Answer: CHARLES HUSBAND VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                CO HD A BB WH Ye

a BBR TS

16

MARTE J. BASSL ESQ. (SBN 130882)
JOSEPH B. ADAMS, ESQ. (SBN 194964)

NANCY S. ALLARD, ESQ. (SBN 256640) ELECTRONICALLY
BASSI, EDLIN, HUIE & BLUM LLP FILED
351 California Street, Suite 200 Superior Court of Califprnia,
San Francisco, CA 94104 County of San Franckco
Telephone: (415) 397-9006
Facsimile: (415) 397-1339 JAN 12 2010
GORDON PARK-LI| Clerk
BY: WILLIAM TRUPEI
Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Defendant
PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION

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

CHARLES HUSBAND, Case No. CGC-09-275098

Plaintiff, DEFENDANT PARKER HANNIFIN
CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS

vs.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) As
Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C; and DOES 1-
8500,

Defendants.

Defendant PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION (“PARKER”) hereby answers the

unverified complaint for damages of Plaintiff CHARLES HUSBAND (“PLAINTIFF”) as
follows:

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

FIRST DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER

Mesto

i
DEFENDANT PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTWw Ne

CO MO eb

Banos

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

alleges that PLAINTIFF’s unverified complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action against Defendant PARKER.
SECOND DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that PLAINTIFF has failed to join all persons and parties needed for a just adjudication
of this action.
THIRD DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that PLAINTIFF’s claims are barred by laches, waiver and/or estoppel.
FOURTH DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER

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.

FIETH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that PLAINTIFF has failed to commence this action within the time required by the
applicable statutes of limitation, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure
sections 340(3), 340.2, and 343.

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that PLAINTIFF’s damages, if any, were proximately caused, in whole or in part, by
PLAINTIFF’s own fault and negligence in failing to exercise reasonable care for his own safety.
PLAINTIFF’s recovery from Defendant PARKER, if any, should therefore be reduced
proportionate to PLAINTIFF’ s comparative fault.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER

alleges that PLAINTIFF has failed to mitigate their alleged damages, if any there were.

Mesto

2
DEFENDANT PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTWw Ne

CO MO eb

Banos

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EIGHTH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that if PLAINTIFF was injured as a result of his exposure to products used or installed at
Defendant PARKER’s premises, which is denied, such injury occurred after the expiration of the
useful safe life of such products.

NINTH DEFENSE

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

TENTH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
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 DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that if PLAINTIFF suffered any damages, which is denied, such damages were solely and
proximately caused and/or contributed to by the negligence of third persons or entities over
whom or which Defendant PARKER had no control or supervision.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
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 forth in
the U.S. Constitution, and that any recovery by PLAINTIFF is barred as a consequence of the
exercise of those sovereign powers.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER

Mesto

3
DEFENDANT PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTWw Ne

CO MO eb

Banos

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

alleges that if PLAINTIFF suffered any injuries or damages, which is denied, the risk of any
such injuries or damages was not foreseeable to Defendant PARKER. Defendant PARKER at
all times material hereto acted in accordance with the state of scientific knowledge available to
installers and/or users of asbestos-containing products.
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that it received no notice of any dangerous, hazardous or defective condition or any
breach of warranty, either expressed or implied.

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER

alleges that PLAINTIFF’s claims against Defendant PARKER are barred by the holdings of

Privette y. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4" 689 (1993) and Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc., 18

Cal. 4" 253 (1998).
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that PLAINTIFF’s purported exposure to any asbestos-containing product or products
allegedly used or installed at Defendant PARKER’s premises was minimal and insufficient to
establish the probability that said product or products were a legal cause of PLAINTIFF’s
alleged injuries.

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that their action is barred by the applicable state ad/or federal industrial insurance and/or
Workers’ Compensation laws, including, but not limited to, California Labor Code sections 3601
and 3602, and section 905 of Title 33 of the United States Code.

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER

alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in PLAINTIFF’s complaint, PLAINTIFF was

employed by persons other than Defendant PARKER, was entitled to receive and did receive

Mesto

4
DEPENDANT PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTWw Ne

CO MO eb

Banos

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Workers Compensation benefits from said employer(s) or their insurers, and that said
employers(s) were negligent and careless in and about the matters referred to in PLAINTIFF’s
complaint. Defendant PARKER is, therefore, entitled to set-off any such benefits received by
PLAINTIFF against any judgment rendered in PLAINTIFF’s favor herein and said employer(s)
are barred from any recovery by lien or otherwise against Defendant PARKER in connection
with this matter.
NINETEENTH DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
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
PLAINTIFF’s complaint and that PLAINTIFF’s said acts proximately caused and contributed to
the alleged damages, if any there were.
TWENTIETH DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that at all times relevant to the matters alleged in PLAINTIFF’s complaint, PLAINTIFF’ s
employers and others were sophisticated users of asbestos-containing products and said
employers and others’ negligence and other fault/liability in exposing PLAINTIFF was a
superseding and/or intervening cause of PLAINTIFF’s injuries or damages, if any there were, as

articulated under California law including Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., 43 Cal. 4° 56

(2008).
TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that there was no concert of action among PARKER and other defendants to their action
and that any alleged liability or responsibility of Defendant PARKER, which is denied, is
minimal in proportion to the alleged liability and responsibility of other persons and entities
including the other defendants herein. PLAINTIFF should therefore be limited to seeking
recovery from Defendant PARKER for the proportion of alleged injuries and damages for which
Defendant PARKER is allegedly liable or responsible, all such alleged liability and

Mesto

5
DEFENDANT PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTWw Ne

CO MO eb

Banos

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

responsibility being denied.

TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, to the extent the
Complaint alleges that Defendant PARKER have “market share” liability or “enterprise
liability,” the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against
Defendant PARKER.

TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that it is entitled to set-off any settlements, judgments, or similar amounts received by
PLAINTIFF, against any judgment rendered against it in PLAINTIFF’s favor herein.

TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges in accordance with section 1431.2 of the Civil Code, known as the Fair Responsibility
Act of 1986, that if PLAINTIFF’s 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 PARKER requests a judicial
determination of the amount of non-economic damages, if any. Defendant PARKER also
requests a judicial determination of the amount of non-economic damages, if any, allocated to
Defendant PARKER in direct proportion to Defendant PARKER’s percentage of fault, if any,
and a separate judgment in conformance therewith.

TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that PLAINTIFF’s 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 PARKER, for which Defendant PARKER is not responsible.

TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER

alleges that neither the complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged therein states facts

Mesto

6
DEFENDANT PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTCO HD A BB WH Ye

a BBR TS

16

sufficient to entitle PLAINTIFF to an award of punitive damages against Defendant PARKER.
TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that PLAINTIFF is not entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages from
Defendant PARKER and that such damages are violative of the Constitutions of the United
States and of the State of California.

TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that PLAINTIFF’s 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, herby requiring a complete extinguishment of the instant action due to the doctrine of
Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel.

TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER

alleges that PLAINTIFF’s instant action is barred and discharged, pursuant to Title 11 of the
United States Code, section 1 141(d) and that PLAINTIFF’s action violates the pending
injunction against such claims that exists, by operation of law, pursuant to Title 11 of the United
States Code, section 524(a)(2).
THIRTIETH DEFENSE

AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER
alleges that PLAINTIFF did not reasonably rely upon any representation, disclaimer, warranty or|
other act or omission of Defendant PARKER.

THIRTY-FIRST DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER

alleges that PLAINTIFF has failed to sufficiently allege successor liability against Defendant
PARKER.
THIRTY-SECOND DEFENSE
AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, Defendant PARKER

Mesto

7
DEFENDANT PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTWw Ne

CO MO eb

Banos

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

alleges that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, section 430.10(c), there is another
action pending between the same parties on the same causes of action.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Defendant PARKER prays for judgment as follows:

1 That PLAINTIFF take nothing by reason of their complaint herein;

2. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant PARKER;
3. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
4

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

Date: January 8, 2010 BASSI, EDLIN, HUIE & BLUM LLP

/S/ MARTE J. BASSI
By:

MARTE J. BASSI ESQ. (SBN 130882)
Attorneys for Defendant

PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION
BASSI, EDLIN, HUIE & BLUM LLP
351 California Street, Suite 200

San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:(415) 397-9006

Mesto

8

DEFENDANT PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTWw Ne

CO MO eb

Banos

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Re: Charles Husband vy. Asbestos Defendants (BP), et al.
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-09-275098

PROOF OF SERVICE ~- ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA/COUNTY OF San Francisco

Tam a citizen of the United States and an employee in the County of San Francisco. I am
over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is
BASSI, EDLIN, HUIE & BLUM LLP, 351 California Street, Suite 200, San Francisco,
California 94104,

On the date executed below, 1 electronically served the document(s) via LexisNexis File
& Serve, described below, on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the
LexisNexis File & Serve website.

DEFENDANT PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS

On the following parties:
PLEASE SEE SERVICE LIST PROVIDED BY LEXISNEXIS

Ideclare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this

document is executed on January 12, 2010, at San Francisco, California.

sf ALISHA C. PEMBER
ALISHA C. PEMBER

Mesto

9
DEFENDANT PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT