Answer: ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                BISHOP | BARRY | DRATH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION:

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

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

=

2e 2 IN KR HA Bw NY

10

BISHOP | BARRY | DRATH
MARY MARGARET RYAN [SBN 127828]
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425

Emeryville, California 94608 ELECTRONICALLY

Telephone: (510) 596-0888 FILED
Facsimile: (510) 596-0899 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Attorneys for Defendant JUN 18 2012
FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC. Clerk of the Court
BY: ALISON AGBAY
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Case No. CGC-10-275731
Plaintiffs, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT FOLEY
ELECTRIC, INC, TO PLAINTIFFS’
vs. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
PERSONAL INJURY) AND LOSS OF
C. C, MOORE & CO, ENGINEERS, and CONSORTIUM, ASBESTOS - AND
DOES 1-8500, REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants.
Complaint Filed: December 17, 2010

Defendant FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC. ("Defendant"), in answer to the Third Amended
Complaint of Plaintiffs, ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS (hereinafter “Complaint” admits,
denies and alleges as follows:

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

ol

DEF. FOLEY BLECTRIC, INC,’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYBISHOP | BARRY | DRATH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

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

Cem ND mH FF BH DY

.
= Ss

wo ey A A PF WY bw

Pb MR RP N YP BV NR LY wv
ow A A FB OB NHN | Ss

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

Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ complaint, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action against Defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

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

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

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

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to commence this action within the time required by
the applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil

Procedure sections 337.1, 337.15, 338(a), 338(d), 340(3), 340.2, 343 and 361.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff ROBERT ROSS was careless and negligent in and about the
matters alleged in the complaint and said carelessness and negligence of Plaintiff proximately
contributed to the happening of the accident, incident and occurrence alleged in the complaint,
and to the injuries, losses and damages complained of therein, if any there were, and said

contributory negligence bars a recovery or proportionately reduces any potential verdict.
Qe

DEF. FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC,’$ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS”
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYBISHOP | BARRY | DRATH

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

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

cor SA HR BB WY YY

RN RP NM BY KR BR RM RB Se Ee Be we Se eB es Se ee
oN A we BS OB SB EF So we HY RH BP BH SE Ss

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

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

Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff suffered any damages, which is denied, such damages were the
sole and proximate result of an unavoidable accident.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff suffered any damages, which is denied, such damages were

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

solely and proximately caused by material modifications or alterations of the product or products
involved in this action after it or they left the custody and control of Defendant.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that any asbestos-containing product or products alleged to have caused
Plaintiff's injuries were manufactured, used, installed and/or distributed in mandatory compliance

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

“3.

DEF. FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC,’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYBISHOP | BARRY | DRATH

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

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

ce RW DA HR YB He

RP oR YP RP RR RP KR NR BF eB eB Be ewe se ew Se ek
2 2 Aw BF OH SF SF Swe NY AA BOK SE SD

forth in the U. 8, Constitution, and that any recovery by Plaintiff is barred as a consequence of the
exercise of those sovereign powers.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

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

Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff suffered any damages, which is denied, the risk of any such
damages was not foreseeable to Defendant. Defendant at all times material hereto acted in
accordance with the industry custom and practice and the state of scientific knowledge available
to manufacturers, installers and/or users of asbestos-containing products.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it received no notice of any dangerous, hazardous or defective condition or
any breach of warranty, either expressed or implied.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendant is barred by the holding of Privette v.

Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689,
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's exposure to any asbestos-containing product or products
allegedly used or installed at Defendant's premises was minimal and insufficient to establish the
probability that said product or products were a legal cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries.

tid
ade

DEF, FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYBISHOP | BARRY | DRATH

AFROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

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

eC em RD DR A RB WN

RwN RP NN RR NR RY SF ee Re Se Se Se Be Se eS
eC SP A Rh SP Be BP KF Oo GO Ge HD KO OH Be ONO US

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

Defendant alleges that this action is barred by the applicable state and/or federal industrial
insurance and/or Workers! Compensation laws, including, but not limited to, California Labor
Code sections 3601 and 3602, and 33 U.S.C, Section 905,
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint, ROBERT ROSS

was employed by persons other than Defendant; was entitled to receive and did receive Workers’
Compensation benefits from said employer(s) or their insurers; and that said employer(s) were
negligent and careless in and about the matters referred to in Plaintiffs’ complaint. Defendant is,
therefore, entitled to set-off any such benefits received by Plaintiff against any judgment rendered
in Plaintiff's favor and said employer(s) are barred from any recovery by lien or otherwise against
Defendant in connection with this matter.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

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

Defendant alleges that at all times relevant to the matters alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint,
ROBERT ROSS's employers were sophisticated users of asbestos-containing products and said
employers' negligence in providing said products to its employees was a superseding and/or
intervening cause of Plaintiff's injuries, if any there were.

it

Jil
Se

DEF, FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC.°$ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYBISHCP | BARRY | DRATH

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

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

we YN DH BR BW HY

NM NY MR BY NR NR MRP NYO Se Se Se Se BS SE SEO eS ES
oe YW DA Rh BR HO YM SF S oe aI KN HW RB BY NY KS SS

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

Defendant alleges that there was no concert of action among Defendant and other defendants to

this action and that any alleged liability or responsibility of Defendant, which is denied, is

minimal in proportion to the alleged liability and responsibility of this person and entities

including the other defendants herein. Plaintiff's should therefore be limited to seeking recovery

from Defendant for a proportion of the alleged injuries and damages for which Defendant is

allegedly liable or responsible, all such alleged liability and responsibility being denied.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it is entitled to set-off any settlement, judgments, or similar amounts
received by Plaintiff, against any judgment rendered against it in Plaintiffs’ favor.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

itt
abe

DEF. FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS”
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYBISHOP | BARRY | DRATH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION:

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

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

oe YN DR A BF BY PY

- oS

om YN DR A RB BY BR

wy
So

21

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

Defendant alleges that the damages and injuries, if any, were proximately caused or contributed
to, in whole or in part, by the negligence or fault or other acts and/or omissions of persons or
entities other than Defendant, for which Defendant is not responsible.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that neither the complaint nor any purported causes of action alleged therein
state facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages against Defendant.
TWENTY-FIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ instant action is barred or, alternatively, merged into a prior
cause of action for which Plaintiff has previously sued upon, recovered, and dismissed with
prejudice, thereby requiring a complete extinguishment of the instant action due to the doctrines
of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ instant action is barred and discharged, pursuant to Title 11

U.S.C. section 1141(d), and that Plaintiffs’ action violates the pending injunction against such

claims that exists, by operation of law, pursuant to Title 11 U.S.C. section 524(a)(2),
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

Jif

iff
“1

DEF. FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYBISHOP | BARRY | DRATH

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2000 Powell Strest, Suite 1425, Emeryvilic, California 94608

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

oC eo IY KR hw RB WN

RR BR NNR ON NR RR Fe Se KF Fe BF Fe Be PF Se
e2 2 A Rh FB YW HN =F Se eR AH B LB YH KH STS

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,

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

Defendant alleges that the allegations of the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to sections
383.210 through 583.250, and 583.410 through 583,430 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure, and other applicable code sections.
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that it does not have and never has had a successor, successor-in-business,
successor-in-product line or portion thereof, suecessor-in-interest, assignee, predecessor,
predecessor-in-business, predecessor-in-product line or portion thereof, predecessor-in-interest,
partner, subsidiary, whole or partial or ownership or membership relationship with the entity upon
which Plaintiffs base their allegations of liability.
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it did not have a sufficient market share with respect to products and
materials which Plaintiff allegedly caused the alleged injuries and damages. Defendant may not
be held liable to Plaintiffs for any alleged share of said market or upon any theory premised upon

market-share liability.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

warranted, arranged, rebranded, manufactured for others, packaged, advertised and/or which
8+

DEP. FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS"
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYBISHOP | BARRY | DRATH

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

Tel, No, (516) 596-0888 Facsimile (510) 596-0899

Co em I A WH BF YW NY

Co

contained or lacked warnings by Defendant, which allegations are expressly denied, the injuries
or damages were proximately caused by the unreasonable and unforeseeable misuse, abuse,
alteration, or improper maintenance of the product by Plaintiff or by others.
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

Defendant alleges that all claims asserted by Plaintiffs were proximately caused by a superseding,
intervening cause.

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

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

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

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

f/f

‘id
De

DEF, FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY| BISHOP | BARRY | DRATH
APROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

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

Ww we VW KA A RB YW HY

PNM RP RP PN HR RN Se oe me oe eB oe ee eS a
eo YAM BH BP = S © we RB RH FF BN SE SS

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

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff, at all times mentioned, was not in privity of contract with
Defendant, and that said lack of privity bars any recovery by Plaintiffs against Defendant under
any theory of breach of warranty.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs failed to give adequate and timely notice of any alleged breach of
warranty.
FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ entire complaint, is barred by the Statute of Frauds to the extent
that any such causes of action are based on alleged oral agreements.
FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that all products and materials researched, tested, studied, manufactured,
fabricated, inadequately researched, designed, inadequately tested, labeled, assembled,
distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for
installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, arranged, rebranded, manufactured for others,
packaged, advertised and/or which contained or lacked warnings by Defendant which allegations
are expressly denied, were not defective in any manner, as said products and materials conformed
with the state-of-the-art in existence at all times mentioned in the complaint.
FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that its alleged actions, which are the subject of the complaint, were lawful.
FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

Defendant alleges that its alleged actions, which are the subject of the complaint, were justified.
«10-

DEF. FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYBISHOP | BARRY | DRATH

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION,

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

‘Tel. No. (510) 596-0888 Facsimile (516) 596-0899

oO OM NR Oh BBY YD

RP NR Bw RW NM RY NR RP BY Se Se eB se ew Be me em me
eA he FB YH fF Ss Ce IR RD A RB YB HY SF SS

FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue Defendant,
FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

Defendant alleges that any danger ot defect on the premises was obvious or could have been
observed by Plaintiff ROBERT ROSS’s exercise of reasonable care.
FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,

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

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

Defendant alleges that it presently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a
belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant
reserves the right to assert additional defenses in the event discovery indicates that they would be

appropriate.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:

1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of their complaint herein;
2. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant;

3. For costs of suit incurred herein;

“lle

DEP. FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC.’3 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYBISHOP | BARRY | DRATH

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608

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

e

oO OD OM BW KR BR WN

4, For appropriate credits and set-offs arising out of any payment of Workers’
Compensation benefits as alleged above;

5. For a judicial determination of the amount of non-economic damages, if any,
allocated to Defendant in direct proportion FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC.’s

percentage of fault, if any, and a separate judgment in conformance therewith; and

6. For appropriate credits and set-offs arising from allocation of liability to other
named and unnamed tort feasors; and.

7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: May 30, 2012 BISHOP | BARRY | DRATH

v Lita teats

MARY MARGARET
Attorneys for Defendant
FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC,

12.

DEF. FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYBISHOP | BARRY | DRATH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville, California 94608
Tel. No, (510) 596-0888 Facsimile (510) 596-0899

Co wm NR DK tA RP Oe

~
= OS

NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §631 FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC. hereby
gives Notice of its Request For Trial By Jury.

Dated: May 30, 2012 BISHOP | BARRY | DRATH

by: Thos, Vrass pub A, C.

MARY MARGARET RYAN
Attorneys for Defendant
FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC.

“13.

DEF, FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURYSISHOP | BARRY | DRATH
2000 PoweiL STREET SuITE 1428

EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA 34506

‘TELEPHONE: (510) 696-0888 Facsimie: (510) 586-0899

oem ON DOOR RON

RN RW RR BR RP RR Rw oe Se Se Se oe Se Se Se eS
ey A eR FB OB YH |- Ss GC we BW DH BB YW KB SF SO

Ross, Robert and Jean v. C.C. Moore & Co. Engineers, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-275731

PROOF OF SERVICE BY LEXIS NEXIS
I, the undersigned, certify that I am employed in the County of Alameda, State of
California, that I am over the age of eighteen years and uot a party to the within action, My
business address is BisHop | BARRY | DRATH, 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425, Emeryville,
California 94608. My electronic address is mramirez@bishop-barry.com.
On the date below written I served the following document(s):
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT FOLEY ELECTRIC, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSRIUM,
ASBESTOS — AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
by transmitting a true copy to:
***ATl Counsel on Lexis Nexis Service List***
in the following manner:

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

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

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

This declaration was executed on June 18, 2012 , at Emeryville, California,

Oithede. epee
JASTASIA SCAFIDAS

1
PROOF OF SERVICE

¥