Preview
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
u
2 2
S32
ge<
885 16
Soy
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROWNOS2T OBIT}
ROGER M. MANSUKHANI (SBN: 164463)
STEVEN A, SOBEL (SBN: 177210)
K.C. SWISHER (SBN: 245238) ELECTRONICALLY
GORDON & REES LLP
101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000 F ILE D .
San Diego, CA 92101 Superior Court of California,
Telephone: (619) 696-6700 ounty of San Francisco
Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 JUL 23 2010
Clerk of the Court
Attorneys for Defendant BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK
HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC. Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
RUFUS ALEXANDER, ) CASE NO. CGC-08-274719
)
Plaintiffs, ) EXHIBIT A, PART 3, TO
) DECLARATION OF K.C. SWISHER IN
vs. ) SUPPORT OF HENNESSY
) INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) as ) JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Reflected on Exhibits B, C, G, H, 1, and DOES )
1-8500; and SEE ATTACHED LIST. ) [Filed and served concurrently with
) Notice of Motion and Motion for
) Judgment on the Pleadings;
) Memorandum of Points and Authorities
) Compendium of Foreign Authority;
) Request for Judicial Notice; and
) [Proposed] Order.]
)
) Date: September 21, 2010
) Time: 9:30 a.m.
) Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn
) Dept: 220
)
) Complaint Filed: July 1, 2008
) Trial date: None Set
)
fil
iti
fli
‘ii
iit
al.
EXHIBIT A, PART 3, TO DECLARATION OF K.C. SWISHER IN SUPPORT OF HENNESSY INDUSTRIES,
INC.’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGSEXHIBIT A, PART 3PACIFIC OIL REFINERY
PACIFIC SHIP REPAIR, INC,
|| PEPPERWOOD CORPORATION
| PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY
| THE PILLSBURY COMPANY
12 } PIONEER CARPET MILLS, INC.
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE
MANUPACTURING COMPANY
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA
| REGAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT, INC.
| REXAM BEVERAGE CAN COMPANY
| ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP LA
25) & ROMANSD
COASTAL WEST VENTURIER, INC.
COASTAL CORP,
SEQUOIA REFINING
PACIFIC REFINING CORP.
RADAWA MAINTENANCE COMPANY
MARINSHIP CORPORATION
PHILLIPS 66
GETTY OIL
TIDEWATER OIL COMPANY
TIDEWATER ASSOCIATED OIL COMPANY
LYON OIL COMPANY
AVON OIL COMPANY
DRILLING SPECIALTIES CO,
AMINOIL USA INC
BURMAH OIL
PROGRESSO FOODS COMPANY
TILLIE LEWIS FOODS
FOX SAN FRANCISCO PLAZA CORPORATION
SOUTHWEST AMUSEMENT CORPORATION
OXNARD IMPORT CARS, INC.
GENERAL RECORDS CORPORATION
ONE PLAZA CORPORATION
NT. & T., INC.
SOUTHWEST THEATRE CORPORATION
SAN JOAQUIN THEATRE CORPORATION
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PROPERTIES, INC.
SOCAL PROPERTIES CORPORATION
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA PROPERTIES, INC.
EAST BAY PROPERTIES, INC.
MID-CALIFORNIA PROPERTIES, INC.
NINE SEVENTY CORPORATION
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
BUNKER HILL TOWERS
REGAL BILTMORE HOTEL
AMERICAN NATIONAL CAN COMPANY
GUADALUPE SCHOOL
NORTHSIDE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
SAN DIEGO GAS COMPANY
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY
SAN DIEGO CONSOLIDATED GAS &
ELECTRIC COMPANY
9) © Copyright 2003 Brayton Purcell
© BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY {AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOSOO SO ee
ROR eet
~~ Oo OD OY DH Ww & W Hm
SAUGUS STATION
SBC HOLDINGS, INC.
SHELL OIL COMPANY
THE SHORENSTEIN CO.
SIMPSON PAPER COMPANY
SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC.
SMITH INTERNATIONAL
SOUTH AMERICA, INC.
SMURFIT NEWSPRINT CORPORATION
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
COMPANY
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
WATER COMPANY
SOUTHWEST MARINE, INC.
SPENGERS FISH GROTTO
STATE FARM GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
STERLING WINTHROP, INC.
SUMMIT MEDICAL CENTER
SUNSET HOMES, INC.
a
92 © Copyright 2003 Brayton Purcell
SBRAVTONS PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [/ LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS
THATCHER GLASS CORP.
THE STROH BREWERY COMPANY, INC.
THE STROH PRODUCTS COMPANY
JOSEPH SCHLITZ BREWING COMPANY
JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING COMPANY
SCHLITZ BREWERY
SHELL UNION OIL CORPORATION
SHELL CHEMICAL CO.
SHELL DEVELOPMENT CO.
SHELL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
FREMONT CENTER
HUMBOLDT BAY PULP COMPANY
SIMPSON LEE PAPER COMPANY
CROWN SIMPSON CORP.
BRISTOL HOTEL COMPANY
BRISTOL HOTEL ASSET COMPANY
HOLIDAY INNS, INC.
BASS HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.
SMITH TOOL COMPANY, INC.
PUBLISHER'S PAPER CO.
PUBLISHER'S FOREST PRODUCTS OF CALIFORNIA
SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY
EDISON INTERNATIONAL
REDONDO BEACH POWERHOUSE
ARDEN-CORDOVA WATER COMPANY
SOUTHWEST MARINE OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC.
SOUTH BAY BOAT YARD, INC.
NORTHWEST MARINE, INC. (Oregon)
SPANGERS-BERKELEY
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY
STERLING DRUG, INC.
WINTHROP LABORATORIES, INC.
MERRITT HOSPITAL
PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL
SUNSET DEVELOPMENT|| SUNVALLEY ASSOCIATES, a
| Calfiornia general partnership
SUN SHIP, INC.
| TENET HEALTHSYSTEM
HOSPITALS, INC.
TEXACO REFINING & MARKETING, INC.
THEODORE KOOPMAN, ET AL
THRIFT LODGE
| TIG PREMIER INSURANCE
COMPANY
TITLE INSURANCE AND
GUARANTY COMPANY
TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION
| TODD PACIFIC SHIPYARDS
CORPORATION
| TOSCO CORPORATION
| TRI-VALLEY GROWERS
TRW INC,
TRIZECHAHN CENTERS, INC.
TYCO INTERNATIONAL (PA) INC.
ULTRAMAR INC,
UNION BANK
TL
SUNVALLEY ASSOCIATES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
SUNVALLEY, a general parntership
SUN VALLEY MALL
SUN SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY
SUN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY
TENET HEALTHCARE CORP.
MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
TEXACO, INC,
TEXACO USA
THE TEXAS COMPANY
THE TEXAS CORPORATION
TIDEWATER OIL COMPANY
ASSOCIATED OIL COMPANY
GETTY OIL
FOUR STAR OIL AND GAS COMPANY
MOHAWK REFINERY
LONG BEACH CONVENTION CENTER
INDIO MOTEL, INC.
THUNDERBIRD MOTOR LODGE
TRANSAMERICA PREMIER INSURANCE
COMPANY
PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY
WESTERN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
TODD PACIFIC SHIPYARDS CORPORATION
TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION
THE OIL SHALE CORPORATION
TOSCO REFINING COMPANY
TRI VALLEY CANNERY
THOMPSON-RAMO-WOOLRIDGE
ERNEST HAHN
RAYCHEM CORPORATION
BEACON OIL COMPANY
CAMINOL COMPANY
THE CAMINOL COMPANY, LTD,
CALIFORNIA FIRST BANKUNION PACIFIC RESOURCES
COMPANY .
UNITED INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS, INC.
UNITED INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE, INC,
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION
UNIVERSAL STUDIOS, INC.
UNOCAL CORPORATION
@e oe ND FH BF YW HL
et
—
12} URBAN PACIFIC PROPERTIES
H USX CORPORATION
VACUBLAST CORPORATION
VALLEJO VENTURE 99 LLC
VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
CHAMPLIN PETROLEUM
UNITED REFRACTORY & CORROSION PRODUCTS, INC.
MORGAN ENGINEERING COMPANY
UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
UNITED AIRCRAFT & TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PRATT & WHITNEY
HAMILTON STANDARD CO.
MCA, INC.
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC.
UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
UNION GIL CO,
UNION CHEMICAL
COLLIER CARBON & CHEMICAL CORPORATION
R. T. COLLIER
WEST COAST SHIPPING COMPANY
OPERA PLAZA COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT
OPERA PLAZA
PACIFIC UNION DEVELOPMENT
CONSOLIDATED WESTERN PIPE & STEEL
CONSOLIDATED WESTERN STEEL
CONSOLIDATED STEEL SHIPYARD
WESTERN PIPE & STEEL
CONSOLIDATED SHIPBUILDING CORP,
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION
UNITED STATES STEEL, LLC
U.S. STEEL SUPPLY
U.S. STEEL COMPANY
COLUMBIA STEEL COMPANY
AMERICAN BRIDGE & IRON
CARNEGIE-ILLINOIS STEEL CORPORATION
FEDERAL SHIPBUILDING
AMERICAN TRISTAR
SHOWBOAT HOTEL & CASINO
SHOWBOAT LANES
CASTAWAY HOTEL, CASINO & BOWLING CENTER
VACCO VALVE CO.
VACUUM & AIR COMPONENTS COMPANY
OF AMERICA
VACUBLAST INTERNATIONAL
VACU-BLAST CORPORATION
VALLEJO PLAZA SHOPPING MALL
LARWIN PLAZA
VARIAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
94. i 3 Purcell
SO BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASB!WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC.
| WELLS FARGO BANK, N.T. & S.A
| WESTLAND BAY FAIR MALL LP.
| YOLLAND & CO.
YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC.
w,
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA
GREAT WESTERN BANK
GREAT WESTERN CAPITAL CORPORATION
AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK.
FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CALIFORNIA
ATC COMPANY
TRADE & VOCATIONAL CENTER
BAY FAIR MALL
BAY FAIR SHOPPING CENTER CORP.
VALLEY-FAIR MALL
VALLEY FAIR MALL
MODESTO SAVINGS AND LOAN
SPRECKELS SUGAR COMPANY, INC.
SPRECKLES INDUSTRIES
SPRECKLES SUGAR CO.
SPRECKLES DEVELOPMENT CO,, INC.
SPRECKLES LAND CO.
MECHANICAL PRODUCTS CO,, INC.
DUFF-NORTON CO., INC,
DOMINO SUGAR CORPORATION
AMSTAR CORPORATION
AMSTAR SUGAR CORPORATION
31 ACQUISITION CORP.
TATE AND LYLE PLC
YOLLAND MATERIALS COMPANY
YORK OPERATING COMPANY
YORK HOLDINGS
YORK HOLDING CORPORATION
CENTRAL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
BORG-WARNER AIR CONDITIONING, INC.
BORG-WARNER CENTRAL ENVIRONMENTAL
SYSTEMS
YORK DIVISION, BORG-WARNER
YORK-LUXAIRE, INC.
YORK CORPORATION
YORK ICE MACHINERY
YORK MANUFACTURING
FRICK COMPANY
BUMSTEAD-WCOLFORD COMPANY
| Atall times mentioned herein, the PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR
26] LIABILITY DEFENDANTS, and each of them, respectively, owned, leased, maintained,
27 | managed, and/or controlled the premises listed on Exhibit C where plaintiff was present. The
28 |
information provided on Exhibit C is preliminary, based on recall over events covering many
G@BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT POR PERSONAL INJURY TAND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOSat
f Additionally, plaintiff might have been present at these or other PREMISES
| OWNER/CONTRACTOR LIABILITY DEFENDANTS’ premises at other locations and on othed
| maintained, used, supplied, replaced, repaired, and/or removed on each of the aforesaid
years and further investigation and discovery may produce more reliable information.
occasions.
80. Prior to and at said times and places, said PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR
LIABILITY DEFENDANTS, and each of them, respectively, caused certain asbestos-containing
insulation, other building materials, products, and toxic substances to be constructed, installed,
persons exposed to said asbestos fibers and toxic substances while present at said premises.
81. At all times mentioned herein, said PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR,
82. At all times relevant herein, plaintiff entered said premises and used or occupied
each of said respective premises as intended and for each of the respective PREMISES OWNER/|
invitation. In so doing, plaintiff was exposed to dangerous quantities of asbestos fibers and other
toxic substances released into the ambient air by the aforesaid hazardous conditions and activities
managed, maintained, initiated, and/or otherwise created, controlled, or caused by said
PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR LIABILITY DEFENDANTS, and each of them.
96 2 Sopurighe 2008 Brayton PPurce!
SBRAYTONS PURCELL MASTER COMPI FOR PI IAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSOR' + ASBESTOS:83. Plaintiff at all times was unaware of the hazardous condition or the risk of
manner that caused plaintiff’s injuries from asbestos-containing products.
86. At all times mentioned herein, the PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR.
12] LIABILITY DEFENDANTS owed to plaintiffs and others similarly situated a duty to exercise
13} ordinary care in the management of such premises so as to avoid exposing workers such as
4 | plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of harm and to avoid causing injury to said person.
15 87, Atall times mentioned herein, said PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR
16 | LIABILITY DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew, or in the exercise of ordinary and
17]f reasonable care should have known, that the premises that were in their control would be used
18 || without knowledge of, or inspection for, defects or dangerous conditions and that the persons
19 ]| present and using said premises would not be aware of the aforesaid hazardous conditions to
|| which they were exposed on the premises.
88. At all times mentioned herein, said PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR
23 survey, or control said premises, or to abate, or correct, or to war plaintiff of, the existence of
the aforesaid dangerous conditions and hazards on or about said premises.
89. Prior to and at the times and places aforesaid, said PREMISES
OWNER/CONTRACTOR LIABILITY DEFENDANTS, and each of thern, respectively, caused
certain asbestos-containing insulation, other building materials, products, and toxic substances to
be constructed, installed, maintained, used, replaced, repaired and/or removed on each of their
2
f © BRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] ~ ASBESTOS.OM YU A HW BW LY
aforesaid respective premises, by their own workers and/or by employing various contractors,
and caused the release of dangerous quantities of toxic asbestos fibers and other toxic substances
inte the ambient air and thereby injured plaintiff.
90, Atall times mentioned herein, said PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR
LIABILITY DEFENDANTS, and each of them:
a. Should have recognized that the work of said contractors would create during
the progress of the work, dangerous, hazardous, and unsafe conditions, which could or would
harm plaintiff and others unless special precautions were taken;
b, Knew or had reason to know, that the contractors it had selected and hired to
install, remove, abate, or otherwise handle asbestos-containing materials were unfit, unskilled,
unlicenced, or otherwise unqualified to do so;
c. Failed to use reasonable care to discover whether the contractors it selected and
hired to install, remove, abate, or otherwise handle asbestos-containing materials were
competent, or qualified to do so.
91. In part, plaintiff was exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers and other toxic
substances by reason of such contractors’ failure to take the necessary precautions.
92. The work of contractors on premises controlled by the PREMISES
OWNER/CONTRACTOR LIABILITY DEFENDANTS created an unsafe premise and an unsafe
work place by reason of the release of dangerous quantities of toxic substances, including but not|
limited to asbestos.
93. The unsafe premise or work place was created, in part, by the negligent conduct off
the conitractors employed by the PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR LIABILITY
DEFENDANTS. Said negligent conduct includes, but is not limited to:
a. Failure to warn of asbestos and other toxic dusts;
b. Failure to suppress the asbestos-containing or toxic dusts;
c. Failure to remove the asbestos-containing and toxic dusts through
use of ventilation or appropriate means;
iOo Oe SD A HH hm Ww LD
NON DN RR RN mem nett
ee DR Rf YN = CS 6 wm RA mA ke NN S| SG
. d Failure to provide adequate breathing protection, i.e., approved
respirators or masks;
€. Failure to inspect and/or test the air;
f Failure to provide medical monitoring.
g. Failure to select and hire a careful and competent contractor or
subcontractor.
94, The PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR LIABILITY DEFENDANTS’ duties
to maintain and provide safe premises, a safe place to work, and to warn of dangerous conditions
are non-delegable; said duties arise out of, inter alia, common law, California Civil Code § 1714,
and California Labor Code § 6400, et seq., or California Health and Safety Code § 40.200, et
s¢q., and regulations promulgated thereunder. Accordingly, the PREMISES
OWNER/CONTRACTOR LIABILITY DEFENDANTS are responsible for any breach of said
duties whether by themselves or others.
95, Prior to and at said times and places, said PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR
LIABILITY DEFENDANTS were subject to certain ordinances, standards, statutes, and other
government regulations promulgated by the United States Government, the State of California,
and others, including but not limited to the General Industry Safety Orders promulgated pursuant
to California Labor Code § 6400 and the California Administrative Code under the Division of
Industrial Safety, Department of Industrial Relations, including but not limited to Title VIE,
Group 9 (Control of Hazardous Substances), Article 81, § 4150, § 4106, § 4107, and § 4108,
and Threshold Limit Values as documented for asbestos and other toxic substances under
Appendix A, Table | of said Safety Orders; additionally, California Health and Safety Code
§$ 40.200, et seq., which empowers the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (B.A.A.Q.D.)
to promulgate regulations including, but not limited to BA.A.Q.D. Regulation 11, Rules 2 and
14, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1, Part 61, et seq. -- The National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, which required said PREMISES OWNER/
CONTRACTOR LIABILITY DEFENDANTS to provide specific safeguards or precautions to
prevent or reduce the inhalation of asbestos dust and other toxic fumes or substances; and said
39. $2 Comvrighs 2003 Brayton Purcell
GBRAYTONS PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBES'CO MR HW WN
SS = 5
14
PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR LIABILITY DEFENDANTS failed to provide the
required safeguards and precautions, or contractors employed by the PREMISES
OWNER/CONTRACTOR LIABILITY DEFENDANTS failed to provide the required safeguard:
and precautions. Defendants’ violations of said codes include, but are not limited to:
(a) Failing to comply with statutes and allowing ambient levels of airborne
asbestos fiber to exceed the permissible/allowable levels with regard to the aforementioned
statutes;
{b) Failing to segregate work involving the release of asbestos or other toxic
dusts;
(c) Failing to suppress dust using prescribed ventilation techniques;
(4) Failing to suppress dust using prescribed "wet down" techniques,
-(e) Failing to warn or educate plaintiff or others regarding asbestos or other
toxic substances on the premises;
(f) Failing to provide approved respiratory protection devices;
(g) Failing to ensure “approved” respiratory protection devices were used
adequately;
(h) Failing to provide for an on-going health screening program for those
exposed to asbestos on the premises;
Gi) Failing to provide adequate housekeeping and clean-up of the work place;
a Failing to adequately warn of the hazards associated with asbestos as
required by these statutes;
(k) Failing to adequately report renovation and disturbance of asbestos-
containing materials, including but not limited to B.A.A.O.M.D. Regulation 11, Rules 2 and 14;
() Failing to have an asbestos removal supervisor as required by regulation;
(m) Failing to get approval for renovation as required by statutes; and
(n) Failing to maintain records as required by statute.
Mt
HW
160. © Sonya 2005 Bravian srburcell
GBRAVION®S PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTY » ASBESTOSOe YR HW RW Dm
BON eet
N= SG © oe MW A HW RB WN =m
96. | PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR LIABILITY DEFENDANTS, and each off
them, were the "statutory employer” of plaintiff as defined by the California Labor Code and
California case law.
97. Plaintiff at all times was unaware of the hazardous condition or the risk of
personal injury created by defendants’ violation of said regulations, ordinances, or statutes.
98. Atall times mentioned herein, plaintiff was a member of the class of persons
whose safety was intended to be protected by the regulations, standards, statutes, or ordinances
described in the foregoing paragraphs.
99, Atall times mentioned herein, said PREMISES OWNER/CONTRACTOR
LIABILITY DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew, or in the exercise of ordinary and
reasonable care should have known, that the premises that were in their control would be used
without knowledge of, or inspection for, defects or dangerous conditions, that the persons present
and using said premises would not be aware of the aforesaid hazardous conditions to which they
were exposed on the premises, and that such persons were unaware of the aforesaid violations of
codes, regulations, and statutes.
100. Asa proximate result of the foregoing, plaintiff developed asbestos-related illness,
which has caused great injury and disability as previously set forth, and plaintiff has suffered
damages as herein alleged.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, their ALTERNATE
ENTITIES, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
(Unseaworthiness}
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR UNSEAWORTHINESS, PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF DEFENDANTS ON
EXHIBIT D, DOES 2001-2500, THEIR ALTERNATE ENTITIES, AND EACH OF THEM
(hereinafter referred to as JONES ACT DEFENDANTS), AND ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
101. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth hereat, each
and every paragraph of the First, Second, and Third Causes of Action.
101 © Coovright 2003 Brayton Purcet]
SBRAYTONS PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY {AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] + ASBESTOS:102. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States of America. This Court has jurisdiction
under the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. Section 688, et seq.) and under General Maritime Law pursuant
to Article TIL, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, supplemented by the laws of the State
of California.
103. Atall times herein, each of the JONES ACT DEFENDANTS was the successor,
4y
6 || successor in business, successor in product line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor,
7 predecessor in business, predecessor in product line or portion thereof, parent, holding company,
8 || affiliate, venturer, co-venturer, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial
i
i assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line or a portion thereof,
{ parent, holding company, affiliate, venturer, co-venturer, subsidiary, whole or partial owner, or
wholly or partially owned entity, or entity that it was a member of, or funded, that owned,
operated, maintained, and controlled those certain vessels of American registry herein mentioned,
and used said vessels in the transportation of freight and cargo in interstate and/or foreign
commerce. The following defendants, and each of them, are liable for the acts of each and every
ALTERNATE ENTITY, and each of them, in that there has been a virtual destruction of
plaintiff's remedy against each such ALTERNATE ENTITY, defendants, and each of them, have
acquired the assets, product line, or a portion thereof, of each such ALTERNATE ENTITY;
| defendants, and each of them, caused the virtual destruction of plaintiff's remedy against each
| 102 © Copyright 2003 Brayton Purcell
SBRAYTONS PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL 'Y [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS:
iAMERICAN FOREIGN
STEAMSHIP CORPORATION
AMERICAN CLASSIC VOYAGES CO,
AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD.
| ATTRANSCO, INC.
CAMBRIDGE TANKERS, INC.
CHEVRON SHIPPING COMPANY
| CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL,
ING,
| CROWLEY MARITIME CORPORATION
16
"7
18]
19
20}
21
2 DMC PROPERTIES, INC.
23) CUNTERNATIONAL LTD.
24] Grace Lanes, INC.
8
26 | FLUTH CORPORATION
ALTERNATE ENTITY
A.H. BULL STEAMSHIP COMPANY
GRACE LINE, INC.
PRUDENTIAL LINES, INC.
W.R. GRACE & COMPANY
AMERICAN CONDOR STEAMSHIP CORPORATION
AMERICAN EAGLE TANKER CORP.
AMERICAN HAWAII CRUISES, INC.
DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINES, INC,, LTD.
DOLLAR ASSOCIATES
AMERICAN MAIL LINES, LTD.
THIRD ATTRANSCO TANKER CORP.
GLOBE SEAWAYS, INC.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
CHEVRON CORP.
UNITED FRUIT COMPANY
UNITED BRANDS COMPANY
PUGET SOUND TUG & BARGE COMPANY
RED AND WHITE FLEET
CROWLEY MARINE SERVICES, INC.
CROWLEY AMERICAN TRANSPORT
HARBOR CARRIERS, INCORPORATED
PACIFIC DRY DOCK & REPAIR CO.
MERRITT SHIPBUILDING CO.
DELTA STEAMSHIP LINES, INC.
DELTA LINES
MISSISSIPPI SHIPPING CO.
BEERS & MINNIS, INC.
MARINE TRANSPORT LINES, INC.
MARINE TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT, INC.
ALASKA PACKERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
GENERAL STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, LTD.
PRUDENTIAL LINES, INC,
ADMIRALTY ENTERPRISES
W.R. GRACE & COMPANY
ISBRANDTSEN TANKERS, INC.
FOSS LAUNCH & TUG CO.oO Oo DDH B® WY
va taht ttt tt
ot TN th ke WON ee SG
19
HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC. KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION
ISCO, INC.
KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.
KEYSTONE SHIPPING COMPANY
MAERSK, INC.
MARITIME MANAGEMENT CORP.
MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY, INC.
McLEAN INDUSTRIES, INC.
MERCER ASSOCIATES, INC.
MOORE-McCORMACK DISTRIBUTING
MOORE McCORMACK RESOURCES, INC.
MORMAC MARINE GROUP, INC.
POLAR TANKERS INC.
PRINCESS U.S. HOLDINGS, ENC.
PERMANENTE STEAMSHIP CORPORATION
PERMANENTE CEMENT COMPANY
THE PERMANENTE CORPORATION
KAISER GYPSUM, INC.
KAISER CEMENT & GYPSUM CORPORATION
DOMTAR GYPSUM, INC.
DOMTAR, INC.
LONGHORN PORTLAND CEMENT
STATES MARINE INTERNATIONAL, INC. (DE)
STATES MARINE LINES, INC. (DE)
ISTHMIAN LINES, INC. (DE)
PERMANENTE CEMENT COMPANY
HENRY J. KAISER COMPANY
PACIFIC COAST CEMENT COMPANY
KEYSTONE TANKSHIP CORPORATION
CHAS KURZ & CO,
MAERSK SEALAND
MOLLER STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC.
ONTHEROCKS, INC.
COVE SHIPPING, INC.
MNC NAVIGATION, INC.
UNITED STATES LINES, INC.
MOORE-McCORMACK LINES, INC.
- MOORE-McCORMACK DISTRIBUTING
STATES MARINE CORPORATION OF NEW YORK
STATES MARINE CORPORATION (NY)
GLOBAL BULK TRANSPORT CORPORATION (NY}
GLOBAL BULK TRANSPORT, INC, (NY)
STATES MARINE CORPORATION
MOORE-McCORMACK LINES
McLEAN INDUSTRIES, INC.
MOORE-McCORMACK LINES, INC.
MOORE-McCORMACK DISTRIBUTING
MMR, INC.
McLEAN INDUSTRIES, INC.
U.S. LINES
U.S. LINES (S.A.}, INC.
UNITED STATES LINES, INC,
MOORE-McCORMACK LINES, INC.
ARCO MARINE, INC.
PRINCESS CRUISES, INC.
104 ov
DBRAYTONS PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS
eft1] PRUDENTIAL LINES, INC.
| ;
SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC.
SEARIVER MARITIME, INC,
SHIPOWNERS & MERCHANTS
TOWBOAT CO, LTD.
| SKINNER CORPORATION
SOUTHER COMPANY
STATES STEAMSHIP COMPANY
THE US, LINES AND U.S.
LINES (S.A.), INC.
REORGANIZATION TRUST
f W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN.
WATERMAN STEAMSHIP
CORPORATION
WEYERHAEUSER CORPORATION
iit
GRACE LINE, INC.
W.R. GRACE & COMPANY
$.L, SERVICE, INC.
SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC.
SEA LAND OF CALIFORNIA, INC
SEA LAND CORPORATION
MAERSK SEALAND
EXXON SHIPPING COMPANY
HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CORPORATION
TUG SEA CLOUD, INC.
ALASKA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC.
ALASKA TRAINSHIPS, INC.
SKINNER & EDDY CORPORATION
ALPAC CORPORATION
NORTHERN COMMERCIAL CO,
WEST COAST STEAMSHIP COMPANY
STATES S, $, CO.
UNITED STATES LINES, INC.
MeLEAN INDUSTRIES, INC,
MOORE-McCORMACK LINES, INC.
GRACE LINE, INC.
PRUDENTIAL LINES, INC.
ADMIRALTY ENTERPRISES.
PAN ATLANTIC STEAMSHIP
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY OF TACOMA WA
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
104. During the years as set forth on Exhibit A, plaintiff was employed by the JONES
ACT DEFENDANTS, their ALTERNATE ENTITIES, and each of them, on their vessels, and
was at all of said times, acting within the course and scope of said employment as a merchant
seaman and in other occupations during said years in the service on said vessels, he was then and
there exposed to asbestos, silica, asbestos- and silica-containing products, asbestos and diesel
fumes and other fumes and dusts and second-hand smoke, and other toxic substances, the
pathological effect of which was without noticeable trauma and was unknown to plaintiff.
t *yPurcell
|| SWHAVTONS PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS.a
ee BD NH & Ww WH
105. At all times herein mentioned, while in the service of said vessels, plaintiff
suffered injuries, illness, and disabilities, which resulted from exposure to asbestos, silica,
asbestos- and silica-containing products, asbestos, and diesel fumes and other fumes and dusts
and second-hand smoke, and other toxic substances.
106. Said injuries and illnesses suffered by plaintiff were directly and caused by the
defendants, and each of them, in failing to furnish plaintiff with safe and seaworthy vessels; and
in failing to provide a safe place to work or a safe means with which to do the required work
aboard said vessels; and exposing plaintiff to unreasonable risks of harm and injury there at; in
failing to furnish plaintiff with adequate aid, protection, warnings, advice, and assistance with
which to do assigned tasks; requiring plaintiff to work under unsafe conditions and
circumstances aboard said vessels; and further, in failing to provide plaintiff with prompt,
adequate, or sufficient medical care, advice, and treatment for disabilities, injuries, illness, and
damages aboard said vessels, and thereafter. .
107, By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff was caused to and did sustain severe, painful,
and disabling injuries and illnesses to his lungs and body, a shock to his nervous system, and
other injuries and illnesses not fully known at this time. Plaintiff prays leave to amend this
Complaint to allege the full extent of said injuries, illnesses, damages, and disabilities when the
same are more definitely ascertained.
108. Asa direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct of the defendants, their
ALTERNATE ENTITIES, and each of them, plaintiff has incurred, is presently incurring, and
will incur in the future, liability for physicians, surgeons, nurses, hospital care, medicine,
hospices, x-rays and other medical treatment, the true and exact amount thereof being unknown
to plaintiff at this time, and plaintiff prays leave to amend this complaint accordingly when the
true and exact cost thereof is ascertained. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid
conduct of the defendants, their ALTERNATE ENTITIES, and each of them, plaintiff has
incurred, is presently incurring, and will incur in the future, liability for the reasonable value of
medial care provided by plaintiff's family members measured by, inter alia, the costs associated.
with the hiring a registered nurse, home hospice, or other service provider, the true and exact
rennet Sree nee & Copyright 2003, Brayton Purcell
UM] - ASBESTOS:
SBRAVTONS PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTI1 | amount thereof being unknown to plaintiff at this time, and plaintiff prays leave to amend this
21 complaint accordingly when the true and exact costs are known or at time of trial.
3 109. Asa further result of the foregoing, plaintiff was rendered unable to engage in his
41] normal and usual calling. Plaintiff does not know the value of plaintiff's loss of earnings, and
5|| prays leave to amend this Complaint to allege the full extent of said loss when it is more
6 || definitely ascertained.
7 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants, their ALTERNATE
8 | ENTITIES, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
9
10 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (Negligence [Jones Act})
12 AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF
13 | ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE (Jones Act), PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF DEFENDANTS ON}
4 | EXHIBIT D, DOES 2001-2500, THEIR ALTERNATE ENTITIES, AND EACH OF THEM
15 || (hereinafter referred to as JONES ACT DEFENDANTS), AND ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
16 110. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth hereat, each and]
17]| every allegation of the Sixth Cause of Action.
18 111. Defendants, their ALTERNATE ENTITIES, and each of them, had a duty to
19 | exercise due care in the pursuance of the activities herein incorporated, and above defendants,
20 || their ALTERNATE ENTITIES, and each of them, breached said duty of care.
21 112. Said injuries and illnesses suffered by plaintiff were directly and caused by the
22|| negligent acts and omissions of the defendants, and each of them, their agents, servants, and
23 1 employees, in negligently failing to provide plaintiff with a safe place to work or a safe means
2411 with which to do the required work aboard said vessels; and negligently exposing plaintiff to
25 | unreasonable risks of harm and injury thereat; and negligently failing to furnish plaintiff with _
26 || adequate aid, protection, waning, advice, and assistance with which to do the assigned tasks; and
27|| negligently requiring plaintiff to work under unsafe conditions and circumstances aboard said
28 || vessels; and further, in negligently failing to provide plaintiff with prompt, adequate, or
107 © Copyright 2003 Brayton Purcell
SBRAVTONS PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY {AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUN] - ASBESTOS| sufficient medical care, advice, and treatment for his disabilities, injuries, illness, and damages
I .
| aboard said vessels and thereafter.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants, their ALTERNATE
4) ENTITIES, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
E) E OF Ai
(Maintenance and Cure}
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, RIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE, PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF DEFENDANTS
ON EXHIBIT D, DOES 2001-2500, THEIR ALTERNATE ENTITIES, AND EACH OF THEM
(hereinafter referred to as JONES ACT DEFENDANTS), AND ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
113. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth hereat, each
and every paragraph of the Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action.
114. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to receive from said defendants,
their ALTERNATE ENTITIES, and each of them, maintenance and cure from the time plaintiff
became disabled from work by reason of his injuries, illnesses, disabilities, and damages, at a
154
16
17 || reasonable rate per day.
18 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, their ALTERNATE
19] ENTITIES, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
(hence BS USC. HS Bp
i AS AND FOR A FURTHER, NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF
| ACTION PURSUANT TO 33 U.S.C. §905(b), PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF DEFENDANTS
ON EXHIBIT E, DOES 2501-3000, THEIR ALTERNATE ENTITIES, AND EACH OF THEM
(hereinafter "LHWCA defendants"), AND ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
115, Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth hereat, each and
27 || every allegation contained in the First Cause of Action herein, excluding therefrom any charging
28 | allegations of culpable conduct against the LHWCA defendants.
© BRAYTON® PURCELL RR COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF RTIUM] - ASBESTOS.H 6. At all times herein mentioned plaintiff was a harbor worker rendering services to
| defendants on EXHIBIT E, DOFS 2501-3000. Plaintiff thus proceeds against said defendants
pursuant to the Longshoreman and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.
117. Atall times herein, each of the LHWCA Defendants was the successor, successor
7) venturer, co-venturer, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of
8 || oF member in an entity that owned, operated, maintained and controlled certain vessels of
9 | American registry, and used said vessels in the transportation of freight and cargo in interstate
10 and/or foreign commerce. Said entities shall hereinafter be called ALTERNATE ENTITIES.
11 || Each of the herein named defendants are liable for the tortious conduct of each successor,
12
13
14
15
16
successor in business, successor in product line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor,
predecessor in business, predecessor in product line or a portion thereof, parent, holding _
company, affiliate, venturer, co-venturer, subsidiary, whole or partial owner, or wholly or
partially owned entity, or entity that it was a member of, or funded, that owned, operated,
maintained, and controlled those certain vessels of American registry herein mentioned, and used!
17 | said vessels in the transportation of freight and cargo in interstate and/or foreign commerce, The
18 || defendants listed on Exhibit E, and each of them, are liable for the acts of each and every
19 ALTERNATE ENTITY (see paragraph 103 and/or Exhibit E), and each of them, in that there has,
20 | been a virtual destruction of plaintiff's remedy against each such ALTERNATE ENTITY,
i
|
24 | to assume the risk-spreading role of each such ALTERNATE ENTITY; and that each such
defendant enjoys the goodwill originally attached to each such ALTERNATE ENTITY.
118. At all times hereinafter mentioned, plaintiff was in the employ of certainov en A HW F&F WwW he
10
119. Atall times hereinafter mentioned, the defendants on Exhibit E, DOES 2501-
3000, and their agents or representatives, contracted with plaintiff's shipyard employers and
DOES 2900-3000 for the purpose of loading on or unloading cargo from, and/or for the purpose
of making certain repairs to various ships owned, operated, maintained and controlled by, the
defendants on Exhibit E and DOES 2561-3000.
120. Atal times herein mentioned, the plaintiff was lawfully upon said ships and was
lawfully engaged in the course of his employment thereon.
121, Atall times herein mentioned, said ships were lying in the navigable waters of the
United States at various piers in the San Francisco Bay Area.
122. Atal relevant times herein mentioned, while plaintiff was lawfully engaged in the
course of his employment upon said ships, plaintiff, without any fault on his part, and solely
through the carelessness and negligence of the LHWCA defendams, their officers, agents,
servants and employees, was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products and other
toxic substances. .
123. Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to exercise due care in the pursuance of
the activities mentioned above and defendants breached said duty of care.
124. Defendants, and each of them, knew, or should have known, that the
aforementioned asbestos and asbestos-containing products, and other toxic substances, would be
used or handled in the course of plaintiff's employment, said use resulting in the release of
airborne asbestos fibers, and other toxic substances; and that through such foreseeable use and/or
handling “exposed persons," including plaintiff herein, would be in proximity to and exposed to
said asbestos fibers.
125. Plaintiff has used, handled, or had been otherwise exposed to asbestos and
asbestos-containing products, and other toxic substances, in a manner that was reasonably
foreseeable.
126. Asadirect and proximate result of the conduct of the defendants as aforesaid,
plaintiff's exposure to silica and asbestos and asbestos- and silica-containing products, asbestos
and diesel fumes and other fumes and dusts and second-hand smoke, and other toxic substances.
li 3 Purcell
SBRAVTONS PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF = ASBESTOScaused severe and permanent injury to plaintiff, that nature of which, along with the date of
| plaintiff's diagnosis, are set forth in Exhibit A to the complaint.
3 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, and each of them, as
4 | hereinafter setforth.
5 T USE T
(FELLA. - Negligence)
AS AND FORTH A FURTHER, TENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OP
|| (hereinafter referred to as F.E.L.A. DEFENDANTS), AND ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
- 127, Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth hereat, each
and every paragraph of the First Cause of Action herein. i
128. This action arises and is being brought under and pursuant to provisions of the
|| Federal Employers Liability Act (F-E.L.A.), 45 U.S.C. 51, et seq.
129. Atail times herein mentioned, defendants listed on Exhibit F, their ALTERNATE
f ENTITIES, and each of them, and DOES 3000-3500, were common carriers by railroad, engaged
in interstate commerce doing business as such in California and other states, and plaintiff was
130. Atall times herein, each of the F.E.L.A. DEFENDANTS was the successor,
23 | successor in business, successor in product line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor,
24 || predecessor in business, predecessor in product line or portion thereof, parent, holding company,
Hi
Hi
i
271 common carriers by railroad, and used said carriers in the transportation of freight and cargo in
28 interstate commerce. Said entities shall hereinafter be called ALTERNATE ENTITIES. Each of
l
25 | affiliate, venturer, co-venturer, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial
ern th Lerner Copyright 2003, Bravion Purcell
| CONSORTIUM) - ASBESTOS
L
26 owner of or member in an entity owned, operated, maintained and controlled those certain
SBRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OFthe herein named defendants are liable for the tortious conduct of each successor, successor in
business, successor in product line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in
business. predecessor in product line or a portion thereof, parent, holding company, affiliate,
venturer, co-venturer, subsidiary, whole or partial owner, or wholly or partially owned entity, or
entity that it was a member of, or funded, that owned, operated, maintained, and controlled those
certain common carriers herein mentioned, and used said carriers in the transportation of freight
and cargo in interstate commerce. The following defendants, and each of them, are liable for the
acts of each and every ALTERNATE ENTITY, and each of them, in that there has been a virtual
destruction of plaintiff's remedy against each such ALTERNATE ENTITY, defendants, and each|
of them, have acquired the assets, product line, or a portion thereof, of each such ALTERNATE
ENTITY; defendants, and each of them, caused the virtual destruction of plaintiff's remedy
against each such ALTERNATE ENTITY; each such defendant has the ability to assume the
risk-spreading role of each such ALTERNATE ENTITY; and that each such defendant enjoys
the goodwill originally attached to each such ALTERNATE ENTITY:
DEFENDANT ALTERNATE ENTITY
‘THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC.
ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY
COMPANY
SANTA FE RAILWAY
GREAT NORTHERN RAILROAD
BURLINGTON NORTHERN CBQ RAILROAD
SANTA FE CORPORATION
DILL TRUST, LTD. OAHU RAILROAD
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
SOUTHERN PACIFIC GOLDEN GATE FERRY CO.
SOUTH PACIFIC GOLDEN STATE FERRIES LTD.
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO.
COTTON BELT RAILROAD
WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
MISSOURI KANSAS AND TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
DENVER AND RIO GRANDE RAILROAD
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY MILWAUKEE RAILROAD
MILWAUKEE ROAD RAILROAD
ui
© Copyri Purcell
® BRAYTON: RCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY TAND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] + ASBESTOSCO Oe WD HW — Ww
CONSOLIDATED RAILROAD COMPANY CONRAIL CO.
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY
L&NRAILROAD
B& ORAILROAD
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
AKRON, CANTON & YOUNGSTOWN
RAILROAD COMPANY
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD NORTHERN PACIFIC TERMINAL COMPANY
NORTHERN PACIFIC TERMINAL & UNION STATION
SOO LINE RAILROAD CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
131, Plaintiff's work, as set forth in Exhibit A to the complaint, required him to work
on and around locomotives and other railroad equipment, By requiring plaintiff to work on and
around said locomotives and other railroad equipment, defendants, their ALTERNATE
ENTITIES, and each of them, negligently allowed plaintiff to be in and about and exposed to
excessive amounts of asbestos, silica, asbestos- and silica-containing products, asbestos and
diesel fumes and other fumes and dusts and second-hand smoke, and other toxic substances. As
a direct and proximate result of defendants’, their ALTERNATE ENTITIES, and each of their
failure to provide plaintiff with a safe place to work, plaintiff sustained injuries caused by his
exposure to these various products and substances.
132, Plaintiff's work was performed in the regular course and scope of his duties and at
said time and place defendants, their ALTERNATE ENTITIES, and each of them, owed to
plaintiff a duty of exercising ordinary care to provide him with a reasonably safe place of
employment in which to perform his work.
133. At said time and place of plaintiff's employment, defendants, their ALTERNATE
ENTITIES, and each of them were under a duty to provide workers at said place of employment
with a safe workplace with adequate and reasonable safeguards against injury to workers, to
refrain from creating defective and dangerous situations, and refrain from any negligent conduct,
which might jeopardize the life and limb of workers therein. Defendants, their ALTERNATE
ENTITIES, and each of them, owed a duty of inspection and a duty to warn all workers at said
113 © Copyright 2003 Brayton Shurcell
SBRAVTONS PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - A:|| place of employment of situations which would constitute a hazard to life and limb of the
2] workers employed in and about said locomotives. The defendants, their ALTERNATE
| ENTITIES, and each of them negligently failed to perform these duties.
134. Plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligence of defendants, their
ALTERNATE ENTITIES, and each of them, and resulted from the failure of said defendants,
their ALTERNATE ENTITIES, and each of them, to fulfill their aforesaid obligations and duties
to the plaintiff in the following respects:
a. By creating a defective and dangerous situation;
b, By failing to provide the plaintiff with a safe place to work,
c. By failing to adequately inspect,
d. By failing to warn plaintiff of the dangers existing in this place of work;
@ By failing to provide adequate safeguards against injuries to the plaintiff
Hl
i4y
154
who was employed at said place of work.
135. Asadirect and proximate result of the defendants’, their ALTERNATE
as hereinafter set forth.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against the defendants, their ALTERNATE
Vv. iF
(Violation of the Boiler Inspection Act)
AS AND FOR A ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF
| DEFENDANTS LISTED ON EXHIBIT F, AND DOES 3000-3500, THEIR ALTERNATE
23
27 and every paragraph of the First Cause of Action herein, and paragraphs 131, 132, and 133, of
|
ll the previous Cause of Action herein.
4 ight 2: SPurce!
| SBRAVTONS PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INIURY [AND LOSS OF CONSO! ASBESTOSoOo we UY HM ew! LY
10
157. This is an action based on the Federal Boiler Inspection Act, 45 U.S.C. Section
22, et seq. and the Federal Emplovers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. Section 51, ef seq. Jurisdiction is
invoked under 28 U.S.C. Section 1337.
138. Defendants, their ALTERNATE ENTITIES, and each of them, were in violation
of the Federal Boiler Inspection Act in failing to install, remove, repair, and maintain safe
materials and appliances to insulate and maintain the aforementioned steam pipes, boilers, and
other equipment of the aforementioned locomotives in that the products they used released
asbestos fibers and particles, diesel fumes and other fumes and dusts and second-hand smoke andj
other dangerous substances into the atmosphere where plaintiff carried out his duties and onto
plaintiff's clothing.
139. As adirect and proximate result of the actions and conduct of defendants, their
ALTERNATE ENTITIES, and each of them, as outlined herein, plaintiff has suffered the injuries
and damages previously alleged. .
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, their ALTERNATE
ENTITIES, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
(Respiratory Safety Devices - ae nce)
AS AND FORTH A FURTHER, TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE
OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF DEFENDANTS ON
EXHIBIT G, DOES 3502-4000, THEIR ALTERNATE ENTITIES, AND EACH OF THEM,
(hereinafter also known as RESPIRATORY SAFETY DEVICE DEFENDANTS), AND FOR A
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE ALLEGES:
140. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth hereat, the
allegations contained in paragraphs the First Cause of Action.
141, Atal times herein mentioned, RESPIRATORY SAFETY DEVICE
DEFENDANTS were and are engaged in the approval, certification, endorsement, sanctioning,
research, study, manufacture, fabrication, design, labeling, assembly, distribution, sale,
Ls © Copyright 2003 Bravton Purce!
SBRAYTON® PURCELL MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PER‘ IAL INJURY [AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM] - ASBESTOS:marketing, inspection, service, repair, warranty, packaging, specifying, requiring, mandating, or
otherwise directing and/or facilitating the use of, or advertising of respiratory safety devices,
ll including but not limited to, protective masks, respirators and filters.
142. Atall times herein mentioned, the RESPIRATORY SAFETY DEVICE
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, singularly and jointly, negligently and carelessly approved,
certified, endorsed, sanctioned, researched, manufactured, fabricated, designed, tested or failed to}
test, warned or failed to warn, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale,
| sold, inspected, serviced, authorized, approved, facilitated, promoted, repaired, marketed,
warranted, rebranded, manufactured for others, packaged, and advertised certain respiratory
safety devices, including but not limited to masks, respirators and filters, in that said respiratory
safety devices, while being used in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable, failed to protect
users, consumers, workers, and others, including the plaintiff herein, who were in proximity to
I and exposed to said asbestos fibers (hereinafter collectively called "exposed persons"), from
inhalation and ingestion of asbestos fibers, thereby rendering said devices unsafe and dangerous
for use by “exposed persons”.
143. The RESPIRATORY SAFETY DEVICE DEFENDANTS, and each of them,
and ingestion of asbestos fibers. Said devices, while being used in a manner that was reasonably
| foreseeable, failed to protect plaintiff from exposure to asbestos fibers, resulting in severe and
254
26 | ENTITIES, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
. (Respiratory Safety Devices ~ Products liability)
AS AND FORTH A FURTHER, THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF DEFENDANTS
ON EXHIBIT G, DOES 3502-4000, THEIR ALTERNATE ENTITIES AND EACH GF THEM
5 i
6
145. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth hereat, the
|| allegations contained in the Second, and Twelfth Cause of Action.
146. Said respiratory safety devices were defective and unsafe for their intended
[| purpose in that said devices did not prevent the inhalation and ingestion of asbestos fibers by
| plaintiff. The defect existed in said devices at the time they left the possession of the
13 RESPIRATORY SAFETY DEVICE DEFENDANTS. Said devices did, in fact, allow inhalation,
and ingestion of asbestos fibers, which causes serious disease and/or death. The defect in said
15 9 devices did, in fact, cause personal injuries, including asbestosis, other lung damage, and cancer
16 | to “exposed perso