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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                13

15

Douglas G. Wah, Esq. SBN 64692
Thomas J. Tarkoff, Esq. SBN 160994

Foley & Mansfield, PLLP ELECTRONICALLY
300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1900 FILED
Oakland, CA 94612 Superior Court of Califojnia,
Telephone: (510) 590-9500 County of San Francispo
Facsimile: (510) 590-9595 FEB 15 201
Attorneys for Defendant pelerk of the Cou iG
JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO.,, INC. Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Case No: CGC-10-275731
Plaintiffs, “Asbestos-Related Matter”
vs. ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH
BRUNO SHEET METAL CO., INC. TO
C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, et al., PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR
PERSONAL INJURY; LOSS OF
Defendants. CONSORTIUM AND REQUEST FOR
JURY TRIAL —- ASBESTOS
Defendant JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO,, INC. ("Defendant"), in answer to the
complaint of Plaintiffs, ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS ("Plaintiffs") 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.

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.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO, INC, 10 PLAINTIFFS” COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INILRY - ASBESTOS13

15

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' claims are 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), 340.2, 343 and 361.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs were careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in
the complaint and said carelessness and negligence of Plaintiffs 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.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

Mit

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO, INC, 10 PLAINTIFFS” COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INILRY - ASBESTOS13

15

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that if Plaintiffs were 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs’ suffered any damages, which is denied, such damages were
caused and/or contributed to by Plaintiffs misuse of the product or products and Plaintiffs’
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 Plaintiffs 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
Plaintiffs’ 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 forth in the U. S. Constitution, and that any recovery by Plaintiffs is barred as a
consequence of the exercise of those sovereign powers.

Lif
iit

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO, INC, 10 PLAINTIFFS” COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INILRY - ASBESTOS13

15

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that any product or products alleged by Plaintiffs to have caused their 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 Plaintiffs 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’ claims against Defendant are barred by the holding of Privette
vy, Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ 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 Plaintiffs' alleged injuries.
it
Lif
iit

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO, INC, 10 PLAINTIFFS” COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INILRY - ASBESTOS13

15

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 Plaintiffs against any judgment

rendered in Plaintiffs' 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs’ 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’ 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 his injuries, if any there were.

Lif
iit

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO, INC, 10 PLAINTIFFS” COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INILRY - ASBESTOS13

15

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. Plaintiffs 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

WENTY-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 Plaintiffs, 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,

Mit

6

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO, INC, 10 PLAINTIFFS” COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INILRY - ASBESTOS13

15

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-EIGHTH 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 Plaintiffs have 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 are
barred by consequence of the judicially recognized doctrine of immunity conferred upon that
contractual relationship and any occurrences arising therefrom.

Lif
iit

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO, INC, 10 PLAINTIFFS” COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INILRY - ASBESTOS13

15

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
583.210 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, successor-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 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 Plaintiffs 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,

Mit

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO, INC, 10 PLAINTIFFS” COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INILRY - ASBESTOS13

15

arranged, rebranded, manufactured for others, packaged, advertised and/or which 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 Plaintiffs 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, Plaintiffs 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 arise out of contract, Plaintiffs' claims do
not state facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiffs to an award of punitive or exemplary damages

against Defendant.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO, INC, 10 PLAINTIFFS” COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INILRY - ASBESTOS13

15

FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs, at all times mentioned, were 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-SLXTH 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

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO, INC, 10 PLAINTIFFS” COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INILRY - ASBESTOS13

15

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 or defect on the premises was obvious or could have been
observed by Plaintiffs' exercise of reasonable care.

FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it warned Plaintiffs' 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 seeks 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.

FIFTY-SECOND 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,
Plaintiffs knew or should have known about the hazards of asbestos containing products, and,
therefore, Plaintiffs were sophisticated users of asbestos-containing products within the meaning

of William Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 74 Cal Rptr.3d 108

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO, INC, 10 PLAINTIFFS” COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INILRY - ASBESTOS13

15

FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant are barred by the holding of Hooker
v. Dept. of Transportation (2002) 24 Cal. 4" 198, in that Defendant did not retain control over
any independent contractor sufficient to affirmatively contribute to Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.

FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION,
Defendant alleges that it did not manufacture, sell, or distribute the product(s) at issue in
Plaintiffs’ complaint. Strict liability is precluded against Defendant, a contractor/service
provider, because “strict product liability theories apply only to sales or other commercial
transfers of goods and not to services.” Hyland Therapeutics v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal.
App. 3d 509, 592. See also Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4t 248, 258;
Pena v. Sita World Travel, Inc. (1978) 88 Cal. App. 3d 642, 644; Burton v. Owen (1977) 71 Cal.
App. 3d 484, 498; Silverhart v. Mount Zion Hospital (1971) 20 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 1027

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,

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 to JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL
CO., INC’S percentage of fault, if any, and a separate judgment in conformance
therewith; and

6. For appropriate credits and set-offs arising ftom 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.

Mit

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO, INC, 10 PLAINTIFFS” COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INILRY - ASBESTOS13

15

NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §631, JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL

CO., INC. hereby gives Notice Of Its Request For Trial By Jury.

Dated February 15, 2011

ao

By:

Thomas J. Tarkoff
Attorneys for Defendanl|
JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO., INC.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO, INC, 10 PLAINTIFFS” COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INILRY - ASBESTOSbb woh

ce wD

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Rabert Ross and Jean Ross vs. C.C. Moore & Co. Engineers, et al.
San Francisco County Superior Case No. CGC-10-275731

PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

I, the undersigned, declare as follows:

Tam employed in the County of Alameda, California, and ] am over the age of 18 years and not a
party to the within action. My business address is 300 Lakeside Drive, 19" Floor, Oakland, CA 94612.

On the date executed below, I electronically served the documents(s) via LexisNexis File &
Serve described as:

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRUNO SHEET METAL CO., INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY; LOSS OF CONSORTIUM AND REQUEST FOR
JURY TRIAL —~ ASBESTOS

on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve website.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration
was executed on February 15, 2011, at Oakland, California.

Arlene Villanueva I

1
PROOF OF SERVICE