Document for ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

PO BOX 6169
NOVATO, CALIFORNEA 94948-6169

4415) 808-1585

oem NY KD A BY

10

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., 8.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., 8.B. #154436
OREN P. NOAH, ESQ., S.B. #136310 ELECTRONICALLY
ASHLEY J, BENSON, ESQ., S.B. #276326

BRAYTON¢PURCELL LLP FILED.
Superior Court of California,

Attorneys at Law County of San Francisco

222 Rush Landing Road

P.O. Box 6169 APR 25 2013
Novato, California 94948-6169 Clerk of the Court
(415) 898-1555 BY: ALISON AGBAY
Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestasbestosTR@braytonlaw.com Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

attached to the Summary Complaint
herein; and DOES 1-8500.

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ) ASBESTOS
) No. CGC-10-275731
Plaintiffs, )
) PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
vs. ) DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO
) CONSTRUCTION CO., INC’S
C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; ) SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit | } UNDISPUTED FACTS
)

Date: May 9, 2013

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept: 503, Hon. Teri L. Jackson
Trial Date: June 10, 2013

Action Filed: December 17, 2010

Plaintiffs hereby submit the following responses to defendant S.J. AMOROSO
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Motion
for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, with reference to
plaintiffs' supporting evidence disputing such statements.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND

ALLEGED SUPPORTING EVIDENCE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE/EVIDENCE

AMOROSO IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THERE 18 NO
ev DENCE TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST
AMOROSO

1. On May 11, 2012, plaintiffs Robert Ross 1. Undisputed.
and Jean Ross filed a Third Amended

Complaint for Personal Injury and Loss of

Consortium - Asbestos. Plaintiffs sued

KSinjuredi 193-8) lvss-AMOCON inst sep 1 AJB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC“S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED PACTS:Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Amoroso for negligence, strict liability,
premises/contractor liability, and loss of
consortium and allege Amoroso is liable for
Mr. Ross's purportedly asbestos-related
colon cancer.

iit

Third Amended Complaint for Personal
Injury and Loss of Consortium - Asbestos
(Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit A].

2, Robert Ross worked as an asbestos
worker from 1959 through the 1990s.

itt

Third Amended Complaint for Personal
injury and Loss of Consortium - Asbestos,
26:1-45:17.

3. Throughout his career as an asbestos
worker, Mr. Ross was a member of
International. Association of Heat & Frost
Insulators and Asbestos Workers Union
("Asbestos Workers Union") Local 16.

iif
Third Amended Complaint for Personal

Injury and Loss of Consortium - Asbestos,
26:1-45:17; Defendants’ Standard

Kainjured bO34iplss-AMOCON ma sawp

2

2. Undisputed, but irrelevant. This fact has
no tendency in reason to prove he bad a
sophistication at any time. Defendant has
produced no evidence that working as an
asbestos worker from 1959 until the 1990s
provided specific knowledge and training
with respect to the hazards of asbestos nor
that Mr. Ross was required to pass any
exams exhibiting his knowledge regarding
the same.

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that plaintiff was exposed to
asbestos for which defendant is liable. Nor
does not equate to the level of knowledge in
taking of required EPA certified exams
regarding and/or reading MSDS sheets as
the plaintiff had in Johnson v. American
Standard.

Additionally, it is irrelevant in that there is
no showing that the defendant knew at the
time of exposure that plaintiff was a membe:
of an asbestos union and/or relied on that
fact.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn plaintiff of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing decedent’s
exposure to asbestos.

3. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s
membership in a union has no tendency in
reason to prove he had a sophistication at
any time. Defendant has produced no
evidence that joining the Local 16 provided
specific knowledge and training with respect
to the hazards of asbestos nor that Mr. Ross
was required to pass any exams exhibiting
his knowledge regarding the same.

PLAINTIFFS! RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSG CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACT!Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

interrogatories to Plaintiff (Personal Injury),
Set 1, 15:10-15 [Sullivan Declaration,
Exhibit B]; Answers to Interrogatories,
105:18 [Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit C].

4. To avoid breathing asbestos, Mr. Ross
“constantly wore a mask all through my
career."

iit
Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC

No. 274099), 300: 16-301:17 [Sullivan
Declaration, Exhibit DJ.

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

3

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that plaintiff was exposed to
asbestos for which defendant is liable. Nor
does not equate to the level of knowledge in
taking of required EPA certified exams
regarding and/or reading MSDS sheets as
the plaintiff had in Johnson v. American
Standard.

Additionally, it is irrelevant in that there is
no showing that the defendant knew at the
time of exposure that plaintiff was a member
of an asbestos union and/or relied on that
fact.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn plaintiff of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing decedent’s
exposure fo asbestos.

4. Disputed as misleading and an
incomplete recitation of facts. This fact has
no tendency in reason to demonstrate that
Mr, Ross had a sophistication at any time.
Defendant has failed to produce any
evidence Mr. Ross wore said mask because
he had a sophistication and the time and was
afraid of the hazards of asbestos.

Mr. Ross testified he did not wear a mask in
the beginning of his career.

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 176:12-17 [Declaration of Ashley
J. Benson (“Benson Decl.”), Exhibit 1].

Additionally, Mr. Ross further testified he
wore a mask because “asbestos and
fiberglass made [him] cough”.

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 301:15-17 [Benson Decl., Exhibit
1.

Further, there is no showing of whether any
mask worn by plaintiff was designed to be o:
was protective of airborne asbestos fibers,
that it was worn in such a way as to prevent
exposure to asbestos fibers, that it was worn
in conjunction with protective clothing and
wash down procedures necessary to prevent
exposure to asbestos fibers which would
otherwise land on plaintiff's clothing, skin
and hair and cause exposures when an
otherwise effective mask was removed.

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTED FACT

 R PONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

5. In his response to standard
interrogatories, Mr. Ross states he learned
exposure to asbestos was a potential health
hazard during approximately the 1960s.

itt

Defendants’ Standard Interrogatories to
Plaintiff (Personal Injury), Set 1, 15:16;
Answers to Interrogatories, 105:18; but see,
e.g. Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1795:5-1796:2.

6. Mr. Ross claims by 1967 he could
identify asbestos-containing fireproofing and
thermal insulation products.

iff
Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.

274099), 1479:3-18, 1505:3-1506:9,
1651:16-20,1653:17-1654:10, 1805:15-23;

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

4

5. Undisputed but irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s
knowledge that asbestos exposure was a
“potential health hazard,” has ne tendency in}
reason to demonstrate that Mr. Ross had a
sophistication at any time regarding asbestos
and that such sophistication absolves
defendant from its duty to Mr. Ross.
Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that decedent was exposed to
asbestos for which defendant is liable. Nor
does it have any bearing on decedent’s own
knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or of
asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
Owens Corning was attributed or transmitte:
to the decedent. Nor does not equate to the
level of knowledge in taking of required
EPA certified exams regarding and/or
reading MSDS sheets as the plaintiff had in
Johnson v. American Standard.

it is also irrelevant in that defendant cannot
show that plaintiff was an “expected” user off
the asbestos-containing materials disturbed
by defendant, as was Mr. Johnson.

It is further irrelevant in that there can be no
showing that even if plaintiff knew or shoul
have known about the hazards of asbestos,
that he were required to and knew or should
have known to take precautions from the
dangers of asbestos in products other than
insulation.

Additionally, it is irrelevant in that there is

no showing that the defendant knew at the

time of exposure that plaintiff was a member]

of an asbestos union and/or relied on that
fact.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn plaintiff of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing decedent’s
exposure to asbestos.

6. Undisputed but irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s
ability to identify asbestos-containing
fireproofing and thermal insulation products,
has no tendency in reason to demonstrate
that Mr, Ross had a sophistication at any
time regarding asbestos and that such
sophistication absolves defendant from its
duty to Mr. Ross.

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTED FACT

 R PONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 743:2-5, 744:8-748:1,
754:16-756:11 [Sullivan Declaration,
Exhibit F].

7. By 1979, Mr. Ross "knew that the
asbestos was bad for you and it was killing
people."

iit

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 3026:23-3027:1, 3030:12-16.

dif

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

5

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that decedent was exposed
asbestos for which defendant is liable. Nor
does it have any bearing on decedent’s own
knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or of
asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
Owens Corning was attributed or transmitte
to the decedent. Nor does not equate to the
level of knowledge in taking of required
EPA certified exams regarding and/or
reading MSDS sheets as the plaintiff had in
Johnson v. American Standard.

It is also irrelevant in that defendant cannot
show that plaintiff was an “expected” user of
the asbestos-containing materials disturbed
by defendant, as was Mr, Johnson,

It is further irrelevant in that there can be no
showing that even if plaintiff knew or shoul:
have known about the hazards of asbestos,
that he were required to and knew or should
have known to take precautions from the
dangers of asbestos in products other than
insulation.

Additionally, it is irrelevant in that there is
no showing that the defendant knew at the
time of exposure that plaintiff was a membe!
of an asbestos union and/or relied on that
fact.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn plaintiff of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing decedent’s
exposure to asbestos.

7. Undisputed but irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s
knowledge that asbestos “was bad for you
and it was killing people”, has no tendency
in reason to demonstrate that Mr. Ross had a!
sophistication at any time regarding asbestos
and that such sophistication absolves
defendant from its duty to Mr. Ross.

Additionally, 1979 is after numerous other
occasions where Amoroso employees
exposed plaintiff to asbestos. The exposures
by S.J. Amoroso Construction began in the
1960s. [See defendant’s Separate Statement
of Undisputed Facts No. 10 below]

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTED FACT

 R PONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

8. Plaintiffs contend Amoroso exposed Mr.
Ross to asbestos at four sites: San Francisco
International Airport, UCSF Medical Center,
Kaiser San Francisco Medical Center, and
the University of California Berkeley.

fit

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 2206:7-2207:2; Deposition of
obert Cantley (SFSC No. 274099),
309:1-13 [Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit F];
S.J. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc.'s
Special Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, Set Onc,
:25-2:3 [Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit G];
laintiffs’ Response to Defendant 8.J.
Amoroso Construction Co., Inc.'s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, 1:24-3:28 {Sullivan
Declaration, Exhibit K].

9. Mr. Ross testified he did not see
Amoroso employees when he worked at San
Francisco International Airport.

Vfl

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 2206:7-2208:6.

0. Mr. Cantley testified he and Mr. Ross
worked around Amoroso employees at San
Francisco International Airport during the
ate 1960s.

iff

Deposition of Robert Cantley (SFSC No.
274099), 1309:1-13.

11. Mr, Cantley claims Amoroso employees
exposed Mr. Ross to asbestos at San
Francisco International Airport when they
penetrated existing drywall and swept up
construction-related debris.

itt

position of Robert Cantley (SFSC No.
274099), 1310:10-13:11,

12. Mr. Ross testified he worked around
carpenters and laborers employed by
Amoroso during a remodel project at a

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

6

8. Undisputed. Additionally, the San
Francisco International Airport, UCSF
Medical Center, and Kaiser San Francisco
Medical Center exposures were prior to
1979. [See defendant’s Separate Statement
of Undisputed Facts Nos. 10, 12, and 21
below.]

9. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Mr. Ross
need not have seen Amoroso employees at
San Francisco International Airport to prove
they were there. Mr. Cantley's testimony,
which defendant does not dispute, suffices
as proof that defendant was present and
negligently performed work so as to expose
plaintiff to asbestos. [See defendant's
Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts No.
10 below. ]

10. Undisputed.

11. Disputed as an incomplete recitation of
the facts. Mr. Cantley also testified that this
asbestos-containing construction-related
debris included thermal insulation, drywall
mud, and fireproofing. [Deposition of
Robert Cantley (SFSC No. 274099),
1310:10-13:11.]

12. Undisputed.

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTEI

FACT

 R PONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

building on the campus of UCSF Medical
Center in 1977.

dit

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1784:16-1785:16, 1786:2-1788:8,
1790:16-24.

13. Mr, Ross wore a mask throughout the
1977 remodel project at UCSF Medical
Center.

fit

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC
No, 274099), 1792:5-7.

14. At UCSF Medical Center in 1977, Mr.
Ross observed carpenters employed by
Amoroso remove existing drywall and
Amoroso laborers sweep up
construction-related debris,

itt

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1788:9-1789:25, 1790:25-1792:3,
1792:13-1793:25.

15, Mr. Ross does not know the age of the
building at UCSF Medical Center where he
and Amoroso employees worked in 1977
and cannot identify the brand name or
manufacturer of the drywall materials

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

7

13. Disputed as misleading and an
incomplete recitation of facts. This fact has
no tendency in reason to demonstrate that
Mr, Ross had a sophistication at any time.
Defendant has failed to produce any
evidence Mr. Ross wore said mask because
he had a sophistication and the time and was
afraid of the hazards of asbestos.

Additionally, Mr. Ross further testified he
wore a mask because “asbestos and
fiberglass made [him] cough”.

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 301:15-17 [Benson Decl., Exhibit

1}.

Further, there is no showing of whether any
mask worn by plaintiff was designed to be o:
was protective of airborne asbestos fibers,
that it was worn in such a way as to prevent
exposure to asbestos fibers, that it was worn
in conjunction with protective clothing and
wash down procedures necessary to prevent
exposure to asbestos fibers which would
otherwise land on plaintiffs clothing, skin
and hair and cause exposures when an
otherwise effective mask was removed.

14. Disputed as misleading and an
incomplete recitation of facts. Plaintiff was
more specific in describing the construction.
materials that he saw Amoroso employees
working with. This testimony included
Amoroso laborers sweeping up Monokote
fireproofing and Amoroso carpenters
removing existing drywall tape and mud.

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1789:13-19 and 1790:10-15.
[Benson Decl., Exhibit 1].

15. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Mr, Ross’s
knowledge of the age of the UCSF Medical
Center building, has no tendency in reason
to demonstrate that Mr. Ross was not
exposed to asbestos from Amoroso

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTED FACT

 R PONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

removed by Amoroso's carpenters.
iil

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1790:25-1792:3.

16. Mr. Ross cannot estimate the amount of
time Amoroso's laborers swept up
construction debris in his presence at UCSF
Medical Center in 1977.

fit

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099) 1796:10-1797:8, 3021:13-3022:10.

7. Mr. Ross testified he worked around
aborers employed by Amoroso during a
remodel project at Long Hospital at UCSF
Medical Center between 1977 and 1979,

itt

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1797:13-1801:10.

8. At Long Hospital, Mr. Ross observed
aborers employed by Amoroso sweep up
construction-related debris.

iff

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1799:23-1800:4, 1801:11-20.

9. Mr. Ross cannot estimate the amount of
time Amoroso's laborers swept up
construction debris in his presence at Long
Hospital,

fil
Me

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

8

employees’ direct negligence on other
occasions. The exposures by S.J. Amoroso
Construction began in the 1960s, well within}
asbestos containing years.

[See defendant’s Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts No. 10 above]

Additionally, plaintiff himself has laid the
foundation for being able to say the
insulation was asbestos containing.

[SFSC 275731 Deposition of Robert Ross
attached as Exhibit 3 to the Benson Decl, at
417:6-418:1 and 2128:15-2129:22.]

16. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s
knowledge of the amount of time Amoroso’s|
laborers swept up construction debris in his
presence at UCSF Medical Center in 1977
thereby exposing him has no tendency in
reason to prove they were not negligent in
the sweeping of asbestos containing
materials, Additionally, the exposures by
S.J. Amoroso Construction began in the
1960s. [See defendant’s Separate Statement
of Undisputed Facts No. 10 above.]

17. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s
work around Amoroso employees at UCSF
Medical Center in the late 1970s has no
tendency in reason to demonstrate that Mr.
Ross was not exposed to asbestos from
Amoroso employees direct negligence on
other occasions. The exposures by S.J.
Amoroso Construction began in the 1960s,
well within asbestos contaiming years.

[See defendant’s Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts No. 10 above.]

18. Undisputed.

19. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s
knowledge of the amount of time Amoroso’s|
laborers swept up construction debris in his
presence and thereby exposing Mr, Ross at
Long Hospital has no tendency in reason to
prove they were not negligent in the
sweeping of asbestos containing materials.

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTED FACT

 R PONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1802:15-24.

20. During the Long Hospital remodel
project, Mr. Ross instructed laborers
employed by Turner Construction not to
sweep up pipe insulation which he believed
contained asbestos in his presence.

fil
Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.

274099), 2928: 10-2930:21,
3022:11-3024:18.

21. Mr. Ross testified he worked around

laborers employed by Amoroso during a

remodel project at Kaiser San Francisco

Medical Center between1977 and 1980.
fit

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1802:25-1805:2.

dif

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

9

Additionally, the exposures by $.J. Amoroso
Construction began in the 1960s. [See
defendant’s Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts No, 10 above.]

20. Undisputed, but irrelevant. This fact has
no tendency in reason to prove he had a
sophistication at any time. Defendant has
produced no evidence that instructing
laborers to not sweep up asbestos pipe
covering in his presence proves Mr. Ross
possessed specific knowledge and training
with respect to the hazards of asbestos.
Additionally, Mr. Ross further testified he
wore a mask because “asbestos and
fiberglass made [him] cough,” defendant has
produced no evidence countering this
testimony which was a reason for Mr. Ross’s|
instruction.

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 301:15-17 [Benson Decl., Exhibit
1]

Further, there is no showing of whether any
mask worn by plaintiff was designed to be o:
was protective of airborne asbestos fibers,
that it was worn in such a way as to prevent
exposure to asbestos fibers, that it was worn
in conjunction with protective clothing and
wash down procedures necessary to prevent
exposure to asbestos fibers which would
otherwise land on plaintiff's clothing, skin
and hair and cause exposures when an
otherwise effective mask was removed.

Additionally, the exposures by 8.J. Amoroso
Construction began in the 1960s, well before
this Long Hospital incident. [See
defendant’s Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts No. 10 above.]

21. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s
work around Amoroso employees at Kaiser
San Francisco Medical Center between 1977
and 1980 has no tendency in reason to
demonstrate that Mr. Ross was not exposed
to asbestos from Amoroso employees direct
negligence on other occasions. The
exposures by S.J. Amoroso Construction
began in the 1960s, well within asbestos
containing years. [See defendant’s Separate
Statement of Undisputed Facts No. 10
above. |

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTED FACT

 R PONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

22. At Kaiser San Francisco, Mr. Ross
observed laborers employed by Amoroso
sweep up construction-related debris.

iff

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1804:11-20.

23. Mr, Ross cannot estimate the amount of
time Amoroso's laborers swept up
construction debris in his presence at Kaiser
San Francisco Medical Center.

fit

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099) 1805:8-1806:3.

24. Mr. Ross testified he worked around
laborers employed by Amoroso during a
new construction and remodel project at an
unidentified building at the University of
California Berkeley in 1992 or 1993.

Hf

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1806:4-1808:13.

25. At the University of California
Berkeley, Mr. Ross observed laborers
employed by Amoroso sweep up
construction-related debris one time.

iit

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1807:9-12, 1809:2-22.

26. Mr, Ross wore a mask the single time
he "walked by" laborers employed by
Amoroso as they swept up
construction-related debris at the University
of California Berkeley.

fit

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1810:5-6.

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

22. Undisputed.

23. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s
knowledge of the amount of time Amoroso’s}
laborers swept up construction debris in his
presence at Kaiser San Francisco Medical
Center thereby exposing him has no
tendency in reason to prove they were not
negligent in the sweeping of asbestos
containing materials. Additionally, the
exposures by S.J. Amoroso Construction
began in the 1960s.

[See defendant’s Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts No. 10 above.]

24. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s
work around Amoroso employees at the
University of California Berkeley in 1992 or
1993 has no tendency in reason to
demonstrate that Mr. Ross was not exposed
to asbestos from Amoroso employees direct
negligence on other occasions. The
exposures by S.J. Amorose Construction
began in the 1960s, well within asbestos
containing years.

[See defendant’s Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts No. 10 above.]

25. Undisputed, but irrelevant. The
exposures by S.J. Amoroso Construction
began in the 1960s.

[See defendant’s Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts No. 10 above.]

26. Disputed as misleading. This fact has no
tendency in reason to demonstrate that Mr.
Ross had a sophistication at any time nor
that the mask was effective. Defendant has
failed to produce any evidence Mr. Ross
wore said mask because he had a
sophistication and the time and was afraid off
the hazards of asbestos. Mr. Ross testified
he wore a mask throughout his career
because “asbestos and fiberglass made [him]
cough”.

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTED FACT

 R PONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

27. Mr. Ross does not know if the remodel
site at the University of California Berkeley
was tested for the presence of
asbestos-containing materials before he and
Amoroso employees performed work there
in 1992 or 1993.

Hf

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1808:14-24.

28. Arthur Klimack started working as an
asbestos worker in 1948 and joined The
Asbestos Workers Union during the early
1950s.

fil
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation),

§24:23-525:10, 701:17-703:1 [Sullivan
Declaration, Exhibit O.

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

I

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 301:15-17 [Benson Decl., Exhibit
1]

Further, there is no showing of whether any
mask worn by plaintiff was designed to be or
was protective of airborne asbestos fibers,
that it was worn. in such a way as to prevent
exposure to asbestos fibers, that it was worn
in conjunction with protective clothing and
wash down procedures necessary to prevent
exposure to asbestos fibers which would
otherwise land on plaintiff's clothing, skin
and hair and cause exposures when an
otherwise effective mask was removed.

Additionally, the exposures by S.J. Amoroso
Construction began in the 1960s.

[See defendant’s Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts No. 10 above.]

27. Undisputed, but irrelevant. The
exposures by S.J. Amoroso Construction
began in the 1960s, well within asbestos-
containing years.

[See defendant’s Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts No. 10 above.]

28. Undisputed, but irrelevant. The
evidence offered is inadmissible. See
plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed
concurrently herewith.

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross's
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or
of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
Mr. Klimack was attributed or transmitted to
the Mr. Ross.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTED FACT

 R PONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

29. Between the early 1950s and 1962, Mr.
Klimack regularly attended Local 16's
monthly general membership meeting.

iff

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation),
575:13-576:10, 605:22-607:2, 659:5-12,
701:17-703:4, 705:3-7, 706:12-22.

30. After Mr. Klimack joined The Asbestos
Workers Union, The Asbestos Workers
Union consistently sent him its publication
The Asbestos Worker.

Ait
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

Complex Asbestos Litigation),
580:17-581:5.

31. Between approximately 1954 and 1957,
Arthur Klimack was a member the
Executive Board of Local 16.

Jil

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation), 703:12-15.

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

12

29, Undisputed, but irrelevant. The
evidence offered is inadmissible. See
plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed
concurrently herewith.

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross"’s
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or|
of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
Mr. Klimack was attributed or transmitted to
the Mr. Ross.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

30. Undisputed, but irrelevant. The
evidence offered is inadmissible. See
plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed
concurrently herewith.

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross"’s
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or|
of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
Mr, Klimack was attributed or transmitted to}
the Mr. Ross.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

31. Undisputed, but irrelevant. The
evidence offered is inadmissible. See
plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed
concurrently herewith.

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross'’s
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or|

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTED FACT

 R PONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

32. Mr. Klimack attended Local 16's
monthly Executive Board meeting
approximately from 1954 through 1961.

Jil
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

Complex Asbestos Litigation),
607:12-608:11, 703:12-19.

33. During the late 1950s, Mr. Klimack

served on Local 16's Apprentice Committee,

whose duties included apprentice training.
Vit

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation), 704:12-17.

Klos 0349 purse AMOCON-esE sawed 13

of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
Mr, Klimack was attributed or transmitted to}
the Mr. Ross.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

32. Undisputed, but irrelevant. The
evidence offered is inadmissible. See
plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed
concurrently herewith.

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross'’s
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or|
of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
Mr. Klimack was attributed or transmitted to}
the Mr. Ross.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

33, Undisputed, but irrelevant. The
evidence offered is inadmissible. See
plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed
concurrently herewith.

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross'’s
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or|
of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
Mr. Klimack was attributed or transmitted to)
the Mr. Ross.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTED FACT

 R PONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

34, During 1960 and 1961, Mr. Klimack
worked as a Business Agent for Local 16.

dil

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation), 240:16-19.

35. Mr. Klimack served as Local 16's
apprentice coordinator between 1972 and
1975,

Vit

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation),
605:22-607:5, 705:7-706:5; Deposition of
Arthur Klimack (2006), 32:1-4 [Sullivan
Declaration, Exhibit P].

36. By late 1956, Local 16 was concerned
the respiratory illnesses its members
developed, including lung cancer, were
related to exposure to asbestos dust.

fit

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

14

exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

34, Undisputed, but irrelevant. The
evidence offered is inadmissible. See
plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed
concurrently herewith.

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross"’s
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or|
of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
Mr. Klimack was attributed or transmitted to}
the Mr. Ross.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

35. Undisputed, but irrelevant. The
evidence offered is inadmissible. See
plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed
concurrently herewith.

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that Mr. Rass was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross’’s
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or|
of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
Mr. Klimack was attributed or transmitted to
the Mr. Ross.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

36. Disputed. The evidence offered is
inadmissible. See plaintiffs' evidentiary
objections filed concurrently herewith.

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not

dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTED FACT

 R PONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation), 716:9-717:2.

37. Mr. Klimack represented Local 16 at
The Asbestos Workers Union's Western
States Conference in Oakland on February 9,
1957,

fit

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation), 611:9-25,
612:16-614:5, 703:20-704:4,

38. Local 16 reported the unusually high
number of member deaths during the
previous year at the Western States
Conference on February 9, 1957 because
Local 16 suspected member deaths which
had been attributed to lung cancer were
caused by exposure to asbestos.

dit
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

Complex Asbestos Litigation),
617:14-620:14, 624:16-625:25, 717:3-718:5.

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

15

Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross'’s
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or|
of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
the Local 16 was attributed or transmitted to
the Mr. Ross.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

37. Undisputed, but irrelevant. The
evidence offered is inadmissible. See
plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed
concurrently herewith.

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross"’s
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or|
of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
Mr. Klimack was attributed or transmitted to)
the Mr. Ross.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

38. Disputed. The evidence offered is
inadmissible. See plaintiffs’ evidentiary
objections filed concurrently herewith.

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross'’s
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or|
of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
the Local 16 was attributed or transmitted to
the Mr. Ross.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there

was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTED FACTS.

" RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCO OW YN DR A BY De

RM NR NY NYY BR Ye Be Be Se Se ee Be Be Be
eo WA A PB OH se So we IY DR mA BW BW ee oS

39. The April 1957 issue of The Asbestos
Worker summarizes Local 16's report to the
Western States Conference and the
International's response:"The problems of
Asbestosis and Silicosis were discussed at
arge [at the regular annual meeting of the
Western States Conference of February 9,
975], stemming from the report of Local
No. 16, in which it was revealed that eleven
members passed away last year. A large
number of the men had definite symptoms of
the aforementioned hazards of our trade.
Most of the locals in attendance spoke on

is vital subject. President Sickles speaking
from and International point of view, said
the International in compiling facts and
figures on this matter . . At this time a
motion was made. seconded and passed that
e International continue to investigate the
causes of Asbestosis and allied lung
ailments caused by fibcrous materials, and to
etermine what measures can be found to
combat and prevent these diseases.”

Hf

The Asbestos Worker, April 1957, p. 21
(Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit Q].

a

40. Mr, Klimack represented Local 16 at the
19th General Convention of the International
Association in New Orleans in September
1957,

Ait
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

Complex Asbestos Litigation), 633:9-634:6,
704:5-11, 718:6-13.

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

16

own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

39. Disputed. The evidence offered is
inadmissible. See plaintiffs’ evidentiary
objections filed concurrently herewith.
Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross's
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or|
of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
the Local 16 was attributed or transmitted to
the Mr. Ross.

Further, there is no evidence of what was
“discussed” and there is no mention of any
recommendations, warnings or preventative
actions to be taken.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

40. Undisputed, but irrelevant. The
evidence offered is inadmissible. See
plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed
concurrently herewith.

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross's
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or
of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
the Local 16 or Mr. Klimack was attributed
or transmitted to the Mr. Ross.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

AMB,

INT
UNDISPUTED F

NSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Al. At the conference, Mr. Klimack
concluded the representatives from Local 16
and the Western States Conference who
attended the 19th General Convention were
more concerned about the hazards of
asbestos than the representatives of the
International.

fil

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation), 633:9-637:2,
718:6-21, 722:13-724:1.

42. The October 1957 issue of The Ashestos
Worker reports at the convention President
Sickles sought the authority to study the
hazards posed by asbestos:"Being well
aware of the health hazards in the Asbestos
industry, President Sickles requested
authority for the General Executive Board to
make a study of the health hazards...”

iff

The Asbestos Worker, October 1957, p. 18
[Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit R].

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

17

41. Disputed. The evidence offered is
inadmissible. See plaintiffs’ evidentiary
objections filed concurrently herewith.
Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross'’s
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or|
of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
the Local 16 or Mr. Klimack was attributed
or transmitted to the Mr. Ross.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

42. Disputed. The evidence offered is
inadmissible. See plaintiffs’ evidentiary
objections filed concurrently herewith.

Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross’’s
own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or|
of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
the Local 16 or Mr. Sickles was attributed or
transmitted to the Mr. Ross.

Further, even if taken at “face value,” Mr.
Sickles could not have been “well aware of
the health hazards” if he felt the need to
spend union funds to study the “health
hazards.” Further, there is no evidence of
what “health hazards” Mr. Sickles was “well
aware of” and what “health hazards” were to
be the subject of the study.

Further, there is no evidence that defendant
knew or had any reason to know that Mr.
Ross had or should have had any knowledge
of the “health hazards” (by any definition) o
asbestos when its employees exposed him to
asbestos.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTED FACT

 R PONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

43. By the late 1950s, Local 16 had
implemented a screening program to identify
respiratory illnesses and modified the
program after Local 20 reported on its use of
vital capacity tests and the results of those

tests.

iff

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation),
640:25-644:4, 729:20-730:25.

44. The
Worker t

April 1958 issue of The Asbestos
eports the results of Local 20's

respiratory monitoring program were
discussed at the Western States
Conference:"The health hazards of the trade
were discussed and Local No. 16 presented
its case relative to the vital ‘capacity test’
given through its health and welfare

progr ‘am.

imtroduced by Brother Ay o

This ‘vital capacity tests’ was
Local 20 two

years ago at our meeting in Seattle. The
results are very startling and should be the
cencem of each member of our trade."

iff

The Asbestos Worker, April 1958, p. 20,
(Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit S].

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

18

exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

43. Disputed as misleading. Additionally,

the evidence offere

is inadmissible. See

plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed

concurrently herewith.

This alleged “fact”
that Mr, Ross was ¢:
which defendant is
any bearing on Mr.

joes not dispute the fact
xposed to asbestos for

liable. Nor does it have
oss’s own knowledge

of the hazards of asbestos or of asbestos

content of materials

to which he was

exposed by defendant. In no way does it
show what the purported “knowledge” of the!
Local 16 was attributed or transmitted to the
Mr. Ross. Further, this fact does not show
any nexus between these “respiratory
illnesses” for which the screening program.
allegedly began and asbestos.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
josure to asbestos and subsequent
sbestos- telated injuries.

44. Disputed as misleading. Additionally,
the evidence offered is inadmissible. See
plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed

concurrently herewith.

This alleged “fact” does not dispute the fact
that Mr. Ross was exposed to asbestos for
which defendant is liable. Nor does it have
any bearing on Mr. Ross's own knowledge
of the hazards of asbestos or of asbestos
content of materials to which he was
exposed by defendant. In no way does it
show what the purported “knowledge” of the|
Local 16 was attributed or transmitted to the
Mr. Ross. Further, this fact does not show
any nexus between these “respiratory
illnesses” for which the screening program
allegedly began and asbestos.

Further, there is no evidence of what was
“discussed” and there is no mention of any
recommendations, warnings or preventative
actions to be taken,

Further, there is no evidence of what “health
hazards” are being referenced or what

AMB,

PLAIN
UNDISPUTEI

" RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

FACTSCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

45. Between 1957 and 1960, members of
Asbestos Workers Local 16 discussed the
health hazards associated with asbestos
during monthly membership meetings with
increased frequency.

iit

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation),

659:16-66 1:6, 73 1:16-24, 732:13-18,
1002:4-1003:8; Deposition of Arthur
Klimack (2006), 46:18-47:20, 49:6-52:25.

46. During a general membership meeting
in the late 1950s, Dr. Irving Selikoff
addressed the members of Local 16,
explained the hazard posed by asbestos, and
discussed control of asbestos dust.

iit
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

Complex Asbestos Litigation), 671:3-674:7,
731:1-15, 994:1-999:5.

Klojuregh 0340; plus AMOCON mst sa apd

understanding there was of such “health
hazards.”

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

45. Disputed. The evidence offered is
inadmissible. See plaintiffs’ evidentiary
objections filed concurrently herewith.

This alleged “fact” does not dispute the fact
that Mr. Ross was exposed to asbestos for
which defendant is liable. Nor does it have
any bearing on Mr. Ross'’s own knowledge
of the hazards of asbestos or of asbestos
content of materials to which he was
exposed by defendant. In no way does it
show what the purported “knowledge” of thel
Local 16 was attributed or transmitted to the
Mr. Ross.

Further, there is no evidence of what was
“discussed” and there is no mention of any
recommendations, warnings or preventative
actions to be taken.

Finally, it is irrelevant in that even if there
was no duty to warn Mr. Ross of the dangers
of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

46. Disputed. The evidence offered is
inadmissible. See plaintiffs’ evidentiary
objections filed concurrently herewith.

This alleged “fact” does n