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

Preview

BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD PO BOX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNEA 94948-6169 4415) 808-1585 oem NY KD A BY 10 ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., 8.B. #73685 DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., 8.B. #154436 OREN P. NOAH, ESQ., S.B. #136310 ELECTRONICALLY ASHLEY J, BENSON, ESQ., S.B. #276326 BRAYTON#PURCELL 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’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION vs. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit | attached to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500. eee Date: May 9, 2013 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept: 503, Hon. Teri L. Jackson Trial Date: June 10, 2013 Action Filed: December 17, 2010 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 437¢(b), plaintiffs submit the following Separate Statement of Disputed Material Facts in Opposition to Defendant CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication. PLAINTIFFS' DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 1, CRITCHFIELD acknowledges that the 1, CRITCHFIELD’s Separate Statement claims herein arise from CRITCHFIELD's No. 8 laborers exposing Mr. ROSS to asbestos at three sites: an IBM site in San Jose, the KSinjure 193-9) les CRIMEEC- ma. wep 1 AIB PLAINTIFPS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CRISCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION.Co em YW KD hw BR YY 10 Westin St. Francis Hotel, and Napa Junior College. 2. Defendant CRITCHFIELD acknowledges that the evidence shows that in the late 1960s or early 1970s Mr. ROSS worked in the presence of a CRITCHFIELD mployees at an IBM facility in San Jose and that these employees disturb existing fireproofing when they installed pipes and air ducts. 3. Defendant CRITCHFIELD acknowledges that the evidence shows that between 1973 and 1976 Mr. ROSS worked in the presence of a CRITCHFIELD employces during a remodel project at the Westin St. Francis hotel and that these employees disturbed existing fireproofing. These CRITCHFIELD employees also installed Duro Dyne duct connectors and removed thermal insulation from piping systems. 4, Defendant CRITCHFIELD acknowledges that the evidence shows that in 1979, Mr. ROSS worked around plumbers employed by CRITCHFIELD during a new construction and remodel project on the Napa Junior College campus. These CRITCHFIELD employees disturbed existing fireproofing in Mr. ROSS’s presence. 5. In this Motion, CRITCHFIELD does not contend that plaintiff cannot prove that the fireproofing, thermal insulation and Duro Dyne connectors, removed, installed, and disturbed by CRITCHFIELD employees in plaintiff's presence did not contain asbestos, or that he was not exposed to asbestos. ae {ODAU plies CRIMEC ms) sa.epd 2 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 Hi; 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]. 2, CRITCHFIELD’s Separate Statements Nos. 9 and 11. Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No. 275731), 195:22-197:11, 209:8-14.; Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No. 275731), 197:23-198:3, 202:10-203:23, 207:1-17, 211:11-22, 216:13-17. 3. CRITCHFIELD’s Separate Statements Nos. 12, 13 and 14. Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No. 275731), 228:8-229:9, 230:3-16; Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No. 275731), 230:23-232:14; Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No. 275731), 229:25-230:2, 232:15-233:12, 234:5-237:18. 4, CRITCHFIELD’s Separate Statement Nos. 16 and 18. Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No. 275731), 216:18-218:23, 219:11-20, 220:7-11;Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No. 275731), 223:2-7, 224:8-225:17. 5. CRITCHFIELD’s Separate Statement of Facts. AIB, STATEMENT GF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD, " SEPAR, Mine NANIC ‘AL, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCO OW YN DR A BY De RM NR NY NYY BR Ye Be Be Se Se ee Be Be Be eo WA A PB OH se So we IY DR mA BW BW ee oS 6. Extensive literature, dating back a century, recognized the potential hazards posed by toxic substances leaving the work place on the clothing or person of workers. 7. Similarly, literature dating back as early as1898 recognized the hazards posed by asbestos. And by the late 1940s, it came to be understood that asbestos could cause cancer. 8. Additionally, extensive studies and literature indicate that well recognized practices were available to reduce or eliminate the exposure to asbestos in the workplace. 9. By the 1960s a company, working in construction and on jobsites where contractors and laborers were working alike, should have been aware of potential health hazards associated with exposure to certain occupational dusts generally. In view of this, to the extent that any contractor was unaware of the composition of dust which might be created or encountered, it ought to have sought out such information. 10. Likewise by the 1960s a company, working in construction and on jobsites where contractors and laborers were working alike, should have been aware of health hazards associated with exposure to asbestos dust. Information was readily available prior to the 1960s concerning the health hazards of not only exposure to certain occupational non-asbestos dusts, but also to asbestos dust and the associated increased risk of developing an asbestos-related disease. Information regarding the substantial health risks associated with exposure to airborne asbestos was readily available by the 1960s, and only became more readily available over the course of time. 11. Equally available was information about measures to reduce the creation of dust and eliminate or reduce the exposure to dust that was created. By the 1960s, contractors, including defendant, located in California and subject to California General Industry Safety Orders, had ready access to information regarding 6. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D., M.P.H., 19, a.- m., attached to the Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2. 7. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D., MLP.H., fff 16, a.-¢& 17 a~-g., attached to the Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2. 8. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D., M.LP.H., § 18, a.- f., attached to the Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2. 9. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D., M.P.H., { 20, attached to the Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2. 10. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D., M.P.H., § 20, attached to the Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2. 11. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D., M.P.H., § 20, attached to the Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2. AIB, Klojuregh£9940°pluise-CRIMEC ms) sa.ypd PLAINTI SH MECHANICAL, IN E STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CRIFCHFIELD MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCo em YW KD hw BR YY 10 methods for mitigating exposures and could have implemented them. 12. Contractors such as defendant should 12. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D., have been educating their employees and MLP.H., {| 20-23, attached to the Benson implementing procedures to mitigating dust Decl. as Exhibit 2. in at least the 1960s. Dated: April 25, 2013 BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP By: /s/ Ashley J. Benson Ashley J. Benson. Attomeys for Plaintiffs Kelsi Redd 4 AIB, " SEPAR, STATEMENT GF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD, Mine NANIC ‘AL, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION