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 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

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 HAROLD BEASLEY
) PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.’S
C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; ) SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit | } UNDISPUTED FACTS
)

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

Plaintiffs hereby submit the following responses to defendant HAROLD BEASLEY
PLUMBING AND HEATING, 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

BEASLEY IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE BEASLEY IS LIABLE FOR MR. ROSS'S PURPORTEDLY
ASBESTOS-RELATED COLON CANCER.

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

Complaint for Personal Injury and Loss of

Consortium - Asbestos. Plaintiffs sued

KAinjuned:b93-Wipldss-BEASLY-nig-saepd 1 ASB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED PACTS:Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

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

itt

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

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

ffi

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.

fli
Me

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

2. Undisputed, but irrelevant. This fact has
no tendency in reason to prove he had a
sophistication at any time. Defendant has
preduced 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 docs 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
vy. 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
fable for its own negligence in causing
decedent’s exposure to asbestos.

3. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s
membership in a union has no tendancy 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

AB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACTS:Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Third Amended Complaint for Personal
Injury and Loss of Consortium - Asbestos,
26:1-45:17; Defendants’ Standard
Interrogatories to Plaintiff (Personal Injury),
Set 1, 15:10-15 (Sullivan Declaration,
Exhibit C]; Answers to Interrogatories,
105:5-15 [Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit D].

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

itl
Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.

274099), 300:16-301:17 [Sullivan
Declaration, Exhibit E].

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

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
y. 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
Viable for its own negligence in causing
decedent’s exposure to 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 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

AB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACTS:CO 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

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

fli

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), 3026:23-3027:1.

dif

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

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.

5. Undisputed but irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s
knowledge that asbestos exposure was a
“potential health hazard,” 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, 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 of the asbestos-containing materi
disturbed by defendant, as was Mr. Johnson.

Pp
w

itis further irrelevant in that there
can be no showing that even if plaintiff
knew or should 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 i in causing
decedent’s exposure to asbestos.

AB

PLAINTIFFS!
UNDISPUTE

PACTS

ESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

6. Plaintiffs contend Beasley's plumbers
exposed Mr. Ross to asbestos at three sites:
McKinleyville High School, St. Patrick High
School, and Fairfield Hospital.

itt

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1658:12-1659:10; Deposition of
Robert Ross (SFSC No. 275731),
2187:25-2188:18 [Sullivan Declaration,
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
interrogatories to Plaintiffs, Set Two,
1:25-2:6 [Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit K];
Plaintiffs’ Response to Harold Beasley
jumbing and Heating, Inc.'s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, 3:5-16 [Sullivan
Declaration, Exhibit L].

7. Mr. Ross insulated pipes with asbestos
oducts on a new construction project at
McKinleyville High School in
McKinleyville, California between 1961 and
1965 and worked in the presence of a
Beasley plumber he knew as "Brownie" for
one day.

itt

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.

8. Mr. Ross observed "Brownie" disturb
existing fireproofing when "Brownie"
installed new plumbing lines.

itt
Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 390:24-393:4, 394:2-18, 396:6-18,
3021:5-12.
9. Mr, Ross wore a mask when he observed

"Brownie" disturb existing fireproofing at
McKinleyville High School.

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

5

6. Undisputed .

7. Undisputed.

8. Undisputed.

9, 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

AB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACTS:Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

itt

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 395:5-14.

10. During a roughly one month new
construction project at St. Patrick High
School in Vallejo, California between 1967
and 1969, Mr. Ross insulated pipes with
asbestos products and worked in the
presence of Jim Beasley and a Beasley
plumber he knew as "Browning."

itt

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1639:8-1640:17, 1641:1-15,
644:20-1646:8, Answers to Interrogatories,
45:6-11.

1. Jim Beasley and "Browning" worked at
St. Patrick High School for "a short period
of time, and "Browning's" work included
fabricating Garlock gaskets for an unrecalled
uration,

fii
Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.

274099), 1640:18-22, 1643:3-24,
647:17-21, 1648:6-15,

dif

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

6

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,

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 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,

10. Undisputed.

11. Undisputed.

To the extent that defendant is
attempting to quantify plaintiff's exposure to}
the asbestes that its employee disturbed, this
fact is irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s knowledge of
the amount of time Beasley’s employees
fabricated gaskets in his presence at has no
tendency in reason to prove they were not
negligent in disturbing and handling
asbestos containing materials or that he was
not exposed or that defendant is not liable
for such exposure.

AB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACTS:Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

12. 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.

itt

cposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1651:16-1653:24, 1656:10-21,
3019:17-3020:13; Deposition of Robert

oss (SFSC No. 275731), 2189:18-2192:21,
2193:24-2196:3, 2197:2-3, 2198:1-10,
2199:6-22, 2204:6-2205:15.

3. During the remodel project at Fairfield
Hospital, Mr. Ross worked around Beasley
“about half the time" and also disturbed
fireproofing when he insulated pipes.

fit

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 2200:19-2201:13.

4. By 1979, Mr. Ross "knew that the
asbestos was bad for you and it was killing
eople.”

fil

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

Ht

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

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

524:23-525:10, 701:17-703:1 [Sullivan
Declaration, Exhibit Q].

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

7

12. Undisputed.

To the extent that defendant is
attempting to quantify plaintiff's exposure to
the asbestos that its employee disturbed, this
fact is irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s knowledge of
the amount of time Beasley’s employees
fabricated gaskets in his presence at has no
tendency in reason to prove they were not
negligent in disturbing and handling
asbestos containing materials or that he was
not exposed or that defendant is not liable
for such exposure.

13. Undisputed, but irrelevant. This fact has
no tendency in reason to demonstrate that
Mr. Ross was not exposed to asbestos as a
result of the negligent acts of Beasley
employees when they performed their work
in his proximity.

14. 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 Beasley employees
exposed plaintiff to asbestos. The exposures
by Beasley began in the 1960s.

15. 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

AB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACTS:Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

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

fff

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.

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

itt
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

Complex Asbestos Litigation),
580:17-58 1:5,

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

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

8

of asbestos, defendant remains liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

16. 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.

17. 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. Rass.

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.

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

AB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACTS:Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

itt

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

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

fit
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

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

20. During the late 1950s, Mr. Klimack

served on Local 16's Apprentice Committee,

whose duties included apprentice training.
itt

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

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

9

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. Rass.

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.

19, 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.

20. 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

AB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACTS:Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

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

ffi

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

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

fff
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 R].

dif

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

10

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

21, 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.

22. 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.

AB

PLAINTIFFS! RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACT!Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

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

itt

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

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

itt

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

Mit

25. 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.

iti
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

i

23. 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
Table for its own negligence in causing
Mr. Ross’s exposure to asbestos and
subsequent asbestos-related injuries.

24. 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, Rass’’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,

25. 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 “knowledae” of

AB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACTS:Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

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

26. 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
the International continue to investigate the
causes of Asbestosis and allied lung
ailments caused by fiberous materials, and to
determine what measures can be found to
combat and prevent these diseases.”

itt

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

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

fit
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

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

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

12

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 injurics.

26. 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
Tiable for its own negligence in causing
Mr. Ross’s exposure to asbestos and
subsequent asbestos-related injuries.

27. 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.

AB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACTS:Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

28. 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.

itt

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

29. The October 1957 issue of The Asbestos
Worker reports at the convention President
Sickles sought the authority to study the
hazards posed by asbestos:"Being weil
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 ..."

itt

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

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

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.

28. 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.

29. Disputed. 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
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

AB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACTS:Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

30. By the late 1950s, Local 16 had
implemented a screenmg 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.

fli

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

31. The April 1958 issue of The Ashestos
Worker reports 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
program. This ‘vital capacity tests’ was
troduced by Brother Ay of Local 20 two
years ago at our meeting in Seattle. The
results are very startling and should be the
concern of each member of our trade."

fii
The Asbestos Worker, April 1958, p. 20,

[Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit U].
Me

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

14

definition) of 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 exposure to asbestos and
subsequent asbestos-related injurics.

30. 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.

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

31. 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.

AB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACTS:Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

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

fff

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation),
659:16-661:6, 731:16-24, 732:13-18,
1002:4-1003:8; Deposition of Arthur
Klimack (2006), 46:18-47:20, 49:6-52:25.

33. 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.

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

15

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 understanding there was of such
“health hazards.”

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) of 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 exposure to asbestos and
subsequent asbestos-related injuries.

32. 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 the}
Local 16 was attributed or transmitted to the
Mr. Rass.

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.

33. 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

AB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACTS:CO 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

itt

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation), 671:3-674:7,
7341-15, 994:1-999:5.

34. During the union events in late 1950s,
members of the Asbestos Workers Union
discussed use of respirators to prevent
exposure to asbestos.

fit

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation),
658:13-659:4, 73 1:25-732:12.

35. Mr. Klimack represented Local 16 at the
Asbestos Workers Union's Western States
Conference in Oakland on February 7, 1959.

iti
Mit

dif

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

16

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 Dr. Selikoff 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.

34. 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 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.

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

AB

PLAINTIFFS!
UNDISPUTE

PA‘

SPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation),
656:18-657:8.

36, The May 1959 issue of The Asbestos
Worker reports health hazards and use of
respirators were discussed at the February
1959 Western States Conference:"Health
Hazards relating to our trade were discussed
and various types of respirators were
presented and the good points of each were
brought out.”

itt

The Asbestos Worker, May 1959 Issue, pp.
20-22 [Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit V].

37. While he served as a Business Agent for
Local 16 in 1960 and 1961, Mr. Klimack
advised insulation contractors asbestos was
hazardous.

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

229:3-231:22, 236:2-239:9, 704:18-705:2,
780:19-781:3, 792:11-794:25.

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

17

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.

36. 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 the
Local 16 or The Asbestos Worker was
attributed or transmitted to the Mr. Rass.

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,

37. 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

AB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACTS:Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

38. While he served as a Business Agent for
Local 16 in 1960 and 1961, Mr. Klimack
advised insulation contractors to provide
dust masks to Local 16's members.

ffi

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation), 782:4-8.

39, While a working as Business Agent for
Local 16 in 1960 and 1961, Mr. Klimack
encouraged insulation contractors to use dust
containment devices in their fabrication
shops to minimize the amount of airborne
asbestos.

iti
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

was exposed by defendant. In no way does
it show what the purported “knowledge” of
the Mr. Klimack or various insulation
contractors (including those which employer
plaintiff) was attributed or transmitted to the
Mr. Ross.

38. 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
Mr. Klimack was attributed or transmitted to!
the Mr. Ross. Further, this fact does not
show any nexus between these “dust
masks” and asbestos.

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

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, Rass’s exposure to asbestos and
subsequent asbestos-related injuries.

39. Disputed. 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

AB

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC.°S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED PACTS:CO 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

Complex Asbestos Litigation),
232:2-235:15, 236:8-239:9.

40. By the early 1960s, Mr. Klimack had
decided to wear a mask when he was "awate
of the fact that asbestos fiber was in some
product whenever that product was present
or working on that product, then it would be
incumbent to wear a mask.”

fit

Deposition of Arthur Klimack (2006),
53:18-55:3.

41. Mr. Klimack represented Local 16 at the
20th General Convention of the International
Association in Atlantic City in September
1962.

dif

Knjured 108-9 pls BEASLY- nso wpd

19

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.

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

Further, there is no showing of
whether any mask Mr. Klimack wore was
designed to be or was protective of airborne
asbestos fibers, that it was worn in sucha
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 Mr. Klimack’s clothing, skin and hair an
cause exposures when an otherwise effective
mask was removed.

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.

41. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Additionally,
the evidence offered is inadmissible. See
plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed
concurrently herewith.

AB

PLAINTIFFS!
UNDISPUTE

PA‘

SPONSE TO DEFENDANT HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OFCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

itt

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigatio