arrow left
arrow right
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
						
                                

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 ite F I L E D Attorneys at Law 222 Rush Landing Road Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco P.O. Box 6169 APR 24 2013 Novato, California 94948-6169 Clerk of the Court (415) 898-1555 BY: VANESSA WU Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestasbestosTR@braytonlaw.com Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ASBESTOS No, CGC-10-275731 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION vs. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit | attached to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500. eee Date: May 8, 2013 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept: 503, Hon. Teri L. Jackson Trial Date: June 10, 2013 Action Filed: December 17, 2010 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 437¢(b), plaintiffs submit the following Separate Statement of Disputed Material Facts in Opposition to Defendant HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.’s (“BEASLEY”) Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication. PLAINTIFFS' DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 1. Defendant BEASLEY acknowledges that the claims herein arise from Beasley's plumbers exposing Mr. ROSS to asbestos at Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No. three sites: McKinleyville High School, St. 274099), 1658:12-1659:10; Deposition of Patrick High School, and Fairfield Hospital. Robert Ross (SFSC No. 275731), 2187:25-2188:18 [Sullivan Declaration, 1. BEASLEY’s Separate Statement No. 6. KSinjuredi 193-8) BEASLY mgs. 1 AIB PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC. SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, INTHE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCo em YW KD hw BR YY 10 2. Defendant BEASLEY acknowledges that the evidence shows that Mr. ROSS worked in the presence of a BEASLEY plumber named “Brownie” on a new construction project at McKinleyville High School in McKinleyville, California between 1961 and 1965 and that Mr. ROSS observed "Brownie" disturb existin; fireproofing when "Brownie" installed new plumbing lines, 3. Defendant BEASLEY acknowledges that the evidence shows that during a roughly one month new construction project at St. Patrick High School in Vallejo, California between 1967 and 1969, Mr. ROSS worked in the presence of Jim Beasley and a Beasley plumber he knew as "Browning." "Browning's" work included fabricating Garlock. gaskets. 4, Defendant BEASLEY acknowledges that the evidence shows that in 1979, Mr. ROSS observed one or two BEASLEY plumbers remove existing insulation and disturb existing fireproofing during a one to two week remodel project on Fairfield Hospital's campus. 5. In this Motion, BEASLEY does not contend that plaintiff cannot prove that the thermal insulation, fireproofing and gaskets disturbed by BEASLEY employees in plaintiffs presence did not contain asbestos, or that he was not exposed to asbestos. dif Kainjured bO240ipls BEASLY usin. wpa Exhibit F]; Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One, 4:10-12 [Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit G]; Plaintiff Robert Ross's Response to Defendant Harold Beasley Plumbing and Heating, Inc.'s Special Interrogatories, 1:25-2:8 [Sullivan Declaration, Ex. H]; Harold Beasley Plumbing & Heating, Inc.'s Special Interrogatorics to Plaintiffs, Set Two, 1;25-2:6 [Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit K]; Plaintiffs’ Response to Harold Beasley Plumbing and Heating, Inc.'s Special interrogatories, Set Two, 3:5-16 [Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit L]. 2. BEASLEY’s Separate Statements Nos. 7 & 8. Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No. 274099), 374:15-376:12, 381:19-382:1, 389:1-6, 390:19-23; Answers to Interrogatories, 12:1-10. Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No. 274099), 390:24-393:4, 394:2-18, 396:6-18, 3021:5-12. 3. Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No. 274099), 1639:8-1640:17, 1641:1-15, 1644:20-1646:8, Answers to Interrogatories, 45:6-11. Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No. 274099), 1640:18-22, 1643:3-24, 1647:17-21, 1648:6-15, 4, BEASLEY’s Separate Statement No, 12. Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No. 274099), 1651:16-1653:24, 1656:10-21, 3019:17-3020:13; Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No. 275731), 2189:18-2192:21, 2193:24-2196:3, 2197:2-3, 2198:1-10, 2199:6-22, 2204:6-2205:15. 5, BEASLEY’s Separate Statement of Facts. AIB PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC. SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCO 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 6. Extensive literature, dating back a century, recognized the potential hazards posed by toxic substances leaving the work place on the clothing or person of workers. 7. Similarly, literature dating back as early as1898 recognized the hazards posed by asbestos. And by the late 1940s, it came to be understood that asbestos could cause cancer. 8. Additionally, extensive studies and literature indicate that well recognized practices were available to reduce or eliminate the exposure to asbestos in the workplace. 9. By the 1960s a company, working in construction and on jobsites where contractors and laborers were working alike, should have been aware of potential health hazards associated with exposure to certain occupational dusts generally. In view of this, to the extent that any contractor was unaware of the composition of dust which might be created or encountered, it ought to have sought out such information. 10. Likewise by the 1960s a company, working in construction and on jobsites where contractors and laborers were working alike, should have been aware of health hazards associated with exposure to asbestos dust. Information was readily available prior to the 1960s concerning the health hazards of not only exposure to certain occupational non-asbestos dusts, but also to asbestos dust and the associated increased risk of developing an asbestos-related disease. Information regarding the substantial health risks associated with exposure to airborne asbestos was readily available by the 1960s, and only became more readily available over the course of time. 11. Equally available was information about measures to reduce the creation of dust and eliminate or reduce the exposure to dust that was created. By the 1960s, contractors, including defendant, located in California and subject to California General Industry Safety Orders, had 6. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D., M.P.H., 19, a.- m., attached to the Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2. 7. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D., MLP.H., fff 16, a.-¢& 17 a~-g., attached to the Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2. 8. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D., M.LP.H., § 18, a.- f., attached to the Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2. 9. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D., M.P.H., { 20, attached to the Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2. 10. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D., M.P.H., § 20, attached to the Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2. 11. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D., M.P.H., § 20, attached to the Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2. AIBCo em YW KD hw BR YY 10 ready access to information regarding methods for mitigating exposures and could have implemented them. 12. Contractors such as defendant should 12. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D., have been educating their employees and M.LP.H., §f 20-23, attached to the Benson implementing procedures to mitigating dust Decl. as Exhibit 2. in at least the 1960s. Dated: April 24, 2013 BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP By: /s/ Ashley J. Benson Ashley J. Benson Attorneys for Plaintiff KSinjuredi 193-8) BEASLY mgs. 4 AIB PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC. SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, INTHE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION