Answer: CHARLES TOBEY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                RUGEN! SBN: (079824) |

ROWN. JR,

ELECTRONICALLY |
FILED

‘Superior Court of California}
County of San Francisco

Oakland, Cs
el (sa

4 |] Fax: ( |
AUG 20 2007 |
5 |] Attorneys for GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
FORD MOTOR COMPANY BY; EDNALEEN JAVIER-LACSON
Deputy Clerk

8 “RIOR COURT OF TH TATE OF CALIFORNIA |
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10.
1h |
| CHARLES TOBEY } CASE NO. CGC 0°
12] j
Plaimtifl 5 NSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR
13 ) SONAL INJURY-ASBESTOS
}
val }
| ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP). )
)
»
16 +
17 > i
18 | COMES NOW, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, and by way of answer to plaintif?’s

‘ction 431.30 denies

othe terms of California Code of Civil Proced:

complaint and pues

ation of the complaint, Defendant further specifically denies that it

or at all; for special, compensatory. punitive or

n any sum or sums whatso

spe of damage.

AND AS FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,

DANT AL

25 || That the complaint, and each cause of action stated th

¢ of action,

26 || constitute‘ac

“le

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURV-ASBESTOS
ISR2I. OSD MITIEAN Sus852.21 AND.AS FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFERMATIVE

2 | DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES: i

3 That neither the complaint, nor any of the alleged causes of ai
4 ent to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant
5 AND AS FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
6 DANT ALLEGES; |
7 That the complaint fails to properly invoke the equity jurisdiction of the court,
8 AND AS FOR A FOURTH, 8 = DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
9 SE, DEFENDANT ALL
o|| it lacks personal ju
| AND AS FOR A FLFTH, SI
12 ENDANT ALLEGES:
1G That the applicable statutes of Himitations, including but not limited to, €.C.P. Sections 3

3403), 340.2 and 3.

14 |) 338, 338.1,339, 3400 bars the complaint andl each cause of actior

16 |} AND AS FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFEN!

. lease, rent, occupy

or otherwise exercise control over the subject premises.

AND AS FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE DISTIN

AND AFFIRMATIVE

DANT AL

G

defendant did not supery control |

vant time and/or times

oyers werk al any of the premises. |

‘O COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESTOSAND AFFIRMATIVE DE

1 AND AS FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE DISTIN

2 || DEFENDANT ALLEGES

cd the cominencement of this action and prejudiced

‘That plaintitY has unreasonably dela:

fendant such that the doctrine of laches bars the complaint and ¢:

ND AFFIRMATIVE DEF!

6 AND AS FOR AT H, SEPARATE DISTINCT

7 || DEFENDANT ALLEGE

8 ‘That plaintift's damages, if any, are completely of in part the result of plaintift's failure to
9 equired by Jaw
10 AND AS FOR. AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

ENDANT ALLE!

11 || DEFENSE, DE}

12 |) That if plaintiff suffered injuries attributable to the use of product referred to in

juries were solely caused and

which injuries are expressly denied, the

‘onable, unforeseeable and inappropriate purpose and improper use thal

YS 3] was made of the producis,

16 AND AS POR A TWELFTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
17 DANT ALLEGE!

18 arties to this action and nonparties, other than this answering

responsible, oF otherwise at fault for any damages alleged in the complaint,

|
. |
ndant, were

fore. in the event of any lisbility. whether by seul

of fault between

i
|
the parties

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESEOS1 AND AS FOR A THIRTE! FFIRMATIVE

NTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT i
s: |

2 || DEFENSE, DEFENDA

T ALLEGE

self was guil

£

@
=
=
=
g

7 || contributed to plaintiff's alleged injuries and/or damages

8 ‘That plaintifs alleged injuries, which are herein denied, were actually and proximately

bol the claims

i. solely by the contributory and/or co: we of plaintiff and exc

mparative neg

10 |} stated ‘on of such comparative negligence.

That should plaintiff recover damages against defendant, said defendant is entitled to have

12 |] the amount abated, reduced or eliminated to the. extent plaintiff's negli,

13 |] to-his injuri

and damages, if any

ND AFFIRMATIVE

i
caused or contributed |
|
|

14 AND AS FOR A FOURT

UND,

 ALLEGES: |

16 || at plaintiff knowingly assumed the risk of any injury or damage alleged in the complaint
17 || AND AS FOR A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

18 || DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLE

9 That the subject products, and their component parts were not used as instructed ‘and

20 || tended, but w id to unforeseeable and unanticipated misuse, abuse, alteration and/or

| cee . . ao
modification by those other than this answering defendant. Said misuse, abuse, alteration, and/or

modification was the prosimate cause of the injuries and damages, if uny, allegedly sustained by

4 AND AS FOR A SIXTE!

PINCT AND AFFIRMAT!

ENTH, SE!

|
6 That g

r's negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries and damag

i
25 || PEPENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES: |
|
|

if any, allegedly sustained by plaintiti

| ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESTOS |
I spzi bse ATTHAN S665i AND AS FOR A SEVENT: H, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

2 | DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLE

relevant to this action.

3 That plaintiff's employer assumed the risks incident to all mat

TINCT AND AFFIRM

ATIV

PH, SEPARATE DIS

4 AND AS FOR AN EIGHTE

5. || DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGE!

nswering defendant alleged in the complaint, conform to stat

all activ of

wat the

‘gulations and industry standards based upon the state of knowledge existin:

overmmentai
ime alleged in the complaint and each cause of action therein,

ENTHU, SEPARATE. STENCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

9 AND AS FOR ANE DIS

hed the risks of

to in plaimiff’s comy

in'sue!

if any, inhere

products,

13 |] AND AS FOR A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

'DANT ALL

SE, DE

in privity of contract. |

"That at all tines abd places alleged in thi

ith di aid lack of privity bars plaintiff's recovery herein upon any theory of warranty

tiff has failed to state a cause of action against this answering defendant for

plaintiff and this

's failure to allege privity betw

8 f warranty as a result of the complai
19 |) answering dant.
20 AND AS FOR A TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

E, DEFENDANT ALLEG!

6
of

nd has no duty to independently warm pl

are thereby barred

FOS
stat ss? ATTRAN seas.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBE1 AND AS FOR A TWENTY-

ARATE DISTINCT AND

2 || AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

i the use of the subject products, which injuries are herein

That any injuries resulting fi

able to this answering ds

fendant given the state of knowledge and state of

5 |} art at the time-of the alleged injuries.

i AND AS FORA TW

‘TY-THIRD, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
? || DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

is answering defendant was not engaged in any ultra hazardous activity or in the

dis

that this

. formulation, packaging, labeli

answering de

| AND AS FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE BISTINCT AND
12 | AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

13 | That plaintiff's complaint to the extent that it exemplary or punitive damages pursuant
4] Civil Cox s defendant's right to procedural due process‘under
15 dmeiit of id States Constituiion, and Ant tion 7 of the

16 We State of California; and therefore fails to state a cause of action upon which

17 |
18 AND AS FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH, S| DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

19 |) DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALL

20 That said complaint, to the extent tha

seeks punitive or exemplary damages pursuant to
21 || California Civil Code Section 3294, violates defendant's right to protection from “excessive fines”

as provided in th abth Amendment of the United States Constitution and. Article 1, Section 17 of

the Constitution of the State of California, and violates defen ght lo substantive due process

in thy h and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the

24 las provided

State of C

Constitution of ause of aetion supporting the |

nitive or exemplary

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESTOS
921 28052 MTRAN S688| AND AS FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE,

2 || DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

Defendant alleges that said complaint, and each cause of action therein, fails to state facts

4 | sufficient to warrant an award of exemplary or punitive damages

AND AS FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND

6 || AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS

E, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

That this Defendant is liable, if at all, only for its proportionate share of liability/damages'as

& |} set forth by

et seq
9 |) AND AS FOR A TWENTY-FIGHTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
10 | DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGE:

HY That indispensable parties have not been joined and that it is necessary for these absent

2. || parties to be joined in order to obtain a just and final adjudication of all matters al

complaint

AND AS FOR-A TWENTY-NINTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

ENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEG!

ion of the matters alleged in the complaint,

16 This court ig an improper venue for the adjudic:

17 ||as to this answering patty

18 AND AS FOR A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRM.

9 UNSE, DEF DANT AL

0 | That any loss, injury or by plaintiff. if any, was proximately ¢:
21 || negligent or willful acts or omissions of parties or nonparties whom defendant did not control, and

omissions or other conduct of defendant.

22 || was not p wased by any acts

AND ABFIRMATIVE.

“FIR: EPARATE DISTIN

AND AS FOR A THER

DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

aired by California Labor Code $§ 3600 et seq.

STOS
05421 Saad MTIRAN ses8se.s

ANSWER TO COMPLAT1

2

4

AND AS FOR A THIRTY-SECOND, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGE:

That all times mentioned in the Complaint on file herein, defendant is informed and

believes that the employer of plaintisY, was insured under « policy of Worker's Compensation
that on account of the alleged injuries referred to in plaintif?'s Complain, the
compensation carrier has paid to and on behalf of plaintiff certain sums by way of Worker's

that at all times:

Compensation, under the worker's compensation laws of the State of Califor

t's Complaint, said employer and its agents,

mentioned in plain servants and employees, acting

inand

within the course and scope of their agency and employment, were negligent and careles

atters referred to in plaintiff's Complaint: that said employer carelessly and negligently

Eabout the 1
filed to furnish the plaintiff with a safe place 1o work and carelessly and negligently failed 10

>rovide proper supervision, inspections, tools, appliances and control and direction over its

employees in she place of employment: that said carelessness and negligence proximately caused

hat the car¢lessness and

and contributed to the injuries which plaintiff claims to have sustained:

Conciirrént ti¢eligerice bars recovery agains this answering deferidant of all Su

to or on behalf of plaintiff’by way of Worker's Compensation benefits as aforesaid; that said

concurrent negligence of the employer is by law imputed to the insurance carrier

carelessness
of said employer.

AND AS FOR A THIRTY-THIRD, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGE:

‘That a conflict in law exists,

s to plaintiff's claimed exposure as to

eged to occurred outside the jurisdiction of this court and therefore the laws of that jurisdiction
lving all apply as between this answering party and plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, this

aswering defendant pray

for judgment as follows:

| i That plaintiff take nothing by reason of the complaint filed herein:

2. ‘That this answering defendant be awarded costs of suit incurred herein:

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESTOS
OSS25 54082 MIFIEAN S68RGD.E

paid 6r'to Be paid |moe

a

2F

epee

3. ‘That if defendant is found liable, that the degree of responsibility and liability for

‘the resulting damages be determined, and that defendant be liable only for that

‘portion of total damages in proportion to its total responsibility for same; and

4. For such other and fwther relief as the court deenis just and proper.

Dated: August £*

20s

» 2007 FILD

Attorngys for Defendant
FORD MOTOR COMPANY

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESTOS

(6582) 082 NITRAN S68852.1FBECM

Lagieanes rae
aac

PROOF OF SERVICE
Charles Tobey y. Asbestos Defendants-Ford Motor Company
San Francisco County Superior Court Docket Number: 274236

| am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age and not pay to the within getion|
Jai employed in the county of Alameda: my business address is 1999 Harrison Strect, 18"
Floor, Oakland, CA.94612.

On August _L!)_, 2007.1 served the within documents:

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

On.all pasties in this action, as addressed below, by causing a true copy thereof to be distributed
as follows:

Brayton Purcell Berry &
222 Rush J.anding Road 2930 Lakeshore Avenue
P.O. Box 6169 P.O. Box 16070
‘Novato, CA 94948-6169" Oakland, CA 94610)
I] BY MALL: | am “really Famitiar” with the firm's practive of eotfection

‘end processing comespondence for mailing. Under that
phactice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal serview on
that sdinis day with postage thefeon Tully prepaid in tie
‘ordinary course of business. aim awiere that on motion of
the paity served, service is presunred invalid if postal
cancellation date or postage meter data is more than one day
afier date of deposit for mailing in affidavit

[| VIA HAND DELIVERY: I caused such envelope, to be hand delivered to the sted
parties by an agent of INTERCEPTOR.

VIA ELECTRONIC ‘Teatised a tric’ and correct copy of stich documenits to be
{X] SERVICE: electronically served on counsel of record by transmission
to Lexis-Nexis Pile und Serve.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct,

Executed on August £°l! 2007, at Oakland, California,

stan ose nants 5