Answer: RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                BISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER

APROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608
‘Tel. No. (510) 596-0888 Facsimile (510) 596-0899

oo ew NI ND WH FB YBN

=

MARY MARGARET RYAN, SBN 127828
BISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425 ELECTRONICALLY
Emeryville, California 94608 FILED
Telephone: (510) 596-0888 Superior Court of Californi
Facsimile: (510) 596-0899 County of San Francisos
MAY 14 2008

GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk

BY: EDNALEEN JAVIER-LACS
Attorneys for Defendant

RUDOPH AND SLETTEN, INC. _ Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
RODRICK BRECKLER and JOANN
BRECKLER, Case No. CGC 08 -274566
Plaintiffs, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RUDOLPH
AND SLETTEN, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’
vs. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM —
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) As ASBESTOS - AND REQUEST FOR JURY
Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, H, 1; and TRIAL
DOES 1-8500; et al.
Defendants, Complaint Filed: © March 12, 2608

Defendant RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN, INC, ("Defendant"), in answer to the complaint
of Plaintiffs, RODRICK BRECKLER and JOANN BRECKLER ("Plaintiffs") admits, denies and

alleges as follows:

Pursuant to the provisions of section 431.30(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant
denies each and every, all and singular, both generally and specifically, the allegations of
Plaintiffs’ unverified complaint, and further denies that Plaintiffs have been damaged as alleged,
or at all, by reason of any act or omission on the part of Defendant or its agents, servants or
employees.

il

ON

‘GA ToxicTontlGDOLPH-SLETTEN\BRECKL ERIPLD\BRECKLER-ANSWER-PLCOMPLAINT-05-14-08.doo

DEF, RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN.’S ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESBISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

Tel. No. (510) 596-0888 Facsimile (510) 596-0899

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs' complaint, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action against Defendant. :

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to join all persons and parties needed for a just
adjudication of this action.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIV! E DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claim is barred by laches, waiver and/or estoppel.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ASA SEPARATE AND ABFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action or
alternatively that the Court lacks jurisdiction due to insufficiency of process or the service thereof
and/or improper venue.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to commence this action within the time required by
the applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil
Procedure sections 337.1, 337.15, 338(a), 338(d), 340(3), 340.2, 343 and 361.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs were careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in
the complaint and said carelessness and negligence of Plaintiffs proximately contributed to the

appening of the accident, incident and occurrence alleged in the complaint, and to the injuries,

losses and damages complained of therein, if any there were, and said contributory negligence

bars a recovery or proportionately reduces any potential verdict.

GAIToxieTontJSDOLPH-SLETTENBRECKLBR\PLD'BRECKIER-ANSWER.PI-COMPLAINT-95-14-08 deo

DEF, RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN.’S ANSWER TO.
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESBISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

Tel. No. (510) 596-0888 Facsimile (510) 596-0899

Com WN DH B® WN

a se oe
ne - Sf

wo ey DH LE Ww

20
21
2
23
4
25
26
27
28

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate his alleged damages, if any there were.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiffs were injured by products used or installed at Defendant's
premises, which is denied, such injury occurred after the expiration of the useful safe life of such
products,

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that if Plaintiffs ‘suffered any damages, which is denied, such damages were the

sole and proximate result of an unavoidable accident.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiffs suffered any damages, which is denied, such damages were
caused and/or contributed to by Plaintiffs misuse of the product or products and Plaintiffs’
recovery should be barred or reduced accordingly.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that if Plaintiffs suffered any damages, which is denied, such damages were

solely and proximately caused by material modifications or alterations of the product or products
involved in this action after it or they left the custody and control of Defendant.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that any asbestos-containing product or products alleged to have caused
Plaintiffs’ injuries were manufactured, used, installed and/or distributed in mandatory compliance

with specifications promulgated by the United States government under its war powers, as set

GAL Toxic Ton gDOLPH-SLETTEN\BRECKL ERIPLDIBRECKLER-ANSWER-PLCOMPLAINT-05-14-08.d00

DEF, RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN.’S ANSWER TO.
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESBISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2600 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

Tel. No. (510) 596-0888 Facsimile (510) 596-0899

forth in the U. S. Constitution, and that any recovery by Plaintiffs is barred as a consequence of
the exercise of those sovereign powers.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that any product or products alleged by Plaintiffs to have caused their injuries
were manufactured, installed, used or distributed in compliance with specifications provided by
third parties to Defendant and/or in compliance with all applicable health and safety statutes and
regulations.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiffs suffered any damages, which is denied, the risk of any such
damages was not foreseeable to Defendant. Defendant at all times material hereto acted in

accordance with the industry custom and practice and the state of scientific. knowledge available

“to manufacturers, installers and/or users of asbestos-containing products.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it received no notice of any dangerous, hazardous or defective condition or
any breach of warranty, either expressed or implied.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendant is barred by. the holding of Privette v. -
Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ exposure to any asbestos-containing product or products
allegedly used or installed at Defendant's premises was minimal and insufficient to establish the
probability that said product or products were a legal cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.

iti

GAN Toxic exit OLPH-SLETTENBRECKLURWPLDIBRECKLER- ANSWER-PIL-COMPLAINT-05-14-08 doc

DEF, RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN.’S ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESBISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

Tel, No. (510) 596-0888 Facsimile (510) 596-0899

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that this action is barred by the applicable state and/or-federal industrial
insurance and/or Workers' Compensation laws, including, but not limited to, California Labor
Code sections 3601 and 3602, and 33 U:S.C. Section 905.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint, RODRICK.
BRECKLER was employed by persons other than Defendant; was entitled to receive and did
receive Workers' Compensation benefits from said employer(s) or their insurers; and that said
employer(s) were negligent and careless in and about the matters referred to in Plaintiffs’
complaint. Defendant is, therefore, entitled to set-off any such benefits received by Plaintiffs
against any judgment rendered in Plaintiffs’ favor and said employer(s) are barred from any
recovery by lien or otherwise against Defendant in connection with this matter.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs voluntarily and knowingly assumed the alleged risks and hazards
incident to the alleged operations, acts and conduct at the times and places alleged in Plaintifis’
complaint and that Plaintiff's said acts proximately caused and contributed to the alleged /
damages, if any there were.

: TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that at all times relevant to the matters alleged in Plaintiff's complaint,
RODRICK BRECKLER’S employers were sophisticated users of asbestos-containing products
and said employers’ negligence in providing said products to its employees was a superseding
and/or intervening cause of Plaintiff's injuries, if any there were.
iti ,
iit

GAY ToxicTestSuDOLPH-SLETTENBRECKLERIPLD GRECKLER- ANS WER-PLOOMPLAINT.O5-14:08 doe

DEF. RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN.’S ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR. PERSONAL INJURIES:BISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION.

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

Tel. No. (510) 596-0888 Facsimile (510) 596-0899

oO Oo ND NW RB BW NY

wy ww WM NR NY YY = et
BseRRE BS ® SF Ce Baur BRT S

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that there was no concert of action among Defendant and other defendants to
this action and that any alleged liability or responsibility of Defendant, which is denied, is
minimal in proportion to the alleged liability and responsibility of this person and entities
including the other defendants herein. Plaintiffs should therefore be limited to secking recovery
from Defendant for a proportion of the alleged injuries and damages for which Defendant is
allegedly liable or responsible, all such alleged liability and responsibility being denied.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
to the extent the complaint alleges that Defendant has "market share" liability or "enterprise
liability", the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against
Defendant.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that it is entitled to set-off any settlement, judgments, or similar amounts
received by Plaintiffs, against any judgment rendered against it in Plaintiffs' favor.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges, in accordance with section 1431.2 of the Civil Code, known as the Fair
Responsibility Act of 1986, that if Plaintiffs’ complaint states a cause of action, each defendant is
liable, if at all, only for those non-economic damages allocated to each defendant in direct
proportion to each defendant's percentage of fault, if any. Defendant requests a judicial
determination of the amount of non-economic damages, if any. Defendant also requests a judicial
determination of the amount of non-economic damages, if any, allocated to Defendant in direct
proportion to Defendant's percentage of fault, if any, and a separate judgment in conformance
therewith. ,

Vii

GM Toxic Tor §2DOLPH-SLETTENWBRECKLERIPLDIBRECKE RIC ANS WER-PI-COMPL AINT-05- 14-08 doe.
DEF. RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN.’S ANSWER TO . °
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES,1 “TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 AS A'SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
3 | Defendant alleges that the damages and injuries, if any, were proximately caused or contributed
4 || to, in whole or in part, by the negligence or fault or other acts and/or omissions of persons or
5 | entities other than Defendant, for which Defendant is not responsible.
6 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
8.] Defendant alleges that neither the complaint nor any purported causes of action alleged therein
2 9 || state facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages against Defendant.
& 23 0 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
z Bs 1 AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
5 g Je 12 | Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ instant action is barred or, alternatively, merged into a prior
a 3 | cause of action for which Plaintiffs have previously sued upon, recovered, and dismissed with
g ise 14 | prejudice, thereby requiring a complete extinguishment of the instant action due to the doctrines
Bue 15 | of res judicata and collateral estoppel. _
e ° I S 6 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 bs 17 AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
s
8

8 | Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs' instant action is barred and discharged, pursuant to Title 11

9 | U.S.C. section 1141(d), and that Plaintiffs’ action violates the pending injunction against such
20 ||. claims that exists, by operation of law, pursuant to Title 11 U.S.C. section 524(a)(2).
21 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22 AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
23 | Defendant alleges that its products were manufactured, produced, supplied, sold and distributed
24 | pursuant to contract with the United States government, and that any recovery by Plaintiffs are
25 | barred by consequence of the judicially recognized doctrine of immunity conferred upon that
26 | contractual relationship and any occurrences arising therefrom.

27 q fil

28 / fs

GAN ToxicTorAfAAOOLPH-SLETTENIBRECKLERVLDIBRECKLER-ANSWER-PLCOMPL AINT-05-14-08 dor.

DEF, RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN."S ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES,BISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ie, California 94608

510) 596-0899

2000 Powell Streei, Suite 1425, Emeryvi
Tel. No. {510} 596-0888 Facsit

Oo OY DH BF WO HY =

NoN Ww NN BRD ea
BReRRR BSE ESE SRA RBE GH AS

THIRTY-FIRST . AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that the allegations of the complaint, are uncertain, vague and ambiguous.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that the allegations of the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to sections
583.210 through 583.250, and 583.410 through 583.430 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure, and other applicable code sections.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it does not have and never has had a successor, successor-in-business,
successor-in-product line or portion thereof, successor-in-interest, assignee, predecessor,
predecessor-in-business, predecessor-in-product line or portion thereof, predecessor-in-interest, :
partner, subsidiary, whole or partial or ownership or membership relationship with the entity upon
which Plaintiffs bases their allegations of liability.

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that it did not have a sufficient market share with respect to products and

materials which Plaintiffs allegedly caused the alleged injuries and damages. Defendant may not
be held liable to Plaintiffs for any alleged share of said market or upon any theory premised upon
market-share liability.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiffs sustained injuries or damages attributable to the use of any
product researched, tested, studied, manufactured, fabricated, inadequately researched, designed,
inadequately tested, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, sold,
inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, arranged,

rebranded, manufactured for others, packaged, advertised and/or which contained or lacked

GAi Tonic Tor QUDOLPH-SL-ETTENBRECKLERIPLDIBRECKLER-ANSWER-PE-COMPLAINT-05-14-08.doo

DEF. RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN.’S ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESBISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER

APROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

Tei, No. (510) 596-0888 Facsimile (510) 596-0899

warnings by Defendant, which allegations are expressly denied, the injuries or damages were
proximately caused by the unreasonable and unforeseeable misuse, abuse, alteration, or improper
maintenance of the product by Plaintiffs or by others. :

. THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS-A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that at all times mentioned, Plaintiffs consented to the alleged acts of
Defendant.

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that all claims asserted by Plaintiffs was proximately caused by a superseding,
intervening cause. :

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that the entire complaint and each cause of action thereof, is barred on the
grounds that the products or materials referred to in the complaint, if any, were not a substantial
factor in bringing about the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiff.
THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of punitive or exemplary
damages in this action. Such an award would be unconstitutional unless Defendant is accorded
the safeguards provided under the Constitution of the State of California and the Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiffs' claims arise out of contract, Plaintiffs’ claims do not
state facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiffs to an award of punitive or exemplary damages against
Defendant.

‘tt

‘GAY Toxic Tor#1MDOLPH-SLBTTENIERECKLERIPLDIBRECKLER-ANSWER-PECOMPLAINT.5-14.08.do0 ”

DEF. RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN.’S ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESm=

FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 ASA SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
3 | Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs, at all times mentioned, was not in privity of contract with
4 | Defendant, and that said iack of privity bars any recovery by Plaintiffs against Defendant under
5] any theory of breach of warranty.
6 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
8 | Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs failed to give adequate and timely notice of any alleged breach of
2 9 | warranty.
2 10 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
=o 11 | AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
£° 12 | Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs' entire complaint, is barred by the Statute of Frauds to the extent

w

that any such causes of action are based on alleged oral agreements.
FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

&

=
a

Defendant alleges that all products and materials researched, tested, studied, manufactured,

3

fabricated, inadequately researched, designed, inadequately tested, labeled, assembled,

BISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER
‘A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Em
“Tel. No. (510} 596-0888 Facsi
a

18 | distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for

19 | installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, arranged, rebranded, manufactured for others,

20 || packaged, advertised and/or which contained or lacked warnings by Defendant which allegations
21 | are expressly denied, were not defective in any manner, as said products and materials conformed
22 | with the state-of-the-art in existence at all times mentioned in the complaint,

23 FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24 | AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
25 | Defendant alleges that its alleged actions, which are the subject of the complaint, were lawful.

26 FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

27 ASA SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
28 Defendant alleges that its alleged actions, which are the subject of the complaint, were justified.

Gr ToxieTon\KOBOLPH-SLETTENBRECKLERWLDBRECKLER-ANSWER-PL-OGMPLAINT-O514-08 doe

DEF, RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN.’S ANSWER TO.
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESBISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER
‘A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

- Tel. No. (510) 596-0888 Facsimile (510) 596-0899

FORTY-SEVENTH APFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue Defendant.
FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that any danger or defect on the premises was obvious or could have been
observed by Plaintiffs' exercise of reasonable care.

FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it warned Plaintiffs' employers of all dangers on the premises known to
Defendant.

FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have improperly split their causes of action and seeks to maintain
a duplicative lawsuit based on the same facts and circumstances as a lawsuit previously filed.

FIFTY-PIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that it presently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a

belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant
reserves the right to assert additional defenses in the event discovery indicates that they would be.
appropriate. Oo

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:

1. That Plaintiffs’ take nothing by reason of their complaint herein;

2 That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant;

3. For costs of suit incurred herein;

4 For appropriate credits and set-offs arising out of any payment of Workers‘

Compensation benefits as alleged above;

GAY Toxic ont BOLPH-SLETTENBRECKLERIPLDBRECKLER- ANSWER -PLCOMPLAINT 05-14-08 dos

DEF. RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN,’S ANSWER TO.
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES:BISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608
Tel. No. (510} 596-0888 Facsimile (510) 596-0899

3. For a judicial determination of the amount of non-economic damages, if any,
allocated to Defendant in direct proportion to RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN,
INC.’S percentage of fault, if any, and a separate judgment in conformance
therewith; and

6. For appropriate credits and set-offs arising from allocation of liability to other

named and unnamed tort feasors; and

7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: May 14, 2008 BISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER
By: Dies Pest Ji, ce -
MARY MARGARET RYAN
Attorneys for Defendant

RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN, INC.

GAY ToxicTow KQOOL PH. S187 TENBRECKLERIPLD\BRECKLER- ANSWER PI-COMPLAINT-05-14-08.d00

DEF. RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN,’S ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES.BISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER

‘A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

Tel. No. (510) 596-0888 Facsimile (510) 596-0899

NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §631, RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN, INC.
hereby gives Notice Of Its Request For Trial By Jury. : :

Dated: May 14, 2008 BISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER
By: a
MARY GAREPRYAN
Attorneys for Defendant

RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN, INC.

GAr Toxicon QOL PH-SLETTENBRECKLER\PLDIBRECKLER-ANSWER PILCOMPLAINT-05-14-08 doc
DEF, RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN.’S ANSWER TO. .
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

BISHOP, BARRY, HOWE, HANEY & RYDER
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

Tel, No. (510) 596-0888 Facsimile (510) 596-0899

Oo OND HH BR BW DH

RN De ee a i es a
BS RREBBRE BE Se WADE SEHR SES

Rodrick Breckler, et al. v. Asbestos Defendants
San Francisco Superior Court Action No,CGC-08-274566
Our File: 271-tba

PROOF OF SERVICE VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

1, the undersigned, certify that | am employed:in the County of Alameda, State of
California, that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My
business address is Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder, 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425,
Emeryville, California 94608. My electronic address is tscafidas@bbhhr.com

On the date below written I served the following document(s):

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM —
ASBESTOS - AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

By transmitting a true copy to:

David R. Donadio
Kimberly J. Chu
BRAYTON * PURCELL
222 Rush Landing Road
Novato, CA 94948

Tel: 415/898-1555

Fax: 415/898-1247

AND
***Counsel on Lexis-Nexis Service List***
in the following manner:

By uploading a true copy(ies) thereof with service and/or notification pursuant to the
service list as maintained by the CourtLink eFile system:

Xx (By LEXIS/NEXIS File & Serve , fka CourtLink eFile)) I caused such
document to be electronically uploaded into the LexisNexis File & Serve system.
(http://www lexisnexis.com/courtlink/) pursuant to Court Order on the date listed
below.

T-declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
This declaration was executed on May 14, 2008 at Emeryville, California.

Aeiaye Qa dl

ANASTASIA SCAFI mas)

el

PROOF OF SERVICE