Answer: MARY M WILLIAMS et al VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                DUNN

San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Apr-18-2003 3:14 pm

Case Number: CGC-02-414536
Filing Date: Apr-18-2003 3:13
Juke Box: 001 Image: 00667414
ANSWER

MARY M WILLIAMS et al VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al

001000667414

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.APR-18-2003 FRI 01:45 PH FAX NO. P, 02/07

wo ord AW FF WH YS

RD NR ee
v= SF © wm RIAA DF wWwH HD

23

jee] 8uD
Aq pall
uN
an

28
DrINKER BIDOLG & REATHUP-

225 Bush Street, 15th Floor
‘San Francisco, CA $4104

SPNGL96EI\L

CHARLES F, PREUSS (State Bar No. 45783) 710") »
TRACIE M. CAPONIGRO (State Bar No. 215645)
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP Sets
225 Bush Street, 15th Floor

San Francisco, California 94104-4207
Telephone: (415) 397-1730
Facsimile: (415) 397-1735

Attomeys for Defendant
ASARCO, INCORPORATED

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

MARY M. WILLIAMS, individually and | No. 414536
as successor-in-interest to MELVI

WILLIAMS, deceased; and MARY ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
WILLIAMS, individually and as COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL /
Guardian ad Litem of RAQUEL L WRONGFUL DEATH ~AND

WILLIAMS and JUVON D. WILLIAMS, | LOSS OF CONSORTIUM -
TREMBctie Stain gt BESTS Bay pay
MELVIN WILLIAMS, deceased,”
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Defendant ASARCO, INCORPORATED, (“Defendant”) responds to Plaintiffs
MARY M. WILLIAMS’, RAQUEL L. WILLIAMS’, JUVON D. WILLIAMS’,
KIMBERLY C. WILLIAMS’ and MICHELLE DeLEON’s (referred to herein
collectively as “Plaintiffs") First Amended Complaint for Survival / Wrongful Death and
Loss of Consortium on file herein as follows:

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 431.30(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure of
the State of California, Defendant denies each, every and all of the allegations of said
Complaint and the whole thereof, including each and every purported cause of action

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

APR 18 2443 13:54 PAGE.@1APR-18-2003 FRI 01:45 PH FAX NO, P. 03/07

wo ond DWF WN

WYNN NY NN DN YF SP BF ese Pe ee ee
Aa & ON =&§ SC OO wm ADA FF WH HY SO

27
28

Driexe BiOOLE & REATHLL?
225 Bush Street, 15th Floor
‘San Francleco, CA 94104

SPIVI9681

contained therein.

Further, answering the Complaint herein, and the whole thereof, Defendant denies
that Plaintiffs and/or Decedent sustained any injury, damage or loss, by reason of any act,
omission of negligence on the part of Defendant.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Neither Plaintiffs’ complaint nor any purported cause of action contained therein

states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ complaint and each purported cause of action therein is barred by the
applicable statute of limitations provision of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of
California, and/or of other statutes of the State of California, including without limitation,
C.C-P. §§ 338, 340, 340.2, and 343.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ complaint and each purported cause of action therein fails to state facts

sufficient to constitute claims for fraud, conspiracy, and/or deceit.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Any loss, injury or damage incurred by Plaintiffs and/or Decedent was
proximately caused and contributed to by Plaintiffs’ and/or Decedent’s knowing and
voluntary assumption of the risks and hazards referred to in the Complaint.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The loss, injury or damage, if any, incurred by Plaintiffs and/or Decedent was the
result of superseding, intervening causes arising from negligent or willful acts or
omissions by parties Defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control, and were
not proximately caused by any acts, omissions or other conduct of Defendant.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Any. loss, injury or damage incurred by Plaintiffs and/or Decedent was

proximately caused and contributed to by Plaintiffs’ and/or Decedent’s carelessness and

negligence in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint.

2
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

APR 18 2883 13:5@ PAGE .@2APR~18-2003 FRI 01:45 Pit FAK HO. P, 04/07

ow oOo IY DAH FF WN

10

27
28

DRINKER BOPLE & REATHLLE
225 Buck Svoet, 151h Floor
San Francisco, CA $4104

SFII19683\

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asbestos was misused, abused, or altered by Decedent and/or others; such misuse,
abuse or alteration was not reasonably foreseeable by Defendant; and any such misuse,
abuse or alteration proximately caused the loss, injury or damages, if any, incurred by
Plaintiffs and/or decedent.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Decedent’s employers were knowledgeable and sophisticated as to any damages or
hazards which may have been associated with the use of asbestos and the loss, injury or
damage, if any, incurred by Plaintiffs and/or Decedent was proximately caused by the
negligent or willful acts or omissions of decedent’s employers whom Defendant neither
controlled nor had the right to control, and were not proximately caused by any acts,
omissions or other conduct of Defendant.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that its products, if any, at issue here were manufactured,

produced, supplied, sold and distributed in conformity with and pursuant to statutes,
government regulations and industry standards based upon the state of knowledge
existing at the time of the activities.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action for breach of implied warranty against Defendant. Neither Decedent nor
Plaintiffs ever provided notice of any kind to Defendant concerning said alleged breach,
and therefore Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of warranty are barred.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that neither the complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged
therein states facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages against
Defendant.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that the imposition of any punitive damages in this matter

3
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

APR 18 2@@3 13:51 PAGE.@3APR-18-2003 FRI 01:45 PM FAK NO. P, 05/07

would deprive Defendant of its property without due process of law under the California
Constitution and the United States Constitution.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that the imposition of any punitive damages in this matter
would violate the United States Constitution’s prohibition against laws impairing the
obligation of contracts.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs and/or

Oo ond AH PF WH

Decedent have received or will receive certain benefits under the Workers’

10 |) Compensation Laws of the State of California as a consequence of the alleged loss, injury
11 || or damage referred to in the Complaint; that decedent’s employers and their agents,

12 || servants, and employees acting within the course and scope of their agency and

13 || employment negligently, carelessly or willfully caused and contributed to the loss, injury
14 |) or damages, if any, incurred by Plaintiffs and/or Decedent; and that the damages, if any,
15 || awarded to Plaintiffs against Defendant must be reduced by the amount attributable to the
16 || employers’ proportionate share of fault up to the amount of all benefits received by

17 || Plaintiffs and/or Decedent under the Worker’s Compensation Laws and in accordance

18 || with Proposition 51.

19 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20 Defendant alleges that California Civil Code §§ 1431.1 through 1431.5, known as
21 || the Fair Responsibility Act of 1986, is applicable to the present action and to certain

22 || claims therein, and based upon principles of comparative fault, the liability, ifany, of

23 |] Defendant for non-economic damages shall be several and not joint.

24 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment against Plaintiffs as follows:

25 1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of the Complaint on file herein, and
26 || that same be dismissed;

27 2. For costs of suit incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys fees; and
28 3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Oeasc€A BIODLE & REATH LLP
225 Bush Street, {Sth Flear
‘San Francisco, CA 94104

4
SFII968301 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

APR 18 2€@@3 13:51 PAGE .@4APR-18-2003 FRI 01:45 PM

Do oN KH HW PR WN

eee
Nu oe oO

28

Drinnee BidGvE & REATHULP
225 Bush Street, 1510 Floor
‘San Francieco, CA 94104

SFI319681

Dated: April | 77 2003

FAX NO,

DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

Al tO

Attomeys for Defendant
ASARCO, INCORPORATED

5

APR 18 2083 13:51

‘ANSWER TO FIRS‘? AMENDED COMPLAINT

P. 06/07

PAGE.@SAPR- 18-2003 FRI 01:45 PH FAX NO, P. 07/07

0 eo It HW fF WN

10

27
28

pincer Bipore & REATHLLP
225 Bush Street, 18th Floor
San Francisca, CA 94104

SFIGIOTIAN

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1, MICHELLE SANKEY, declare that:

Iam at least 18 gars of age, and not a party to the above-entitled action. My
business address is 225 Bush Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104,
Telephone: (415) 397-1730.

On April 18, 2003, I caused to be served the following document(s):

ASARCO’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL / WRONGFUL AND LOSS OF
CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS

by enclosing a true copy of (each of) said document(s) in (an) envelope(s), addressed as
‘Ollows:

M1 BY MAIL: Lam readily familiar with the business, practice for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I
ow that the correspondence is deposed with the United States Postal Service on
the same day this declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. I
know that the envelope was sealed, and with postage thereon fully prepaid, placed

for collection and mailing on this date, following ordinary business practices, in the
United States mail at San Francisco, California.

(+BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelopes to be delivered by a
messenger service by hand to the address(es) listed below:

BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed a true copy of said document(s) in a
Federal Express envelope, addressed as follows:

(1 BY FACSIMILE: I caused such documents to be transmitted by facsimile
transmission and mail as indicated above.

Oo

PAUL, HANLEY & HARLEY
1608 Fourth Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94710

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.

Executed on April 18, 2003 at San Francisco, California.

( Mtarieotel be

Wiliams, etal v. A. W. Chesterton Company, et at
SPSC No.: 414536

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

APR 18 2663 13:51 PAGE .@6