Preview
ELECTRONICALLY
F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
03/12/2020
Clerk of the Court
BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMIREZ
Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT “1”
1 ROGER GOLD, ESQ. [SBN 214802]
rgold@rgoldlegal.com
2 CECIL B. CRAIN (State Bar No. 252780)
ELECTRONICALLY
ccrain@rgoldlegal.com
3 GOLD LAW FIRM F I L E D
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 605 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
4 San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 986-1338 11/25/2019
5 Fax: (415) 373-4579 Clerk of the Court
BY: KALENE APOLONIO
Deputy Clerk
6 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
FRED HARTLEY VAN TASSELL, JR. AND BERNICE LUCILLE VAN TASSELL
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10 (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION)
11
12 FRED HARTLEY VAN TASSELL, JR. AND BERNICE ) No. CGC-19-276806
LUCILLE VAN TASSELL, )
13 )
PLAINTIFFS, ) FIRST AMENDED
14 ) COMPLAINT FOR
VS. ) DAMAGES
15 )
) NEGLIGENCE,
16 ASBESTOS COMPANIES; ) STRICT LIABILITY,
3M COMPANY; ) NEGLIGENT
17 ALLIED PACKING & SUPPLY, INC.; ) UNDERTAKING,
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.; ) PREMISES LIABILITY,
18 ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ) FALSE
ARVINMERITOR, INC. Individually and as Successor-in- ) REPRESENTATION,
19 ) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM,
Interest to ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
) PUNITIVE DAMAGES
20 CORPORATION; )
AUTOZONE WEST, INC. f/k/a CHIEF AUTO PARTS )
21 INC.; ) (ASBESTOS)
BWDAC, INC.; )
22 BORG-WARNER CORPORATION by its Successor in )
Interest, BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC.; )
23 )
CARQUEST CORPORATION;
CBS CORPORATION, A DELAWARE )
24 )
CORPORATION fka VIACOM, INC., SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CBS CORPORATION, A )
25 )
PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, fka
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION; )
26 )
CROWN, CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC.;
)
27 CSK AUTO, INC.; )
DANA COMPANIES, LLC; )
28 EATON CORPORATION; )
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 FORD MOTOR COMPANY; )
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; )
2 )
GENERAL PARTS, INC. INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
)
3 SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CARQUEST AUTO )
PARTS; )
4 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY; )
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY aka NAPA AUTO )
5 PARTS; )
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; )
6 )
GOULDS PUMPS LLC;
)
7 HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC.; )
HILL BROTHERS CHEMICAL COMPANY; )
8 HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD.; )
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. fka ALLIED )
9 SIGNAL, INC./THE BENDIX CORPORATION; )
IMO INDUSTRIES, INC. (FKA IMO DELAVAL INC.); )
10 )
J.T. THORPE & SON, INC.;
KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY; )
11 )
METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION,
INDIVIDUALLY & AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST )
12 )
TO NORCAL INSULATION;
MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC., as successor-in- )
13 )
interest to THIOKOL CORPORATION; )
14 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; )
NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.; )
15 PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION, as successor to )
EIS and CALI-BLOK; )
16 )
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION, AS
)
17 SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SACOMO SIERRA )
AND SACOMO MANUFACTURING COMPANY; )
18 THE PEP BOYS MANNY MOE & JACK OF )
CALIFORNIA; )
19 PNEUMO-ABEX CORPORATION, Successor-in-Interest )
to ABEX CORPORATION; )
20 )
STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, INC;
)
21 TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; )
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; )
22 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; )
UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA; )
23 WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY; )
AND )
24 FIRST DOE GENERAL PARTS, INC. INDIVIDUALLY )
AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CARQUEST )
25 )
AUTO PARTS; )
26 AND )
THE SECOND DOE THROUGH THREE HUNDREDTH )
27 DOE, INCLUSIVE, )
DEFENDANTS. )
28 ______________________________________________
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
2
1. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, governmental or
3
otherwise, of defendants through THREE-HUNDREDTH DOE, inclusive, are known to plaintiffs
4
at this time, who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and
5
capacities of said defendants have been ascertained, plaintiff will amend this complaint
6 accordingly. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each defendant
7 designated herein as a DOE is responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the
8 events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and caused injuries and damages proximately
9 thereby to the Plaintiffs, as hereinafter alleged.
2. At all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants, except as otherwise alleged, was
10
the agent, servant, employee and/or joint venturer of her co-defendants, and each of them, and at all
11
said times, each defendant was acting in the full course and scope of said agency, service,
12
employment and/or joint venture. Plaintiffs do not allege that Asbestos Corporation Ltd. was the
13 agent, servant, employee and/or joint venturer of any entity during any of the years Asbestos
14 Corporation Ltd. was owned by any governmental agency. Certain defendants agreed and conspired
15 among themselves and with certain other individuals and/or entities, to act, or not to act, in such a
16 manner that resulted in injury to the Plaintiff, FRED HARTLEY VAN TASSELL, JR.; and such
defendants, as co-conspirators, are liable for the acts, or failures to act, of other conspiring
17
defendants. Plaintiffs do not allege that Asbestos Corporation Ltd. conspired with any entity during
18
any of the years Asbestos Corporation Ltd. was owned by any governmental agency. Plaintiffs are
19
informed and believe, and allege, that at all times herein mentioned defendants ONE through
20 THREE-HUNDREDTH DOE, inclusive, were and are authorized to do business in the State of
21 California, and that said defendants have regularly conducted business in the County of SAN
22 FRANCISCO, State of California.
23 3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned,
each defendant named herein and ONE through THREE-HUNDREDTH DOE, inclusive, were and
24
are corporations organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, or
25
the laws of some other state or foreign jurisdiction, and that said defendants, and each of them, were
26 and are authorized to do and are doing business in the State of California, and that said defendants
27 have regularly conducted business in the County of SAN FRANCISCO, State of California.
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION-NEGLIGENCE
2 (Personal Injuries)
3 PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF DEFENDANTS AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH 5, AND
4 EACH OF THEM AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE (PERSONAL
INJURIES) ALLEGE:
5
4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, governmental or
6
otherwise, of defendants ONE through THREE-HUNDREDTH DOE, inclusive, are unknown to
7 plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. When the true
8 names and capacities of said defendants have been ascertained, plaintiff will amend this Complaint
9 accordingly. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each defendant designated
10 herein as a DOE is responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the events and
happenings hereinafter referred to, and caused injuries and damages proximately thereby to the
11
plaintiff, as hereinafter alleged.
12
5. At all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants was the agent, servant, employee
13
and/or joint venturer of his co-defendants, and each of them, and at all said times, each defendant
14 was acting in the full course and scope of said agency, service, employment and/or joint venture.
15 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned,
16 defendants, ASBESTOS COMPANIES; 3M COMPANY; ALLIED PACKING & SUPPLY, INC.;
17 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC. ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
ARVINMERITOR, INC. Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to ROCKWELL
18
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; AUTOZONE WEST, INC. f/k/a CHIEF AUTO PARTS
19
INC.; BWDAC, INC.; BORG-WARNER CORPORATION by its Successor in Interest,
20
BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC.; CARQUEST CORPORATION; CBS CORPORATION, A
21 DELAWARE CORPORATION fka VIACOM, INC., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CBS
22 CORPORATION, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, fka WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC
23 CORPORATION; CROWN, CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC.; CSK AUTO, INC.; DANA
24 COMPANIES, LLC; EATON CORPORATION; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY; GENERAL PARTS, INC. INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-
25
INTEREST TO CARQUEST AUTO PARTS; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY; GENUINE PARTS
26
COMPANY aka NAPA AUTO PARTS; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY;
27
GOULDS PUMPS LLC; HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC.; HILL BROTHERS CHEMICAL
28 COMPANY; HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. fka
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 ALLIED SIGNAL, INC./THE BENDIX CORPORATION; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC. (FKA IMO
2 DELAVAL INC.); J.T. THORPE & SON, INC.; KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY; METALCLAD
3 INSULATION CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY & AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO
4 NORCAL INSULATION; MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC., as successor-in-interest to
THIOKOL CORPORATION; NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.;
5
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION, as successor to EIS and CALI-BLOK; PARKER-
6
HANNIFIN CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SACOMO SIERRA AND
7 SACOMO MANUFACTURING COMPANY; THE PEP BOYS MANNY MOE & JACK OF
8 CALIFORNIA; PNEUMO-ABEX CORPORATION, Successor-in-Interest to ABEX
9 CORPORATION; STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, INC; TOYOTA MOTOR
10 CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION; UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA; WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY
11
COMPANY; AND FIRST DOE GENERAL PARTS INC INDIV AND AS SUCCESSOR IN
12
INTEREST TO CARQUESTION CORPORATION AND TWO THROUGH THREE-
13
HUNDREDTH DOE, inclusive, are corporations organized and existing under and by virtue of the
14 laws of the State of California, or the laws of some state or foreign jurisdiction, and that said
15 defendants were and are authorized to do and are doing business in the State of California, and that
16 said defendants have regularly conducted business in the City and County of SAN FRANCISCO,
17 State of California. The defendants identified in this paragraph are collectively hereinafter referred
to as “ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS.”
18
6. At all times herein mentioned, each of the ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS was the
19
successor, successor in business, successor in product line or a portion thereof, parent, subsidiary,
20
wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of or member in an entity researching,
21 studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying,
22 offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing,
23 marketing, warranting, rebranding, handling, modifying, scraping, disturbing, manufacturing for
24 others, packaging and/or advertising a certain substance the generic name for which is asbestos, and
other products containing said substance. Said entities shall hereinafter collectively be called
25
“alternate entities”. Each of the herein named ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS are liable for the
26
tortuous conduct of each successor, successor in business, successor in product line or a portion
27
thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line or a portion
28 thereof, parent, subsidiary, alter-ego, whole or partial owner, or wholly or partially owned entity, or
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 entity that it as a member of, or funded, that researched, studied, manufactured, fabricated, designed,
2 labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, sold, inspected, serviced, installed,
3 contracted for installation, repaired, swept up, abated, discarded, removed, drilled, supplied,
4 marketed, warranted, rebranded, manufactured for others and advertised a certain substance, the
generic name of which is asbestos, and other products containing said substance. The following
5
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are liable for the acts of each and every “alternate
6
entity”, and each of them, in that there has been a virtual destruction of plaintiffs remedy against
7
each such “alternate entity”; ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have acquired the
8 assets, product line, or apportion thereof, of each such “alternate entity”; ASBESTOS
9 DEFENDANTS, and each of them, caused the destruction of plaintiffs remedy against each such
10 “alternate entity”; each such ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS has the ability to assume the risk-
11 spreading role of each such “alternate entity”; and that each such ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS
enjoys the goodwill originally attached to each such “alternate entity”.
12
13 DEFENDANT ALTERNATE ENTITY
14 ARVINMERITOR, INC. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION
15 BORG-WARNER CORPORATION BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC.
16
BWDAC, INC. BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC.
17 BORG-WARNER CORPORATION
18 GENERAL PARTS INC. CARQUEST CORPORATION
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY NAPA AUTO PARTS
19
20 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. ALLIED SIGNAL, INC./THE BENDIX
CORPORATION
21
MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC. THIOKOL CORPORATION
22
23 PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION SACOMO SIERRA AND SACOMO
MANUFACTURING COMPANY; EIS and
24 CALI-BLOK
25 PNEUMO-ABEX CORPORATION ABEX CORPORATION
26
UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA; UNION 76, UNOCAL
27
28 7. For the purposes of the claims alleged herein, the Federal Court lacks subject matter
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 jurisdiction over this Action, as there is no federal question and incomplete diversity of citizenship
2 due to the presence of a California defendant. Removal is improper. Every claim arising under the
3 Constitution, treaties, or law of the United States is expressly disclaimed, including any claim
4 arising from an act or omission by a federal officer on a federal enclave, or of any Officer of the U.S.
or any agency or person acting under him occurring under color of such office. No claim of
5
admiralty or maritime law is raised. Plaintiff sues no foreign state or agency. By this allegation,
6
Plaintiff is not disclaiming State law claims arising under State, statutory, decisional or common
7 law, nor is Plaintiff disclaiming claims which stem from exposures on Federal enclaves. Plaintiff is
8 only disclaiming claims which would be directed at the Federal government and/or Federal officers.
9 Venue is proper in the City and County of SAN FRANCISCO. Plaintiff shall seek sanctions,
10 attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief in the event any Defendant moves to transfer and/or
remove this Action to another court without reasonable period of meet and confer discussion relating
11
to same prior to notice of removal and/or transfer of this Action.
12
8. Plaintiff FRED HARTLEY VAN TASSELL, JR. was a California resident during a
13
substantial period of his asbestos exposure upon which Plaintiffs' claims are based.
14 9. At all times herein mentioned, the ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS and each of them were
15 engaged in the business of manufacturing, fabricating, designing, assembling, distributing, leasing,
16 buying, selling, supplying, cleaning, discarding, drilling, inspecting, servicing, repairing,
17 distributing, modifying, handling, installing, mixing, scraping, contracting to install, removing,
contracting to remove, disturbing, cutting, grinding, scraping, marketing, warranting, negligently
18
maintaining premises that had on them and/or advertising a certain substance, the generic name of
19
which is asbestos, and/or other products containing said substance, or are engaged in the business of
20
manufacturing, fabricating, designing, assembling, distributing, selling, and marketing of safety
21 equipment, including respiratory protective devices which were intended to block the entry of
22 asbestos fibers into the bodies of workers who were exposed to asbestos in the workplace and other
23 locations.
24 10. At all times herein mentioned, the ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each of them,
singularly and jointly, negligently and carelessly researched, tested or failed to test, warned or failed
25
to warn, failed to maintain safe premises, failed to institute established industrial hygiene measures,
26
negligently hired contractors, manufactured and/or caused to be manufactured, designed, developed,
27
distributed, supplied, removed, abated, tore out, drilled, dug out, threw away, discarded, swept up,
28 labeled, advertised, marketed, warranted, inspected, repaired, installed, scraped, cut, ground, mixed
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 distributed, handled, fabricated, assembled, modified, serviced, and/or sold a certain substance, the
2 generic name of which is asbestos, and/or other products containing said substance, and said
3 substance was capable of causing and did, in fact, proximately cause personal injuries to users,
4 consumers, workers and others, while being used in a manner reasonably foreseeable, thereby
rendering said substances unsafe and dangerous for use by the consumers, users, bystanders or
5
workers exposed thereto;
6
11. At all times herein mentioned, the ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each of them
7
manufactured, distributed, sold and/or designed products to be used with asbestos, and/or other
8 products containing said substance. Each ASBESTOS DEFENDANT manufactured, distributed,
9 sold and/or designed products in such a manner that it required the regular replacement of asbestos
10 and/or other materials containing asbestos. Moreover, each ASBESTOS DEFENDANT defectively
11 designed, sold, manufactured and/or distributed products which caused the degradation of integrated
asbestos-containing products, which contributed to plaintiff’s development of asbestos disease. This
12
being so, even despite the fact that alternative feasible designs were available that would not cause
13
degradation and release of asbestos fibers from the original and replacements asbestos materials to
14
the same extent as the design chosen by ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS.
15 12. It was foreseeable to each and every ASBESTOS DEFENDANT that the original asbestos
16 and other materials containing asbestos would be removed and replaced with new asbestos and/or
17 other materials containing asbestos during ordinary operation and maintenance. Indeed, during the
time period in question, most if not all, replacement materials were comprised of asbestos. The
18
operation, use and repair of each of the ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS products would affect both
19
the original and replacement asbestos and other products containing asbestos by making them brittle,
20
friable and not reusable. It was foreseeable to each ASBESTOS DEFENDANT that the process of
21 removing asbestos materials incorporated into their products and replacing them with new asbestos
22 materials during ordinary repair and maintenance would disturb asbestos and result in the release of
23 asbestos fibers into the air, thereby exposing Plaintiff, other workers and bystanders. Each
24 ASBESTOS DEFENDANT failed to warn Plaintiff, other workers and bystanders of the risks
inherent in the replacement of asbestos containing parts and failed to warn Plaintiff, other workers
25
and bystanders that their product was designed to make asbestos friable.
26
13. Plaintiff herein is a worker who for or during a substantial length of time used, handled,
27
was present or has been otherwise exposed to the asbestos and asbestos products referred to herein
28 in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 14. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and
2 each of them, as aforesaid, the exposure to asbestos caused severe and permanent injuries to the
3 plaintiff, including, but not limited to, mesothelioma and, severe shock to his nervous system and
4 other injuries, the exact extent of which are unknown to plaintiff.
15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that mesothelioma are progressive
5
lung diseases caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers without perceptible trauma and that said disease
6
results from exposure to asbestos and asbestos products over a period of time.
7
16. Plaintiff was not aware that exposure to asbestos presented any risk of injury and/or disease
8 to him, and had not been advised or informed by anyone that he could contract any disease, sickness
9 or injury as a result of working in the vicinity of asbestos or otherwise as a bystander.
10 17. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct of ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS,
and each of them, plaintiff is dying and has suffered, and continues to suffer permanent injuries to
11
his person, body and health, including but not limited to mesothelioma, other lung damage, all to his
12
general damages in a sum invoking the unlimited jurisdiction of the Court.
13
18. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct of the ASBESTOS
14
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, plaintiff experienced and continues to experience prolonged
15 pain and suffering and is presently incurring and will incur in the future, liability for physicians,
16 surgeons, nurses, hospital care, medicine, hospitals, x-rays and other medical treatment, the true and
17 exact amount thereof being unknown to plaintiff at this time, and plaintiff prays leave to amend this
Complaint accordingly when the true and exact cost thereof is ascertained.
18
19. Plaintiffs FRED HARTLEY VAN TASSELL, JR. have lost pre-judgment interest pursuant
19
to Civil Code Section 3288, the exact amount of which plaintiff prays leave to insert herein when
20
finally ascertained.
21 20. By reason of the aforesaid negligence of ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each of them,
22 plaintiff has suffered damages to his health, strength and activity in an amount that is presently
23 unknown to plaintiff and plaintiff prays leave to amend this Complaint accordingly when the true
24 and exact cost thereof is ascertained.
21. In researching, testing, manufacturing, distributing, labeling, and marketing said products,
25
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS in this cause of action named, and each of them, did so with
26
conscious disregard for the safety of the users of said products, in that ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS
27
had specific prior knowledge that there was a high risk of injury or death resulting from exposure to
28 asbestos or asbestos products, including but not limited to asbestosis, pleural scarring, lung cancer
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 and mesothelioma. Said knowledge was obtained, in part, from scientific studies, government data,
2 and medical data to which ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS had access, as well as scientific studies
3 performed by, at the request of, or with the assistance of, said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and
4 which knowledge was obtained by said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS on or before 1933, and
thereafter.
5
22. On or before 1933, and thereafter, said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS were aware that
6
users of asbestos and asbestos products, as well as members of the general public who would be
7
exposed to asbestos and asbestos products, had no knowledge or information indicating that asbestos
8 could cause injury, and said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS knew that the users of asbestos and
9 asbestos products, as well as members of the general public who were exposed to asbestos and
10 asbestos products, would assume, and in fact did assume, that exposure to asbestos and asbestos
11 products was safe, when in fact said exposure was extremely hazardous to human life.
23. With said knowledge, said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS opted to manufacture and
12
distribute said asbestos and asbestos products without attempting to protect users from or warn users
13
of, the high risk of injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos and asbestos products. Rather
14
than attempting to protect users and workers from, or warn workers and users of, the high risk of
15 injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos and asbestos products, ASBESTOS
16 DEFENDANTS intentionally failed to reveal their knowledge of said risk, fraudulently, consciously
17 and actively concealed and suppressed said knowledge from members of the general public that
18 asbestos and asbestos products were unsafe for all reasonably foreseeable use, with the knowledge of
the falsity of said implied representations.
19
24. The above referenced conduct of said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS was motivated by the
20
financial interest of said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS in the continuing, uninterrupted design,
21
distribution and marketing of asbestos and asbestos products. In pursuance of said financial
22 motivation, said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS consciously disregarded the safety of the users of,
23 and persons exposed to, asbestos and asbestos products, and were in fact, consciously willing to
24 permit asbestos and asbestos products to cause injury to workers and users thereof, and persons
25 exposed thereto, including plaintiff.
25. The above referenced conduct of said DEFENDANTS, their alternate entities, and each of
26
them, and their officers, directors and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly or
27
impliedly ratified, and had full knowledge of, or should have known of, each of the acts set forth
28
herein.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 26. As the above referenced conduct of said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS was and is vile,
2 base, willful, malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, outrageous, and in conscious disregard and
3 indifference to the safety and health of workers exposed to asbestos and asbestos products, including
4 plaintiff, plaintiff, for the sake of example, and by way of punishing said ASBESTOS
DEFENDANTS, seeks punitive damages according to proof.
5
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each
6
of them, as hereafter set forth.
7
8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - STRICT LIABILITY
AS AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF
9
ACTION FOR STRICT LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF THE ASBESTOS
10
DEFENDANTS AND EACH OF THEM, AND ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
11
27. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each of the proceeding paragraphs of
12 this Complaint.
13 28. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS and each of them, researched, manufactured, tested or failed
14 to test, warned or failed to warn, designed, labeled, distributed, advertised, marketed, warranted,
15 distributed, handled, installed, modified, scraped, inspected, abated, supplied, discarded, cleaned up,
repaired, removed, offered for sale, sold, distributed and/or designed a certain substance, the generic
16
name of which is asbestos and other products containing said substance, which substance is
17
defective, in that same was capable of causing and did, in fact, cause personal injuries, including
18
asbestosis, pleural scarring, lung cancer, mesothelioma and other lung damage, to the users and
19 consumers thereof while being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, thereby rendering the same
20 unsafe and dangerous for use by consumers, users, bystanders and workers exposed thereto and not
21 performing as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected; said ASBESTOS
22 DEFENDANTS, and each of them, further failed to adequately warn of the risks to which plaintiff
and others similarly situated were exposed.
23
29. At all times mentioned herein, plaintiff reasonably was unaware of the dangerous nature of
24
the aforementioned products.
25 30. As a direct and proximate result thereof, plaintiff has suffered the injuries and damages as
26 previously set forth including those alleged in the First Causes of Action, inclusive.
27 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each
28 of them, as hereafter set forth.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - PRODUCTS LIABILITY (NEGLIGENCE AND STRICT
2 LIABILITY) FOR CLUTCH COMPONENTS AND BRAKE ASSEMBLIES,
3 MECHANISMS AND LININGS
4 AS AND FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE, AND FURTHER DISTINCT CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY (NEGLIGENCE AND STRICT LIABILITY) FOR
5
CLUTCH COMPONENTS AND BRAKE ASSEMBLIES, MECHANISMS AND LININGS,
6
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF DEFENDANTS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.;
7 ARVINMERITOR, INC. Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to ROCKWELL
8 INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; EATON CORPORATION; HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD.;
9 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
10 U.S.A., INC.; and TWO HUNDRED FIRST DOE through TWO HUNDRED-FIFTEENTH DOE
(hereinafter VEHICLE/BRAKE ASSEMBLY MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS), inclusive,
11
and ALLEGE AS FOLLOWS:
12
31. Plaintiff, by this reference, incorporates the allegations contained in the First and Second
13
Causes of Action as though fully set forth herein.
14 32. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.; ARVINMERITOR, INC. Individually and as
15 Successor-in-Interest to ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; EATON
16 CORPORATION; HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD.; NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NISSAN
17 MOTOR CO., LTD.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; and TWO HUNDRED FIRST
DOE through TWO HUNDRED-FIFTEENTH DOE (hereinafter VEHICLE/BRAKE ASSEMBLY
18
MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS), inclusive, manufactured or supplied defective clutch
19
components and brake assemblies or mechanisms which were incorporated into various makes and
20
models of automobiles, trucks and vehicles manufactured, sold or supplied by said defendants. Said
21 clutch components and brake assemblies or mechanisms were negligently manufactured sold or
22 supplied in that:
23 a. The design of said clutch components and brake assemblies or mechanisms
24 incorporated the use of asbestos-containing clutch facings/plates and brake linings;
b. Asbestos clutch components brake linings wear and/or deteriorate during regular
25
and ordinary use thus creating friable asbestos dust, which accumulates in the clutch brake
26
assemblies and/or mechanisms;
27
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 c. The design of said clutch components brake assemblies require as a part of their
2 normal operation, use and maintenance that the asbestos clutch components and brake
3 linings be removed and replaced;
4 d. Said defendants required the use of asbestos-containing clutch component