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 77; the
ruling of the California Court of Appeal in Grahn v. Tosco Corporation (1997) 58
Cal.App.4th 1373; the ruling of the California Supreme Court in Toland v. Sunland
Housing Group, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253; the ruling of the California Supreme Court in
Kinsman y. Unocal Corporation (2006) 37 Cal.4th 659; and the ruling of the California
Court of Appeals in Michael v. Danbeste Transportation, Inc. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th
1082, et al.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint,
plaintiff was employed and was entitled to receive Workers' Compensation benefits from
his employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier; that SCOTT CO. did not control
plaintiff's work activities at his worksites; that all of plaintiff's employers, other than
SCOTT CO., were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, that
other parties over whom SCOTT CO. had no control were negligent in and about the
2
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
vl2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
w
Se 12
£: 13
ox 14
a2 15
gE
£ < 16
o 17
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1076 47250 4851-9277-27|
matters referred to in said Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said
employers and other parties proximately and concurrently contributed to the happening of
the accident and to the loss or damage complained of by plaintiffs, if any there were; and
as a result thereof, SCOTT CO. bears no liability for plaintiffs’ alleged damages.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs' action, and each alleged cause of action, is barred by the applicable
statute of limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure,
sections 335.1, 338.1, 339, 340.2(a)(1), 340.2(a)(2), 340.8, 343, 583.310 and 583.410 and
California Commercial Code, section 2725.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in bringing this action, without good cause
therefor and thereby has prejudiced SCOTT CO. as a direct and proximate result of such
delay; accordingly, his action is barred by laches and by section 583.310, ef. seq. of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs were negligent in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint and in
each alleged cause of action; this negligence proximately caused, in whole or in part, the
damages alleged in the Complaint. In the event plaintiffs are entitled to any damages, the
amount of these damages should be reduced by the comparative fault of plaintiffs and any
person whose negligent acts or omissions are imputed to plaintiffs.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs knowingly, voluntarily and unreasonably undertook to encounter each of
the risks and hazards, if any, referred to in the Complaint and each alleged cause of
action, and this undertaking proximately caused and contributed to any loss, injury or
damages incurred by plaintiffs.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any losses, injuries or damages incurred by plaintiffs were proximately caused by
3
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL,
vi0 em ND NH BF WN |
Selman Breitman LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
N N N N N Nn Nn Nn N a — _ _ —
Co ~_ in nn S Ww nN Oo Oo oo ~ n nn WwW N — Oo
1076 47250 4851-9277-27]
the negligent or willful acts or omissions of parties whom SCOTT CO. neither controlled
nor had the right to control, and was not proximately caused by any acts, omissions or
other conduct of SCOTT CO.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The products referred to in the Complaint were misused, abused or altered by
plaintiffs or by others; the misuse, abuse or alteration was not reasonably foreseeable to
SCOTT CO., and proximately caused any loss, injury or damages incurred by plaintiffs.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that the products it installed, removed and/or disturbed at
plaintiff's jobsites, if any, were manufactured, produced, supplied, sold and distributed in
mandatory conformity with specifications promulgated by the United States Government
under its war powers, as set forth in the United States Constitution, and that any recovery
by plaintiffs on the Complaint on file herein is barred in consequence of the exercise of
those sovereign powers.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence to mitigate their losses, injuries and/or
damages; accordingly, the amount of damages to which plaintiffs are entitled, if any,
should be reduced by the amount of damages which would have otherwise been
mitigated.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the
Complaint because the Complaint and each alleged cause of action against SCOTT CO.
are barred by the provisions of California Labor Code, section 3600, et seq.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint,
plaintiff was employed and was entitled to receive Workers' Compensation benefits from
his employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier; that all of plaintiff's employers,
4
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
vlSelman Breitman LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1076 47250 485 1-9277-29|
other than SCOTT CO., were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said
Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said employers proximately and
concurrently contributed to the happening of the accident and to the loss or damage
complained of by plaintiffs, if any there were; and that by reason thereof SCOTT CO. is
entitled to set off and/or reduce any such workers' compensation benefits received or to
be received by plaintiffs against any judgment which may be rendered in favor of
plaintiffs. (Witt v. Jackson, 57 Cal.2d 57, 366 P.2d 641)
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint,
plaintiff's employers, other than SCOTT CO., were negligent in and about the matters
referred to in said Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said employers
proximately and concurrently contributed to any loss or damage, including non-economic
damages, complained of by plaintiffs, if any there were; and that SCOTT CO. is not
liable for said employers’ proportionate share of non-economic damages.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint,
parties other than SCOTT CO. were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said
Complaint, and that such negligence on the part of said parties proximately and
concurrently contributed to any loss or damage, including non-economic damages,
complained of by plaintiffs, if any there were; and that SCOTT CO. herein shall not be
liable for said parties' proportionate share of non-economic damages.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that at all times relative to matters alleged in the Complaint,
all of plaintiff's employers, other than SCOTT CO., were sophisticated users of asbestos-
containing products and said employers' negligence in providing the product to its
employees in a negligent, careless and reckless manner was a superseding cause of
plaintiffs' injuries, if any.
5
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL,ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Selman Breitman LLP
1076 47250 4851-9277-27]
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If plaintiffs have received, or in the future may receive, Workers' Compensation
benefits from SCOTT CO. under the Labor Code of the State of California as a
consequence of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and in the event
plaintiffs are awarded damages against SCOTT CO., SCOTT CO. claims a credit against
this award to the extent that SCOTT CO. is barred from enforcing his rights to
reimbursement for Workers' Compensation benefits that plaintiffs have received or may
in the future receive.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If plaintiffs have received, or in the future may receive Workers’ Compensation
benefits from SCOTT CO. under the Labor Code of the State of California as a
consequence of the alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, SCOTT CO.
demands repayment of any such Workers' Compensation benefits in the event that
plaintiffs recover tort damages as a result of the industrial injury allegedly involved here.
Although SCOTT CO. denies the validity of plaintiffs' claims in this action, in the event
those claims are held valid and not barred by the statute of limitations or otherwise,
SCOTT CO. asserts that cross-demands for money have existed between plaintiffs and
SCOTT CO. and the demands are compensated, so far as they equal each other, pursuant
to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.70.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At all times and places in the Complaint, plaintiffs were not in privity of contract
with SCOTT CO. and said lack of privity bars plaintiffs' recovery herein upon any theory
of warranty.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs are barred from recovery in that all products installed, removed,
distributed and/or supplied by SCOTT CO., if any, were in conformity with the existing
state-of-the-art, and as a result, these products were not defective in any manner.
6
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
viATTORNEYS AT LAW
Selman Breitman LLP
1076 47250 4851-9277-27]
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO, did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the market for
the asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused plaintiffs’ injuries. Therefore,
SCOTT CO. may not be held liable to plaintiffs based on SCOTT CO.'s alleged
percentage share of the applicable market.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. denies any and all liability to the extent that plaintiffs assert SCOTT
CO.'s alleged liability as a successor, successor in business, successor in product line or a
portion thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line
or a portion thereof, parent, alter-ego, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the
whole or partial owner of or member in an entity researching, studying, manufacturing,
fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for
sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing,
marketing, warranting, rebranding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising a
certain substance, the generic name of which is asbestos. SCOTT CO. specifically denies
that it is the alternate entity of Broadway Plumbing Co., Inc. and Broadway Mechanical
Contractors, Inc., as alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint.
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that plaintiffs' claims are or may be barred in whole or in part
by res judicata, collateral estoppel, issue preclusion and/or release.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO, alleges that it is immune from liability for any alleged failure to warn
plaintiffs of material risks associated with SCOTT CO.'s products, if any, because such
tisks were or should have been obvious to a reasonably prudent product user in plaintiff's
position, or were otherwise a matter of common knowledge to persons in the same or
similar position to plaintiffs.
Ml
7
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
vl0 Oe ND
Selman Breitman LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1076 47250 485 1-9277-27]
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the causes of action alleged in the
Complaint.
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a result of plaintiffs’ unreasonable delay in bringing this action, without good
cause therefore, in addition to his other unreasonable acts and omissions, plaintiffs have
waived each or some of the claims stated or purportedly stated in the Complaint.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The activity alleged in the Complaint, to the extent that it was engaged in by
SCOTT CO., if at all, was not ultrahazardous under California law.
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
California Civil Code sections 1431.1 through 1431.5, known as the Fair
Responsibility Act of 1986, is applicable at least in part to the present action and to
certain claims therein, and based upon the principle of comparative fault, the liability, if
any, of SCOTT CO., if liable at all, shall be several only and shall not be joint. SCOTT
CO., if liable at all, shall be liable as to certain claims only for the amount of non-
economic damages allocated to SCOTT CO. in direct proportion to SCOTT CO.'s
percentage of fault, if any, and a separate and several judgment shall be rendered against
SCOTT CO. for non-economic damages, if any.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs cannot prove any facts showing that the conduct of SCOTT CO. was the
cause in fact of any alleged injuries or damages suffered by plaintiffs as alleged in the
Complaint.
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs cannot prove any facts showing that the conduct of SCOTT CO. was the
proximate cause of any alleged injuries or damages suffered by plaintiffs as alleged in the
Complaint.
8
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL,
yp vl2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
as i
a
s : 12
g5 3
YP be
=<
og 14
Bo
mae 15
ce
=* 6
o 17
n
8
9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1076 47250 4851-9277-27]
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If plaintiffs were injured as alleged in the Complaint, those injuries were
proximately caused by allergies, sensitivities and idiosyncrasies particular to plaintiffs,
not found in the general public and unknown and unknowable to SCOTT CO. Such
injuries, if any, were not reasonably foreseeable to SCOTT CO.
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At all times relevant, SCOTT CO.'s acts and omissions were in conformity with all
government statutes and regulations and all industry standards based upon the state of
knowledge existing at the time of the acts or omissions.
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs have failed to join all parties necessary for full and just adjudication of
the purported causes of action asserted in the Complaint.
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that plaintiffs have directed, ordered, approved and/or ratified
SCOTT CO.'s conduct and plaintiffs are therefore estopped from asserting their claims
alleged in the Complaint as a result of their own acts, conduct or omissions.
THIRY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. owed no duty of care to plaintiff pursuant to the rulings of the
California Supreme Court in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, and the Court
of Appeal in Campbell v. Ford Motor Company (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 141, et al.
THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO, alleges that it exercised due care and diligence in all the matters
alleged in the Complaint, and no act or omission by SCOTT CO. was the proximate
cause of any damage, injury or loss to Plaintiffs.
FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO, alleges that plaintiffs cannot prove any facts showing that the
conduct of SCOTT CO. was the cause in fact of any injuries or damages suffered by
9
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL,
vlSelman Breitman LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1076 47250 4851-9277-27|
plaintiffs as alleged in the Complaint.
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that plaintiffs cannot prove any facts showing that the
conduct of SCOTT CO. was the proximate cause of any injuries or damages suffered by
plaintiffs as alleged in the Complaint.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges there is no concert of action between SCOTT CO. and any
other named defendants. Defendants are not joint tortfeasors and, accordingly, SCOTT
CO. may not be held jointly and severally liable with any other named defendants.
FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that any exposure of plaintiff to SCOTT CO.'s activities, or
exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, was so minimal as to be
insufficient to establish by a reasonable degree of probability that any such activity or
product caused any alleged injury, damages, or loss to plaintiffs.
FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that even if plaintiff was exposed to any asbestos-containing
products manufactured or distributed by SCOTT CO., which supposition is expressly
denied, plaintiff's exposure to said products would have been so minimal as to be
insufficient to constitute a "substantial contributing factor" in the causation of plaintiff's
alleged injuries or disease, if any.
FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that any defect or danger in or about the premises where
plaintiffs claim exposure to asbestos as a result of the acts or omissions of SCOTT CO.
was trivial.
FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that plaintiffs! Complaint, now and as amended in the future,
and each cause of action therein, is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain.
10
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a ll
H
c 12
Se
aa 13
a<
2s 14
Nz 15
a
< 16
£
o 17
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1076 47250 4851-9277-27
FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that if plaintiffs suffered any harm attributable to the use by
plaintiff of any product containing asbestos which was used, disturbed or sold by SCOTT
CO., which allegations are expressly denied herein, the injuries were solely caused by an
unforeseeable, independent, intervening and/or superseding event beyond the control and
unrelated to any conduct of SCOTT CO. SCOTT CO.'s actions, if any, were superseded
by the negligence and wrongful conduct of others.
FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that at all times and places referred to in the Complaint, as
amended, now or in the future, plaintiff and his employers, 1) were, or in the exercise of
reasonable care should have been, aware, or 2) were, or in the exercise of reasonable care
should have been, made aware by the persons whom plaintiffs claim brought asbestos
into the presence of plaintiff, of all circumstances and conditions then and there existing
and prevailing, but nonetheless knowingly, voluntarily, and in full appreciation of the
potential consequences thereof, exposed himself to whatever risks and dangers may have
been attendant to such circumstances and conditions, thereby freely and voluntarily
assuming any and all risks incident thereto, and thereby barring plaintiffs from recovery
herein.
FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein in that any all
products, products used, or products in place at the premises at issue herein were
manufactured, packaged, distributed, sold, installed and/or maintained in accordance with
contract specifications imposed by its co-defendants, the U.S. Government, the State of
California, plaintiffs employers, the employers of the persons whom plaintiffs allege
brought workplace asbestos to the home and household of plaintiff, or other third parties
yet to be identified, and that any defect in said products, or alleged acts or omissions in
the installation and/or maintenance of said products, was caused by deficiencies in said
11
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
vlATTORNEYS AT LAW
Selman Breitman LLP
1076 47250 4851-9277-27|
specifications, and not by any action or conduct on the part of SCOTT CO.
FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that all of its conduct and activities as alleged in the
Complaint conformed to statutes, government regulations, and industry standards based
upon the state of knowledge existing at all relevant times.
FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that plaintiff and his employers, were advised, informed, and
warned of any potential hazards and/or dangers, if there were any, associated with the
normal or foreseeable use, handling, and storage of the products, substances, equipment
and at premises in which exposure is claimed, and/or to asbestos "in-place", in a manner
which was adequate notice to an industrial user of such products to enable it to inform its
employees to take appropriate work precautions to prevent injurious exposure.
FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. is not liable for any alleged failure to warn of any risks, dangers or
hazards in the use of any asbestos-containing products or other goods that it allegedly
distributed, sold, supplied or delivered to plaintiff's employers, because said employers
had as great, if not greater, knowledge about the nature of any risks, dangers or hazards
than did this answering defendant, and unlike this answering defendant, said employers
were in a position to warn person exposed to such products any such risks, dangers or
hazards.
FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that no act, omission, conduct or product attributable to it
caused or contributed to any harm or damages sustained by plaintiffs, if any, and that if
such harm and damages, if any, were not solely caused by plaintiff's act, omissions, and
other conduct, then said injuries and damages were proximately caused and contributed
to by the negligence and/or other tortious acts, omissions, conduct and products of
persons or entities other than this answering defendant, and that said negligence and/or
12
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
vlATTORNEYS AT LAW
BR
Selman Breitman LLP
1076 47250 4851 -9277-27
other legal fault was an intervening and superseding cause of plaintiffs' harm and
damages, if any. Any damages recoverable by plaintiffs must therefore be diminished in
proportion to the amount of fault attributable to these other persons and entities, and there
should be an apportionment of the harm and damage claimed by plaintiffs, if any.
FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that the benefit of the design of any product associated with
SCOTT CO. outweighs any risk associated with said product, if any risk there actually
was, which SCOTT CO. denies.
FIFTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that to the extent the Complaint, or any cause of action
alleged therein, is based upon an allegation of strict products liability as against SCOTT
CO., said cause of action cannot be maintained as SCOTT CO. was not a "seller" within
the meaning of section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and consequently any
claim of strict liability against SCOTT CO. is barred pursuant to Monte Vista
Development Corporation vs. Superior Court (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1681.
FIFTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges to the extent the Complaint, or any cause of action alleged
therein, is based upon an allegation of strict products liability as against SCOTT CO., as
amended now or in the future, said cause of action cannot be maintained as SCOTT CO.
did not manufacture a product within the meaning of any applicable case law or statute
that supports any cause of action brought by plaintiff against SCOTT CO.
FIFTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO, alleges that any product(s) allegedly associated with SCOTT CO. and
subject to the instant Complaint were as safe as could be designed under the state of
technology and medical and scientific knowledge existing at the time the products were
manufactured.
Mi]
13
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL,
vt2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a ll
a
12
2
a: 13
=<
og 14
7
mA g 15
oe
Ss < 16
oO 17
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1076 47250 4851-9277-27
FIFTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO, alleges that plaintiffs have improperly split their causes of action and
seek to maintain a duplicative lawsuit based on the same facts and circumstances as a
lawsuit previously filed.
FIFTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO, alleges, with respect to some or all of plaintiffs’ alleged claims and
causes of action, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the subject of plaintiffs’
claim.
SIXTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that some or all of plaintiffs’ alleged claims, causes of action
and/or legal issues raised in the Complaint are governed by the substantive laws of a state
other than California,
SIXTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that plaintiffs lack legal capacity to sue and are not real
parties in interest and are thereby precluded from any recovery whatsoever as prayed.
SIXTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. refers to and incorporates herein each and every affirmative defense
pleaded by the other parties herein to the extent that such defenses are not inconsistent
with the matters stated herein.
SIXTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCOTT CO. alleges that it presently has insufficient knowledge or information on
which to form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unasserted defenses
available. SCOTT CO. reserves herein the right to assert additional defenses in the event
discovery indicates that they would be appropriate.
WHEREFORE, SCOTT CO, prays:
(1) That plaintiffs take nothing by this Complaint;
(2) That Judgment be entered in favor of SCOTT CO. and against plaintiffs;
14
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL,
vloo Om ND
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Selman Breitman LLP
1076 47250 4851-9277-27]
(3) For recovery of SCOTT CO.'s costs of suit;
(4) For appropriate credits and set-offs arising out of any payment of Workers'
Compensation benefits, or otherwise, as alleged above; and
(5) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant SCOTT CO. hereby demands a trial by
jury in the above-entitled action and estimates that the length of trial will be six to eight
weeks in duration.
DATED: January 28, 2020 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP
y What
* RICHARD D. DUMONT
Attorneys for Defendant
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA
15
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
vi2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
es
J
S > 12
gs B
Re
o 2 14
E < 16
oO 17
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1076 47250 4851-9277-275)
PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
Lowell Parish and Janice Parish v. Soco West, Inc., et al.
San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-19-276809
Defendant: SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of
18 years and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 33 New Montgomery,
Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94105.
On January 30, 2020, I electronically served the document(s) via File & ServeXpress
described as: SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF
CONSORTIUM -— ASBESTOS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL on the recipients designated
on the Transaction Receipt located on the File & ServeXpress website.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 30, 2020, at San Francisco, California.
16
SCOTT CO. OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
vl