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 25 2013
Novato, California 94948-6169 Clerk of the Court
(415) 898-1555 BY: ALISON AGBAY
Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestasbestosTR@braytonlaw.com Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ASBESTOS
No. CGC-10-275731

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS,

Plaintiffs,
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD
MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

vs.

C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS;
Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit |
attached to the Summary Complaint

herein; and DOES 1-8500.

eee

Date: May 9, 2013

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept: 503, Hon. Teri L. Jackson
Trial Date: June 10, 2013

Action Filed: December 17, 2010

Plaintiffs hereby submit the following responses to defendant CRITCHFIELD
MECHANICAL, 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

CRITCHFILED IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THERE IS
NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST
CRITCHFIELD

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

Complaint for Personal Injury and Loss of

Consortium — Asbestos. Plaintiffs sued

KSinjure 9349) eoss-CRIMIEC ans a. 1 AB
PLAINTIFFS! RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCUPIELD MECHANICAL, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
FACTCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

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

fi

Third Amended Complaint for Personal
Injury and Loss of Consortium — Asbestos
(Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit A].

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

iif

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.

fil
Third Amended Complaint for Personal

Injury and Loss of Consortium - Asbestos,
26:1-45:17; Defendants’ Standard

Kehinjured O34 pls CRIMEC ans a. wpe

2

2. Undisputed, but irrelevant. This fact has
no tendency in reason to prove he bad a
sophistication at any time. Defendant has
produced 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 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
yv, 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 membe:
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 in causing plaintiffs
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
was required to pass any exams exhibiting
his knowledge regarding the same.

AIB

PLAIN TIFFS! RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.
PACTSCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

interrogatories to Plaintiff (Personal Injury),
Set 1, 15:10-15 [Sullivan Declaration,
Exhibit B]; Answers to Interrogatories,
105:18 [Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit C].

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

fil
Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.

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

‘glvsss-CRIMEC rsh sa. yepd

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 v. 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 liable for its
own negligence in causing plaintiffs
exposure fo 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 o:
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.

ALB,

" RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

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

Aff

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), 1795:5-1796:2.

6. Mr. Ross claims by 1967 he could
identify asbestos-containing fireproofing and
thermal insulation products.

iif

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1479:3-18, 1505:3-1506:9,
1651:16-20,1653:17-1654:10, 1805:15-23;
Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 743:2-5, 744:8-748:1,

‘glvsss-CRIMEC rsh sa. yepd

5. Undisputed but irrelevant. Mr. Ross’s
knowledge that asbestos exposure was a
“potential health hazard,” has ne 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 plaintiff was exposed to
asbestos for which defendant is liable. Nor
does it have any bearing on plaintiff's own
knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or of
asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. 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.

itis also irrelevant in that defendant cannot
show that plaintiff was an “expected” user of
the asbestos-containing materials disturbed
by defendant, as was Mr. Johnson.

it is 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 membe:
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 in causing plaintiffs
exposure to asbestos.

6. Undisputed.

ALB,

" RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

754:16-756:11 [Sullivan Declaration,
Exhibit D].

7. By 1979, Mr. Ross "knew that the
asbestos was bad for you and it was killing
people."

Ati

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

8. Plaintiffs contend Critchfield exposed
Mr. Ross to asbestos at three sites: an IBM
site in San Jose, the Westin St. Francis
otel, and Napa Junior College.

‘ft

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 188:16-189:25, 2186:7-2187:13;
Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.'s Special
interrogatories to Plaintiffs, Set One,4:13-15
Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit F]; Plaintiffs'
Response to Defendant Critchfield
Mechanical, Inc.'s Special Interrogatories,
Set One, 2:3-3:10 [Sullivan Declaration,
Exhibit H]; Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.'s
Special Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, Set
Two,1:24-25 [Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit
J]; Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant
Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.'s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, 3:4-4:2 [Sullivan
Declaration, Exhibit N].

9. Mr. Ross testified he worked around
Critchfield employees during a new
construction and remodel project at an
unidentified building on the campus of an
IBM facility in San Jose during the late
1960s or early 1970s.

iif

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 195:22-197:11, 209:8-14.

10. During the IBM project, Mr. Ross
insulated pipes with fiberglass and asbestos
mud.

‘glvsss-CRIMEC rsh sa. yepd

7, 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 aj
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 Critchfield employees
exposed plaintiff to asbestos. The exposures
by Critchfield began in the 1960s/early
1970s. [See defendant’s Separate Statement
of Undisputed Facts No. 9 below]

8, Undisputed. Additionally, the IBM site in
San Jose, the Westin St. Francis Hotel, and
Napa Junior College exposures were in or
prior to 1979. [See defendant’s Separate
Statement of Undisputed Facts Nos. 10, 12,
and 21 below]

9. Undisputed.

10. Undisputed, but irrelevant. This fact has
no tendency in reason to prove plaintiff was
not exposed to asbestos from Critchfield

ALB,

" RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

fi

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 199:1-4, 201:16-202:9,

11. At IBM, Mr. Ross observed plumbers
and sheet metal workers employed by
Critchfield disturb existing fireproofing
when they installed pipes and air ducts.

Vii

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 197:23-198:3, 202:10-203:23,
207:1-17, 211:11-22, 216:13-17.

12. Mr. Ross testified he worked around
Critchfield employees during a remodel
project at the Westin St. Francis hotel
between 1973 and 1976.

iif

position of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 228:8-229:9, 230:3-16,

13. Mr. Ross disturbed existing fireproofing
when he insulated ducts at the Westin St.
Francis Hotel.

Hf

eposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 230:23-232:14,

4. Mr. Ross observed Critchfield
employees disturb existing fireproofing,
remove pipe insulation, and install Duro
Dyne duct connectors at the Westin St.
Francis hotel.

hid

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 229:25-230:2, 232:15-233:12,
234:5-237:18.

15. The Critchfield employees who
removed pipe insulation at the Westin St.
Francis hotel performed this work in the
same manner as Mr. Ross when he removed
similar pipe insulation.

‘il

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.

‘glvsss-CRIMEC rsh sa. yepd

6

employees handling and disturbing asbestos-
containing materials.

11. Undisputed.

12. Undisputed.

13. Undisputed, but irrelevant. This fact has
no tendency in reason to prove Mr. Ross was|
not exposed to asbestos from Critchfield
employees disturbing and handling asbestos-
containing materials.

14. Undisputed.

15. Disputed as misleading and incomplete
recitation of the facts. This fact has no
tendency in reason to demonstrate that Mr.
Ross had a sophistication at any time.

Plaintiff testified that Critchfield removed
insulation in a “similar manner” as he did,
he did not say it was the same.
[Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.

ALB,

" RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

275731), 237:1-8.

16. Mr. Ross testified he worked around
plumbers employed by Critchfield during a
new construction and remodel project at an
unidentified building on the Napa Junior
College campus in 1979,

‘id

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 216:18-218:23, 219:11-20,
220:7-11.

17. Mr. Ross disturbed existing fireproofing
when he insulated pipes at Napa Junior
College.

‘fi

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 220:18-25, 222:6-15.

18. Mr. Ross observed plumbers employed
by Critchfield disturb existing fireproofing
when they installed pipes at Napa Junior
College.

fii

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 223:2-7, 224:8-225:17.

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

fff

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation),
$24:23-525:10, 701:17-703:1 [Sullivan
Declaration, Exhibit R].

275731), 237:1-8.]

Further, this fact has no tendency in reason
to prove plaintiff was not exposed to
asbestos from Critchfield employees
handling and disturbing asbestos-containing
materials.

16. Undisputed.

17. Undisputed, but irrelevant. This fact has
no tendency in reason to prove plaintiff was
not exposed to asbestos from Critchfield
employees handling and disturbing asbestos-
containing materials.

18. Undisputed.

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.

Me
K lojoredh £9340 plies CRIMEC amet wd 7 ALB,
PLAIN " RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

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

‘if

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation),
575:13-576:10, 605:22-607:2, 659:5-12,
7OL:17-703:4, 705:3-7, 706:12-22.

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

‘il
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

Complex Asbestos Litigation),
580:17-581:5.

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

‘glvsss-CRIMEC rsh sa. yepd

8

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 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.

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 docs
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

ALB,

" RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

ft

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

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

‘ti
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

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

24. During the late 1950s, Mr. Klimack

served on Local 16's Apprentice Committee,

whose duties included apprentice training.
fil

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

‘glvsss-CRIMEC rsh sa. yepd

9

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 docs
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.

23. 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.

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, 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

ALB,

" RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

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. During 1960 and 1961, Mr. Klimack 25. Undisputed, but irrelevant. The
worked as a Business Agent for Local 16. evidence offered is inadmissible. See
plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed
fit concurrently herewith.
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re: Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
Complex Asbestos Litigation), 240:16-19. 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.

26. Mr. Klimack served as Local 16's 26. Undisputed, but irrelevant. The
apprentice coordinator between 1972 and evidence offered is inadmissible. See
1975. plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections filed
concurrently herewith.
Vii
Additionally, this alleged “fact” does not
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re: dispute the fact that Mr. Ross was exposed
Complex Asbestos Litigation), to asbestos for which defendant is liable.
605:22-607:5, 705:7-706:5; Deposition of Nor does it have any bearing on Mr. Ross's
Arthur Klimack (2006), 32:1-4 [Sullivan own knowledge of the hazards of asbestos or
Declaration, Exhibit S]. 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.

igligs CRIMEC asia vend, 10 ALB,
" RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

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

fff

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

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

‘id

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

29. 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.

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

28. 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.

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. 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|

Vil of asbestos content of materials to which he
was exposed by defendant. In no way does
Me
K lojoredh £9340 plies CRIMEC amet wd Ul ALB,
PLAINTIPPS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC-S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTEDCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation),
617:14-620:14, 624:16-625:25, 717:3-718:5.

30. 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
this vital subject, President Sickles speaking
from and International point of view, said
the Internationa! in compiling facts and
figures on this matter . . .At this time a
motion was made, seconded and passed that
¢ 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.”

hid

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

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

ft
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

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

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

30. 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 liable for its
own negligence in causing Mr. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injurics.

31. 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.

dif
Kluge 934 pling CRIMEC msi sa end AIB
PLAIN " RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

32. 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.

iif

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

33. 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 well
aware of the health hazards in the Asbestos
industry, President Sickles requested
authority for the General Executive Board to
make a study of the health hazards..."

Aff

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

‘glvsss-CRIMEC rsh sa. yepd

13

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.

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.

33. 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. 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 definition) o

ALB,

" RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

34. 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.

fit

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

35. 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."

‘it

The Asbestos Worker, April 1958, p. 20,
[Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit V].

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.

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

35. 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.

Me
K lojoredh £9340 plies CRIMEC amet wd 14 ALB,
PLAIN " RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

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

‘if

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.

37. 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.

‘glvsss-CRIMEC rsh sa. yepd

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) o
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.

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 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. 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

ALB,

" RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

ft

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

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

Vil

Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:
Complex Asbestos Litigation),
658:13-659:4, 731:25-732:12.

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

‘ti

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

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.

38. 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.

39. Undisputed, but irrelevant. 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

656:18-657:8. content of materials to which he was
K lojoredh £9340 plies CRIMEC amet wd 16 ALB,
PLAIN " RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTEDCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

40. 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.”

iif

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

41. 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,.

‘glvsss-CRIMEC rsh sa. yepd

17

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 fo asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

40. 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. 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.

41. 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!
Mr, Klimack or various insulation
contractors (including those which employer
plaintiff) was attributed or transmitted to the
Mr. Ross.

ALB,

" RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

42, 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.

fff

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

43. 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.

ft
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

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

‘glvsss-CRIMEC rsh sa. yepd

18

42. 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
oxposure 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. Ross’s
exposure to asbestos and subsequent
asbestos-related injuries.

43. 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 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

ALB,

" RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

44, By the early 1960s, Mr. Klimack had
decided to wear a mask when he was "aware
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.”

‘ti

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

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

ft
Deposition of Arthur R. Klimack (In Re:

Complex Asbestos Litigation), 611:9-25,
670:7-15, 706:6-11.

‘glvsss-CRIMEC rsh sa. yepd

19

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

44. 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 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 Mr, Klimack’s clothing,
skin and hair and 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.

45. Undisputed, but irrelevant. 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 or Mr. Klimack was attributed or
transmitted to the Mr. Ross.

ALB,

" RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED.Co em YW KD hw BR YY

10

46, The February 1963 issue of The
Asbestos Worker contains a three-page
article entitled, "Progress Report on Health
Hazards" which describes the efforts to
survey of lung diseases among asbestos
workers announced at the 20th General
Convention of the International Association
and states "EVERYONE has to be examined
- no one can be left out."

‘it

The Asbestos Worker, February 1963 Issue,
pp. 25-27 [Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit X].

47. The first article addressing the release of
asbestos from the disturbance of fireproofing
by trades such as plumbers and sheet metal
workers was not published in a
peer-reviewed industrial hygiene journal
until 1983.

fi

Declaration of Kyle Dotson in Support of
Defendant Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.'s
Motion for Summary Judgment or,
Alternatively, Summary Adjudication
("Dotson Declaration"), 3:14-17 [Sullivan
De