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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                BRAYTON@PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS ATLAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

PO BOX 6169
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., 8.B. #154436
OREN P. NOAH, ESQ., S.B. #136310
JAMIE A. NEWBOLD, ESQ., S.B. #207186
BRAYTON%PURCELL LLP

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Attorneys at Law Superior Court of California,
222 Rush Landing Road County of San Francisco
P.O. Box 6169

APR 25 2013

Clerk of the Court
BY: ALISON AGBAY
Deputy Cle

Novato, California 94948-6169
(415) 898-1555
Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestasbestosTR@braytonlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ASBESTOS
No. CGC-10-275731

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS,
INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS :

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS,
Plaintiffs,

VS.

C.C. MOORE & CO, ENGINEERS;

Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit I

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

Nl ee

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 JOHNSON CONTROLS,
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.
Issue 1: Plaintiffs claims for negligence against Johnson Controls must fail because Johnson
Controls did not owe Robert Ross a duty of cave due the products of others.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND

ALLEGED SUPPORTING EVIDENCE PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE/EVIDENCE

1. Undisputed.

1. Plaintiffs assert causes of action for
negligence, strict liability and loss of
consortium.

Mt

Ninjuredt39349\pldss JOHCON wend 1 OPN
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS.CO A A WR WH

NN NY NY NY NY RN Rm matt
eV DA nA RF YH FF SGC ww TY KH BF HN SF S

Third Amended Complaint and Dismissal

of False Representation and punitive
lamages. attached as Exs. A and B to

Declaration of Paul S. Lecky Dec. (Lecky
ec,

2. Plaintiffs’ claims against Johnson
Controls arise out of Mr. Ross’ work as an
insulator, which began in 1959 and
continued until at ieast 1986.

Third Amended Complaint, attached as
Ex. A to Lecky Dee.

3. In order to determine the allegations
against it, Johnson Controls served
plaintiffs with written discovery, including
special interrogatories and requests for
production of documents on December 20,

First Set of Special Interrogatories to
Plaintiffs by Johnson Controls, attached
as Exhibit C to Lecky Dec.

4. Mr. Ross is the only witness identified
against Johnson Controls.

Plaintiffs’ Response to Johnson Controls,
Ine.’s Special ‘ aterrogatories, Set One,
response to No. 15, at p. 32:6-15, attached
as Ex, D to Lecky Dec.

5. Plaintiffs contend that Johnson Controls
exposed Mr. Ross to asbestos at multiple
job sites in the 1960s and 1970s by
disturbing asbestos-containing fireproofing
in Mr. Ross’ presence in order to install
hangars to which the Johnson Controls
employees attached control tubing.

Plaintiffs’ Response to Johnson Controls,
Inc.’s Special Interrogatories, Set One,
response to no. 14 at pp. 17:13-22:10,
attached as Ex. D to Lecky Dee.

Plaintiffs’ Amended/Supplemental
Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, pp.
23:1-8, 24:16-24, 25:16-24, 26:16—27:3,
32:5-12, 37:14-25, 41:18-28, 42:12-24, ,
attached as Ex. K to Lecky Dee.

6. Plaintiffs do not contend that Mr. Ross

was exposed asbestos due to any products
installed or applied by Johnson Controls.

KAlnjured\y9349\p\dss JOHCON wp

2. Undisputed.

3. Undisputed that JOHNSON
CONTROLS served written discovery on.
plaintiffs. However, plaintiffs are not
aware of defendant’s motive or intent when
it served plaintiffs with written discovery.

4. Undisputed.

5. Undisputed.

6. This fact is moot as plaintiffs have
dismissed their cause of action for products
liability against defendant.

OPN

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS:Ce WD HW Bw Nw

MN YN PN NR RD Re Re eR me
SYD AW F&F YB NH &— FDO we NIA A RD NH = S

Plaintiffs’ Response to Johnson Controls,
Inc.'s Special Interrogatories, Set One,
response to no. I at p. 1:21-28, attached as
Ex. D to Lecky Dec.

7. Plaintiffs do not contend Mr. Ross was
exposed to asbestos due to any product or
materials manufactured, distributed or sold
by Johnson Controls.

Plaintiffs’ Response to Johnson Controls,
Inc.’s Special Interrogatories, Set One,
response to no. 24 at p. 58:11-21, attached
as Ex. D to Lecky Dec.

8. Plaintiffs do not contend the Johnson
Controls was responsible for workplace
safety.

Plaintiffs’ Response to Johnson Controls,
Inc.’s Special Interragatories, Set One,
response to no. 14 at. Pp. 17:13-22:10,
attached as Ex. D to Lecky Dee.

Plaintiffs’ Amended/Supplemental
Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, pp.
23:1-8, 24:16-24, 25:16-24, 26:16—27:3,
32:5-12, 37:14-25, 41:18-28, 42:12-24, ,
attached as Ex. K to Lecky Dec.

9. Mr. Ross disturbed insulation that he
believed contained asbestos at the very
same job sites he alleges Johnson Controls
exposed him to asbestos.

Plaintiffs’ Response to Johnson Controls,
Inc.’s Special Interrogatories, Set One,
response to no, 14 at pp. 17:13-22:10,
attached as Ex. D to Lecky Dec.

10. Plaintiffs allege other contractors
exposed Mr. Ross to asbestos dust by
disturbing asbestos-containing gaskets,
fireproofing and insulation in Mr. Ross’
vicinity at the same job sites, and many
others, as Johnson Controls did.

KAinjured\t 93 s9\pidias JOHCON wed

7. This fact is moot as plaintiffs have
dismissed the cause of action for products
liability against this defendant.

8. Disputed. Plaintiffs are not contending
that JOHNSON CONTROLS had the duty
to ensure that the workplace in question
was free from all types of hazards. Rather,
JOHNSON CO! OLS was responsible
for ensuring that it did not contribute any
workplace hazards. Specifically,
JOHNSON CONTROLS had a duty fo
refrain from contaminating the workplace
with airborne asbestos fibers. ‘
Johnson Controls, Inc.’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiffs Nos.
Ted at pp. 3:10 to 4:18 as Ex. E to Lecky
ec.

Plaintiffs ” Response to Johnson Controls,
Inc.’s Special Interrogatories, Set One,
response to nos. 11-17 at pp. 5:14-38:23,
attached as Ex. D to Lecky Dec,

9. Undisputed but irrelevant. JOHNSON
CONTROLS disturbed asbestos-containing
fireproofing in Mr. ROSS’s presence,
thereby exposing him to asbestos.
JOHNSON CONTROLS is not immune
from liability for exposing a person to
asbestos if that person had already been
exposed to other asbestos. Rather, it is up
to the trier of fact to determine the
comparative responsibility for all sources of
the plaintiff's asbestos exposure,

10. Disputed to the extent this fact asserts
plainti 's sworn discovery responses are

“allegations.” Undisputed that JOHNSON
CONTROLS disturbed asbestos-containing
materials in Mr. ROSS’s presence, thereby
exposing him to asbestos.

PN

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS.oOo UW DH BF WN

RN RP N RP NR RN RD mm eae
C2 DA AW ON B&B SF OD we WA HD RB WHY = S

Plaintiffs’ Amended/Supplemental
Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, pp.
2321-8, 24:16-24, 25:16-24, 26:16—27:3,
32:5-12, 37:14-25, 41:18-28, 42:12-24, ,
attached as Ex. K to Lecky Dec.

11. Plaintiffs do not know when Johnson
Controls learned of the dangers of asbestos.

Plaintiffs’ Response to Johnson Controls,
Inc.’s Special Interrogatories, Set One,
response to nos. 18-28 at pp.38:24—51:28,
attached as Ex. D to Lecky Dee.

JOHNSON CONTROLS is not immune
from liability for exposing a person to
asbestos, if that person had already been
exposed to other asbestos. Rather, it is up
to the trier of fact to determine the
comparative responsibility for all sources of
the plaintiff's asbestos exposure.

11. Undisputed but irrelevant. This fact
has no tendency in reason to demonstrate
when JOHNSON CONTROLS knew or
should have known of the dangers of
asbestos, and it is irrelevant to show
JOHNSON CONTROLS was negligent
when it failed to use safe work practices
around Mr. ROSS thereby exposing him to
asbestos.

Defendant does not present any evidence
that it did not know of the dangers of
asbestos during the relevant time period.
Nor does defendant present any evidence
that it should have known of the dangers of
asbestos during the relevant time period.

Issue No. 2: JCI did not owe Mr. Ross a Duty because as a member of the Asbestos

Workers’ Union, he should be deemed to have his union’s knowledge of the dangers

inherent with and around asbestos and is a sophisticated user under Johnson v. American

Standards Inc.

12. Robert Ross joined the Asbestos
Workers, Local 16 in San Francisco, in
March 1959.

Deposition of Robert Ross taken in the
matter of Robert Ross v. Asbestos
Defendants, San Francisco County
Superior Court, case number 274099, p.
571:18-22, attached as Ex. E to Lecky Dec

13. Robert Ross received both classroom
and field training in the Asbestos Workers’
apprenticeship program.

Deposition of Robert Ross at p, 572:8-11,
attached a Exhibit E to Lecky Dec

K.Mlojured19340ipldss JOHCON wpe

12. Undisputed.

13. Undisputed. However, this fact has no
tendency in reason to demonstrate that
plaintiff had a sophistication at any time.
Defendant has produced no evidence that
the courses and hands-on training

Mr. ROSS took as an apprentice provided
specific knowledge and training with
respect to the hazards of asbestos.
Defendant fails to produce any evidence
with regard to the content of the courses

-and particularly with regard to what, if any,

training plaintiff received with respect to

OPN

4
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS14. Robert Ross’ class-room instructor was
Richard Holmes.

Deposition of Robert Ross taken in this
action at p. 95:4-15, attached as Ex. F to
Lecky Dec.

Deposition of Robert Cantley taken in the
matter of Robert Ross v. Asbestos
Defendants, San Francisco County
Superior Court, case number 274099, at p
2364:15-2365:13, attached as Exhibit L to
Lecky Dec.

| 15. Robert Ross completed his

apprenticeship program in approximately
1962 or 1963.

Deposition of Robert Ross at p. 2365:6-10,
attached as Ex. L to Lecky Dec.

| 16. Mr. Ross attended union meetings at
| least once per year, and sometimes more

often.

Deposition of Robert Ross at p. 573:1-7,
attached as Ex. E to Lecky Dec,

17. Mr. Ross also received the Asbestos
Worker Journal, although he denied reading
it.

Deposition of Robert Ross at pp. 2365:22-
2366:6, attached as Ex. L to Lecky Dec

K Alpjured.t 9349%pldiess JOHCON woe

5

asbestos hazards. Although plaintiff was
examined regarding the duration of the
program and the length and frequency of
classes, defendant never inquired of
plaintiff regarding the substance of his
training.

14. Undisputed.

15. Undisputed. However, this fact has no
tendency in reason to demonstrate that
plaintiff had a sophistication at any time.
Defendant has produced no evidence that
participating and completing an 6
apprenticeship program provided specific
knowledge and training with respect to the
hazards of asbestos. Defendant fails to ..
produce any evidence with regard to the
content of the program and particularly with

‘Togard to what, if any, specialized
int

‘ormation and training Mr. ROSS was
provided with respect to asbestos hazards.

16. Undisputed. However, this fact has no
tendency in reason to demonstrate that
plaintiff had a sophistication at any time.
Defendant has produced no evidence that
attending union meetings or receiving union
publications provided specific knowledge
and training with respect to the hazards of
asbestos. Defendant fails to produce any
evidence with regard to the content of the
publications and meetings and particularly
with regard to what, if any, specialized
information and training Mr. ROSS gleaned
with respect to asbestos hazards.

17. Undisputed that Mr. ROSS received the
Asbestos Worker Journal and failed to read
it. However the fact that Mr. ROSS
received the Asbestos Worker Journal has
no tendency in reason to demonstrate that
plaintiff had a sophistication at any time.
Also, it does not have any bearing on

OPN

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEPENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS.owe I HA wD

10
i
12
13
4
“45
16
17
18
19
20
2i
22
23
24
25
26
2
28

18. Mr. Ross wore a mask throughout his
career as an insulator.

Deposition of Robert Ross at p. 300:16-25,
attached as Ex. E to Lecky Dec.

19. The Asbestos Workers Union, in
articular Local No. 16, was aware of the
azards of asbestos by 1957.

Declaration of Howard Spielman
“Spielman Dec.” at 913 and Exhibits 1-9
thereto, filed in Eugene Millard v.
Associated Insulation of California,
Superior Court of the County of San
Francisco, case No. CGC-09-275091,
attached, as Exhibit G to Lecky Dec.

Deposition of Steven Steele taken in Sylvia
Currier v. Asb. Defs, San Francisco
Superior Court Case No. GCG-06-454323,
at pp. 142:7-143:16, attached as Ex. H to
Lecky Dec.

20. The April, 1957 issue of The Asbestos
Worker reported that, "The problems of
Asbestosis and Silicosis were discussed at
large [at the regular annual meeting of the
Western States Conference on February 9,

KNinjureds9249ip\dinss JOBCON,

6

plaintiff's own knowledge of the hazards of
asbestos. 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
plaintiff's exposure to asbestos.

18. Undisputed but irrelevant. Defendant
has offered no evidence that wearing a
paper mask was effective in preventing
exposure. 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
plaintiffs clothing, skin and hair and cause
exposures when an otherwise effective
mask was removed.

19. Disputed to the extent this fact is
supported by evidence that is inadmissible
based on the lack of authentication. (See
plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed
concurrently herewith.) This fact further
fails to show that plaintiff ever received,
read or had the opportunity to read'this’ .
magazine as he did not join the union until
1959, two (2) years after the publication of
this magazine. :

it further fails to include what type of
“hazards” of asbestos, what diseases could
result, what levels of asbestos exposure
were dangerous, or how.one was exposed to
the same which would result in the
undefined “hazards” referred to in this fact.
Also, it does not have any bearing on
plaintiffs own knowledge of the hazards of
asbestos, Defendant further offers no
evidence that plaintiff was at the Western
States Conference. 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 plaintiff's exposure to
asbestos.

20. Disputed to the extent this fact is
supported by evidence that is inadmissible
based on the lack of authentication. (See
plaintiff's evidentiary objections filed
concurrently herewith.) This fact further

. OPN

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS0 Oo YD wm Bw wD =

o

13

15

1957], stemming from the report of Local
No. 16, in which it was revealed that eleven
members passed away last yea A large
number of the men had definite symptoms
of the aforementioned hazards of our trade."
Spielman Decl., Exhibit 1 at pp. 19-22,
attached as G to Lecky Dec.,

Deposition of Steven Steele at pp. 142:7-
143:10, attached as Ex. H to Lacky Dec.

21. The October, 1957 issue of The
Asbestos Worker advised: "Health Hazards:
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 ...."

Spielman Decl., Exhibit 2 at pp. 19-22,
attached as G to Lecky Dec.

22. The April, 1958 issue of The Asbestos
Worker noted: "The health hazards of the
trade were discussed and Local No. 16
presented its case relative to the vital

KAfnjoresh19349\pldirss JOH CON. wy

1

fails to show that plaintiff ever received,
read or had the opportunity to read this
magazine as he did not join the union until
1959, two (2) years after the publication of
this magazine.

It further fails to include what type of
“hazards” of asbestos, what diseases could
result, what levels of asbestos exposure
were dangerous, or how one was exposed to
the same which would result in the
undefined “hazards” referred to in this fact.
Also, it does not have any bearing on
plaintiff's own knowledge of the hazards of
asbestos. Defendant further offers no
evidence that plaintiff was at the Western
States Conference. 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 plaintiff's exposure to
asbestos.

21. Undisputed but irrelevant. Vague as to
“health hazards.” The evidence cited in
support of this fact is inadmissible based on
the lack of authentication. (See plaintiff's
evidentiary objections filed concurrently
herewith.)

It further fails to show that plaintiff ever
received, read or had the opportunity to read
this magazine as he did not join the union
until 1959, two (2) years after the
publication of this magazine. It further fails
to include what type of “hazards” of
asbestos, what diseases could result, what
levels of asbestos exposure were dangerous,
or how one was exposed to the same which
would result in the undefined “hazards”
referred to in this fact. Also, it does not
have any bearing on plaintiff's own
knowledge of the hazards of asbestos.
Defendant offers no evidence that plaintiff
read the publication or was at the 19"
International Convention. 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 plaintiff's exposure to
asbestos.

22. Undisputed but irrelevant. Vague as to
“health hazards.” The evidence cited in
support of this fact is inadmissible based on
the lack of authentication. (See plaintiff's

OPN

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTSo CU Aw TDN OR BR BH OL

‘capacity test’ given through its health and
welfare program .... The results are very
startling and should be the concern of each
member of our trade.”

Spielman Decl., Exhibit 3 at pp. 20, 22;
attached as Ex. G to Lecky Dec.

23. The May, 1959 issue of the Asbestos
Worker reported that, "Health Hazards
relating to our trade were discussed and
various types of respirators were presented
and.the good points of each were brought
out."

Spielman Decl., Exhibit 4 at pp. 20-22;
attached as Ex. G to Lecky Dec,

Spielman Decl., Exhibit 5 at second to last
page, attached as Ex. G to Lecky Dec.

24. Plaintiffs’ expert, Richard Cohen, MD,
has expressed the following opinions: (1)
“the medical and scientific literature makes
it clear that, at least as early as 1931, it was
known in the medical and scientific
community that breathing asbestos dust was
harmful and dangerous to human health" (2)
"it was clear by 1952 that, regardless of the
setting, a person exposed to airborne

Knjuredh9349ipbluss JOHCON.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

evidentiary objections filed concurrently
herewith.) It further fails to show that
plaintiff ever received, read or had the
opportunity to read this magazine as he did
not join the union until 1959, one (1) year
after the publication of this magazine.

It further fails to include what type of
“hazards” of asbestos, what diseases could
result, what levels of asbestos exposure
were dangerous, or how one was exposed to
the same which would result in the
undefined “hazards” referred to in this fact.

Also, it does not have any bearing on
plaintiff's own knowledge of the hazards of
asbestos. 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 plaintiff's exposure to asbestos.

23. Undisputed but irrelevant. Vague as to
“health hazards.” The evidence cited in
support of this fact is inadmissible based on
the lack of authentication. (See plaintiff's
evidentiary objections filed.concurrently
herewith.) we

"It further fails to show that plaintiff ever’ ~

received, read or had the opportunity to read
this magazine as he did not join the union
until 1959, one (1) year after the publication
of this magazine. It further fails to include -
what type of “hazards” of asbestos, what
diseases could result, what levels of
asbestos exposure were dangerous, or how
one was exposed to the same which would
result in the undefined “hazards” referred to
in this fact. Also, it does not have any
bearing on plaintiff's own knowledge of the
hazards of asbestos. 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 plaintiffs exposure to
asbestos.

24. Undisputed. This fact shows that
defendant should have known that exposing
people to airborne asbestos fibers would
increase their risk of disease. It would be up
to the trier of fact to determine whether this
fact would support a verdict with regard to
the relative contributory fault of plaintiff, if
any. It does not support any finding that the
knowledge of the dangers of asbestos was

OPNN

oD OY mH HD B® w

asbestos was at an increased risk of exclusive to the union or to plaintiff, such

developing cancer"; (3) in 1950s, "there that defendant would have had no
was a cancer concern not only for the knowledge or reason to know that it was
asbestos factory workers, but for other creating a danger to others.

trades exposed to asbestos working with
asbestos containing products,” including
asbestos insulation workers; (4)
“Information was readily available in the
late 1950s and 1960s concerning the health
hazards of asbestos exposure and the
associated risk of developing an asbestos-
related disease”; and
6) in 1964 Dr. Irving Selikoff’s study
inding that a high proportions of asbestos
insulators had died from cancer compared
to the general population was “widely
circulated in the mainstream media
(newspapers).”

Declaration of Richard Cohen filed by
plaintiff in Betty Peterson, et al., v.
Associated Insulation of California,
Superior Court of the County of San
Francisco, case No. CGC-10-275498, at §
7, 8(h),and 10, attached Ex. I to Lecky

Dee.

25. Plaintiffs’ response to Johnson _ 25. Undisputed. This fact shows that .
Controls’ interrogatory asking plaintiffs to” defendant should have known that exposing
state all facts which support their claims people to airborne asbestos fibers would . .
against it states: “The hazards associated increase their risk of disease. It would be up
with exposure to asbestos and the effect of to the trier of fact to determine whether this
asbestos exposure on humans have been fact would support a verdict with regard to
well documented throughout this century. the relative contributory fault of plaintiff, if
As early as the 1930s there existed a wealth any. It does not support any finding that the
of information available for defendant knowledge of the dangers of asbestos was
which evidences that exposure to asbestos exclusive to the union or to plaintiff, such
and asbestos -containing products was a that defendant would have had no

health hazard.” knowledge or reason to know that it was

creating a danger to others.
Plaintiffs’ Response to Johnson Controls,
Ine.’s Special Interrogatories, Set One,
response to no. 14 at p. 28:17-21, attached
as Ex. D to Lecky Dec.

Issue 3: Plaintiffs claim for product liability causes of action should be dismissed because
plaintiffs do not allege JCI manufactured or sold any products.

Johnson Controls incorporates herein the

above stated Undisputed Material Facts _

Nos. 1-2, as though restated in full.

26. Plaintiffs do not contend Mr. Ross was 26. This fact is moot. Plaintiffs have

exposed to asbestos due to any product or dismissed the cause of action for products
liability against defendant.

X Ainjured\ 19340 pds ]OHCON wpa 9 OPN
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE 10 DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTSoD OD DH PR YW NH

materials manufactured, distributed or sold
by Johnson Controls.

Plaintiffs’ Response to Johnson Controls,
Inc.’s Special Interrogatories, Set One,
response to no. 24 at p. 58:11-21, attached
as Ex. D to Lecky Dec.

pated: G/ZS / 1% BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP
By:
Jamie A. Newbold
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
KNinjurad\t349\pidiss JOHCON, wpd 10 OPN

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS