Answer: LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                As and for its separate. distinct, and affirmative defenses to Plaintiff's

Complaint, and to each cause of action thereof, this answering Defendant alleges as

follows:

FAILURE To STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

1, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action upon which relief may be granted against this answering Defendant.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
2. Defendant alleges on information and belief that:

‘A. Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of
{imitations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 337, 338, 339, 340, 340.2. 343,
353.4, 361, and/or 474, and California Commercial Code section 2725; and/or

B. The causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint arose outside the State
of Cafifornia, while Plaintiff was a non-resident, pursuant to the applicable statutes of
limitations or statute(s) of repose where plaintiff was then residing or working, and
Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the provisions of those statutes and by section 361 of
the California Code of Civil Procedure,

ASSUMPTION OF RISK

3. Defendant alleges on information and belief that Plaintiff voluntarily and

Knowingly assumed the alleged risks and alleged hazards incident to the alleged

operations, acts, and conduct at the times and places alleged in Plaintiff ‘omplaint, and
Plaintif?’s said acts proximately caused and contributed to Plaintiff s alleged injuries and
damages, if any there were.

FAILURE TO FOLLOW WARNINGS

4. On information and belicf, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was advised,
informed, and warned of any potential hazards and/or dangers, if any there were,

associated with the normal or foreseeable use, handling, and storage of the products.

"h5655151 Qe

Answen £0 COMPLADNT FoR PERAONAL EUS| to any injuries and damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, if any there were; and |

| line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in

substances, and equipment described in Plaintifi’s Complaint, and Plaintiff Jailed to
follow such warnings.

(COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE

(that:

Defendant alleges upon information and beli
A. Atthe time and places mentioned in Plaintif's Complaint, Plaintiff
was careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in said Complaint, which

carelessness and negligence caused and contributed, to the extent of one hundred percent,

18, In the event of any judgment or verdiel in favor of Plaintiff herein,
said judgment or verdict must be reduced to the extent that said carelessness and

negligence of Plaintiff caused or contributed to the alleged injuries and damages allegedly

sustained by Plaintiff, if any there were.
Conpuct OF OTHERS

6. Defendant alleges that any

loss, injury, or damage to Plaintiff was

proximately caused or contributed to by the negligent or olher tortious acts, omissions,
and/or fault of other persons or entities which Defendant neither controlled nor had the
right to control, and that no particular damages of Plaintiff were caused by acts or |
omissions of this Defendant.
NOT A SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST

7. Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that plaintiffs assert |
defendant's alleged liability as a successor, successor in business, successor in product |
|
product line or a portion thereof, parent, alter-ego, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned |

by, or the whole or partial owner of ar member in an entity researching, studying,

| manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distribution, leasing, buying,

offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing. contracting far installation,

repairing, marketing, warranting, rebranding, manufacturing for others. packaging and

advertising a certain substance, the generic name of which is asbestos.
cCoMseragssis.

"ANSWER 7. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESLACK OF LEGAL Capacity To SUE

real party-in-interest,
PROPOSITION 51
' 9, — Defendant alleges that there are other persons, parties and/or defendants
| who are at ful! and proximately caused Plaintifl’s injuries, ifany. If this answering
| Defendant is responsible to Plaintiff, which responsibility is expressly denied, this

answering Defendant is only liable fer its proportionate share of non-economic damages,

as set forth in Civil Code section 1431.2.

MODIFICATION/ALTERATION OF PRODUCT

10, On information and beliel, Defendant alleges that the products which

allegedly injured Plaintiff were altered, changed, or otherwise modi

ed by parties,
individuals, or entities other than this answering Defendant, and said modifications,
changes or alterations were a proximate cause of the damages alleged by Plaintiff, if any
there were.
MISUSE AND ABUSE
11. Prior to and at the time of the alleged injuries, on information and belief,
Defendant alleges that the products which allegedly injured Plaintiff were misused and

| abused and were not being used in the manner in which they were intended to be used.

by Plaintiff, if any there were.
SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE
12, On information and belief: Defendant alleges thal Pluintitl and/or
Plainiitf"s agents negligently or intentionally failed to prescrve, and permitted the

spoliation of, material evidence, including but not limited to the products which Plaintiff:

alleges give rise to Plaintiff's Complaint herein. Such conduct bass Plaintif?’s action
and/or gives rise to liability on the part of Plaintiff for damages payable to this answering

Defendant.
CBM-SSP309515 1 ds

ANSWER 70 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL IN)

8. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff lacks the legal capacity to sue and is not a

Such misuse and abuse caused and contributed to the injuries and damages complained ofNOT A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR
13. Defendant alleges en information and belief that Plaintiff was not
exposed to any product distributed by Defendant that was a substantial factor in causing
any injury, damage, or Joss complained of, and, therefore, this Defendant may not be held
liable to Plaintiff as alleged.

No EXPOSURE,

14. Defendant alleges on information and belief that Plaintiff was not
exposed to a product distributed by Defendant, and ifhe was, such exposure was so
minimal as to be insufficient to cause the injury, damage, or Joss complained of.

FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES

15. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his losses, injurics,
or damages and is barred from recovering any damages which could have been avoided by
reasonable mitigation elTorts.

Lack OF NOTICE

16. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to give reasonable, timely,
sufficient and adequate notice to this answering Defendant of the alleged liability, damage
or injury, ifany.

LACHES

17. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has unreasonably delayed in the bringing

of this action, without good cause therefore. Said delay has directly resulted in prejudice

to this answering Defendant, and, therefore, this action is barred by laches.

UNCLEAN HaNps
18. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is precluded from maintaining any cause
of action against this answering Defendant because Plaintiff's actions preclude equitable
relief under the doctrine of anclcan hands.
SOPHISTICATED USER
19. Atull times relevant hereto, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's employer

or employers, by reason of the advice, information, warnings, and ase, handling, and
CAMSESFI65SI5 :

‘ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PURSONAL IRTURIESwe

3

storage information given to them, and by reason of their owa long-standing and

continuous experience with the products, substances, and equipment referred to in |
Plaintif's Complaint, are and were sophisticated users, handlers, and storers of any and
all such products, substances, and equipment and thereby acquired a separate and
affirmative duty to warn, advise and inform Plaintiff of any potential harmful effects from |
|

the mishandling, misstorage and/or misuse of the subject product, if any. Said employer's

failure to so provide and/or so warn Plaintiff was a superseding and intervening cause of |

Plaintiff's injuries, if any there were.

No WARRANTY,

20, This answering Defendant gave no warranties, cither express or implicd,
to Plaintiff, and neither Plaintiff nor anyone else ever notilied this answering Defendant of}
any claim of breach of warranty resulting in Plaintiff's alleged injuries,

Lack OF PRIVITY
ndant

21. Atall times and places mentioned in Plaintiff's Complaint, De:

alleges that Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with this answering Defendant and said.

lack of privity bars Plaintiil's recovery herein upon any theory of warranty.

VAGUENESS OF DEFECT STANDARDS

22, The State of Califomia’s judicially created definitions of
“manufacturing” and “design defects” and the standards for determining whether there has|
been an actionable failure to warn are unconstitutional in that, among other things. they

are void for vagueness and place an undue burden upon interstate commerce, as well as

constitute an impermissible effo-t to regulate in an area that Aas previously been

preempted by the federal government

NO MARKET SHARE OR ENTERPRISE LIABILITY

23. Defendant alleges an information and belicf that cach and every cause of
action of Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action |
under Sindell, “market share”, or any theory of enterprise liability, Defendant further |
alleges on information and belicf that Plaintiff has failed to join as Defendants in this
CBMGSPSE655151 6

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PFRAONAT INSURIPSco

| employers or their workers’ compensation or similar insurers, on account of the injuries

herein should be reduced by the amount of all such payments by said employers or

| insurers, and that each of said employers or insurcrs should be barred from any recovery

action the producers of a substantial market share of the product or products which
allegedly injured Plaintiff.
‘WORKERS’ COMPENSATION — EXCLUSIVE REMEDY
24, Defendant alleges on information and belief that:

A. Plaintiff has recived or will receive disability and medical benefits

under a workers compensation Jaw, or similar laws, from Plaintiff's employers or former |

and damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff which give rise to this lawsuit, if any there
were and therefore Plaintiff's claim is barred by the statue of limitations per 45 USC.
section 56 and the exclusive remedy provisions of California Labor Code section 3601, et |
seq. |
B, At the time of any alleged injury, each and every of Plaintiff's
employers and former employers was careless and negligent in and about the matters
alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, and said carelessness and negligence of cach and every of
said employers contributed directly and prosimately to any alleged injuries or damages

sustained by Plaintiff and/or any or all of suid employers; and

C. Any judgment or verdict that might be rendered in favor of Plaintiff

by lien or otherwise in connection with this matter under the authority of Witty. Jackson,
57 Cal.2d 57 [17 Cal. Rptr. 369, 360 P.2d 641] (1961).
GOVERNMENT SPECIFICATIONS

2§, Defendant alleges that it acted solely under the specifications of the US. |

government and properly performed all work thereunder according to such specifications |

and that this Defendant is therefore immune to suit under the governn antract }

doctrine as set forth in Boyle y. United Teck, Corp. (1988) 487 U.S. 500, and Sundstrom v.,
Melannell Douglas Corp. (N.D, Cal. 1993) 816 F.Supp. 387; any defect in suid products |

CBM-SFSHIASSIS.L

'ANSWTR 76 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INGURIES1 | was caused by deficiencies in the specifications supplied to Defendant, which deficiencies

2 | were neither known nor discoverable 10 Defendant with the exercise of reasonable care.
3 STATE OF THE ART
4 26. The state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge and

5 | practices was at all material times such that this answering Defendant neither breached

6 | any alleged duty owed to Plaintiff, nor knew, or could have known, that the product(s) it
7 | allegedly distributed presented a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff in the normal and
8 | expected use of such a product. Any products, substances, or equipment manufactured,

9 | formulated, sold, or distributed by this answering Defendant were made consistent with
10 | the state of the art applicable to said products, substances, or equipment at the time of
U1 | their manufacture, sale, formulation, or distribution.

APPLICABLE Law

27, Defendant alleges that as between Plaintiff and this answering Defendant,

14 | the law applicable to th

ction is the law as it existed during the period this answering
15 | Defendant engaged, if at all, in the distribution or sale of the product which Plaintiff claim

16 | caused injury, It is unlawful, inequitable, and in violation of this answering Defendant's

contractual. statutory, and constitutional rights to apply principles of law other than or ina
18 | manner different from those which existed for the period in which this answering

19 | Defendant sold or distributed the products to which Plaintiff claims exposure.

20} OFFSET |
21 28. This answering Defendant is entitled to an offset regarding all Settlements]
22. | entered into, or to be entered into beteycen Plaintiff and any person or entity, including |
23 | Defendants, relaling to their claims and allegations in this procecding. |
24 FAILURE TO JOIN INDISPENSABLE PARTIES

2s 29. Defendant alleges Pluintiff failed to join indispensable parties pursuant to

vil Procedure section 389,

28

| caM-SPSFsassis 1 Be

WAH 1. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES6

=

PUNITIVE DAMAGES — FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

30. Defendant alleges that the Complaint in its entirety, and each cause of
action therein, fails to state a cause of action against Defendant for punitive or exemplary
| damages.
UNCONSTITUTION ALITY OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES

31. Defendant alleges that, to the

extent that it se

s exemplary or punitive

| damages pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, the Complaint violates
Defendant's right to procedural due provess under the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution, and Aricle I, section 7, of the California State Constitution,
and therefore fails to state a cause of action upon which either punitive or exemplary
damages can be awarded.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES — EXCESSIVE FINES:

32. Defendant alleges that, to the extent that it seeks punitive or exemplary

damages pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, the Complaint violates

Defendant's right to protection from “excessive fines” as provided in the Eighth
‘Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I. section 17 of the Constitution.
of the State of California, and violates Defendant's right to substantive due process as

provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and

the Constitution of the State of California, and therefore fails to state facts sufficient to

support an award of either punitive or cxemplary damages
; VIOLATION OF COMMERCE CLAUSE.

33. Defendant alleges that the Commerce Clause of the United States.

Constitution, U.S. Const. art, I, section 8, cl. 3, precludes the application of a state statute

to commerce that takes place wholly outside of a state's borders, whether or nol the

commerce has effects within the state; and protects against inconsistent legislation arising

from the projection of one state regulatory regime into the jurisdiction of another stzle.
PLEAS IN ABATEMENT

34, Defendant alleges as pleas in abatement:
CPMSESTIOSSIS 1 9.