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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                IAAT

San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Apr-04-2003 3:03 pm

Case Number: CGC-02-414536
Filing Date: Apr-04-2003 3:01
Juke Box: 001 Image: 00656304
ANSWER

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

001000656304

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.rei

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Selman : B:

CoO QD DH BF WwW YB

Yb NR Ye YB Ye NR RN NY Be ew Be Be eB Be ewe eB ew
on DH RF YW NH FF SOD eM A DH BRB BH FS

~ ORIGINAL ~

A. SCOTT GOLDBERG (SBN 119797)

SELMAN + BREITMAN Lip

11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Sixth Floor

Los Angeles, California 90025-6538 San Francisco County Superior Court
Telephone: (310) 445-0800

Facsimile: (310) 473-2525 APR 04 2003

Attorneys for Defendant GO j PARK-LI, Clerk.
SEPCO CORPORATION BY. d
. eputy Clerk

pu

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - COURT OF UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

MARY M. WILLIAMS, individually and as ) CASE NO. 414536
successor-in-interest to MELVIN WILLIAMS, )

deceased; and MARY J. WILLIAMS, ) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
individually and as Guardian ad Litem of ) COMPLAINT

RAQUEL L. WILLIAMS and JUVON D. WILLIAMS, )

minors; KIMBERLY C. WILLIAMS; and
MICHELLE DeLEON, as legal heirs of MELVIN
WILLIAMS, deceased,

Plaintiffs,
Vv.
A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

COMES NOW defendant SEPCO CORPORATION in answer to the first
amended complaint on file herein, and answering for responding
defendant alone, admits, denies and alleges as follows:

1. Under the provisions of California Code of Civil
Procedure section 431.30, this answering defendant denies each and
every allegation contained in plaintiffs’ unverified first amended
complaint, and the whole thereof, and in particular, denies that
plaintiffs were injured and damaged in the manner or sum alleged,

or in any other manner or sum whatsoever or at all.

OntoiNAL —
1631521 154,15849 (Idn) Rh i | ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTreli

Selman - B:

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

0 ON DH BF ww YE

SB NR YP YP YN NH YN Yee Be Be oe Be ee ee eR
oyna YN FY NH FE So wH AAA RD HH FS

wv VY

AND FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

2. Plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein by reason of
the fact that plaintiffs’ pleading, and each and every cause of
action thereof, fails to state, and plaintiffs cannot prove, facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action as against this

answering defendant.

AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

3. Plaintiffs’ recovery as to any injury or damage suffered
by plaintiffs, if any, shall be diminished to the extent that such
injury or damage was proximately caused by negligence or other

tortious and/or intentional misconduct on the part of plaintiffs.

AND FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

4. That the tortious misconduct alleged in the first amended
complaint as to this defendant, if any there was, was not a
substantial factor in bringing about the alleged injuries, and
therefore was not a contributing cause, but was superseded by
tortious and/or intentional misconduct by one or more third parties
whose misconduct was an independent, intervening, sole and
proximate cause of any alleged injuries or damages suffered.

///
//7/
// 7
// 7]

163152.1154.15849 (Idn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- Breitman

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Co Om YN DH BF Bw KY

NS N Ye YB YN N NY KY Be HB Be ewe ew Be ew BW ew iL
oN DHA BB YN FF SOD we IA AA RF DH LS

Le VW

AND _FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

5. Plaintiffs’ right to recovery from this answering
defendant is limited pursuant to Section 1431.1, et seq. of the

California Civil Code (also known as Proposition 51).

AND FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

6. This answering defendant is informed and believes, and
thereon alleges, that the injuries and damages alleged to have been
suffered by plaintiffs in the first amended complaint herein, if
any, were proximately caused or contributed to by the acts or
omissions of third parties other than this answering defendant. It
is thus necessary that the proportion or degree of negligence or
fault of each of said persons or entities, whether parties to this
action or not, be judicially determined and that any judgment that
might be rendered against this answering defendant be reduced in
proportion to the degree of fault attributed to each and every
third person or entity found liable to the plaintiffs herein. As
against each such third person or entity, whether served or not
served in this action, whose acts or omissions are found to have
proximately caused or contributed in any fashion to the injuries,
if any, alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiffs herein,
this answering defendant reserves the right to cross-complain
and/or move for judgment against each such person or entity.

//7/
//7
// 7

163152.1 154.15849 (dn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTrei

Selman - B

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Co OI DH RB WN BS

So N YP YP YPN RY NY Fe Be Be we ew Be ee ew
CN DH F YW NH FF So we AAA ROH BS

CS VU

AND FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

7. The alleged defect and/or dangerous condition, if any,
was so trivial in nature that it could not be considered a
dangerous and/or a defective condition, thus barring any action by

the plaintiffs against this answering defendant.

AND FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

8. At all times material herein, plaintiff decedent was
aware of any inherent dangers to his person or property and assumed
the risk of such danger by failing to take precautions in the
conduct of his person or property. Plaintiff decedent’s assumption
of said risk bars any recovery herein or diminishes plaintiffs’
recovery to the extent that plaintiff decedent's damage is

attributable to his assumption of risk.

AND FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

9. If plaintiff decedent suffered or sustained any loss,
damage or injury at or about the time and place alleged, the same
were the direct and proximate result of the risk, if any risk there
was, knowingly assumed by the plaintiff decedent in that the
condition of the premises was open and obvious.

// 7
//7/
// 7
//7

1631521 154.15849 (Idn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTSelman + Breitman

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

0 ON DH RB WN

YN NY NY YN NH NY KY eB eB ewe ewe we Be ew eB
oY AHA BF YH DH F&F SO we RA A RBH GBS

WS VY

AND _FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

10. Plaintiff decedent failed to exercise reasonable and
ordinary care, caution, or prudence for his own safety in order to
avoid the alleged incident. The resulting injuries and damages, if
any, sustained by plaintiff decedent were proximately caused and
contributed to by the negligence of plaintiff decedent, in that,
among other things, any possible danger from the alleged dangerous
condition was open and obvious to anyone using reasonable care and

plaintiff decedent failed to use said reasonable care.

AND FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

11. Further answering the first amended complaint and the
separate causes of action thereof, and as a further, separate and
distinct affirmative defense thereto, said defendant alleges that
the plaintiffs named defendant in this litigation without
reasonable identification of what acts, if any, defendant
participated in, and without a reasonable investigation. Pursuant
to California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, defendant
requests reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred by
this defendant as a result of the maintenance by plaintiffs of this
bad faith action.

//7/
///
///
///
Jf

163152. 154.15849 (Idn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTitman.

rel

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Selman » B;

C0 Mm YN DH BF BW Ye

So NR YN YN N NY NY B&B Be eB Be ewe ew ew eK
oN DH BE YW NY F SB we RADA A BR WH HFS

Qs Sy

AND _FOR AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

12. Plaintiffs’ actions are barred by the statute of

limitations provisions enunciated in Code of Civil Procedure

_ section 340.

AND FOR A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

13. That plaintiffs are barred from any recovery on the
causes of action they now seek to assert against this defendant due

to the Doctrine of Laches.

AND FOR A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

14. Further answering the first amended complaint and the
separate causes of action thereof, and as a further, separate and
distinct affirmative defense thereto, said defendant alleges that
the first amended complaint and the separate causes of action are
barred by the provision of §§ 338, 339, 340(1), 340(3), 340.2, 343,
353, 583.110, 583.210, 583.310 and 583.410 of the California Code

of Civil Procedure and § 2725 of the California Commercial Code.

AND _FOR A FOURTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

15. Plaintiffs, with actual knowledge of the particular
danger, and with knowledge and understanding of the degree of risk
involved in the use of this answering defendant's product (s),

thereafter voluntarily assumed the risk of any injury from the use

163152. 154.15849 (Idn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTrel:

Selman : B:

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

0 Oe YD DH RB Bw wY

Yb NR YP YN YN NN NY ee eB Be eB ew Re eR eB
eo YN A HW KF YB NH =F SOD DOM HAA DA RD HTS

we VU

of this product and therefore is precluded from any relief from

this answering defendant.

AND_FOR A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

16. Plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein by reason of
the fact that, at all times relevant to the subject action,
decedent was not using defendant's product, if any, for the purpose
intended or in the manner intended, and said conduct on the part of
plaintiff constituted an unforeseeable misuse of said product, if

any.

AND FOR A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

17. Answering defendant is informed and believes and on that
basis alleges that the injuries and damages complained of, if any
there were, would be attributable merely to a post-distribution
modification, alteration or other change in some manner in the
product for which plaintiffs would seek to hold this defendant
legally responsible, which modification, alteration or change was
not performed by or participated in or consented to or approved by
answering defendant, or any agent or employee of answering
defendant. Accordingly, plaintiffs would be barred from recovery
as against answering defendant.

//T
//7
//f
//7

163152.1 154.15849 (Idn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTSelman - Breitman

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Oo OID DA HW KR Ww

12
13

15

AND _FOR A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

18. Plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein as to
plaintiffs’ breach of warranty theories of recovery in that
plaintiffs failed to give the requisite timely notice as to any

purported breach of warranty.

AND FOR AN EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

19. If the product described in the first amended complaint
was manufactured and/or distributed by this defendant, it was
manufactured and/or distributed in strict accordance with
specifications supplied to defendant by persons or entities other
than this defendant. Any defect(s) in said product were caused by
deficiencies in the specifications supplied to defendant, which
deficiencies were neither known to defendant nor discoverable by

defendant with the exercise of reasonable care.

AND FOR A NINETEENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

20. To the extent the first amended complaint asserts
defendant's alleged "market share" liability, or "enterprise
liability" the first amended complaint fails to state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause’of action against this defendant.
//T
// 7
//7
//7

163152.1 154,15849 (Idn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT0 Oo IU DW

10
1
12
13
14

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

15

Selman - Breitman

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

Lo WY

AND FOR A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

21. Defendant alleges that at all times relative to matters
in the first amended complaint, all of plaintiff decedent's
employers were sophisticated users of defendant's products, and
said employers' negligence in providing the product to their
employees in a negligent, careless, and reckless manner was a
superseding intervening cause of plaintiff decedent’s injuries, if

any there were.

AND _FOR A TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

22. The defendant did not and does not have a substantial
percentage of the market for the asbestos-containing products which
allegedly caused plaintiff decedent's injuries. Therefore,
defendant may not be held liable to plaintiffs based on this

defendant's alleged percentage share of the applicable market.

AND _FOR A TWENTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

23. Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that
plaintiffs assert defendant's alleged liability as a 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, alter ego,
subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by or the whole or partial
owner of or member in any entity that plaintiffs allege was the

///

163152.1 154.15849 (Idn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTrei

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Selman - B:

Oo OY DH BW NY Be

Nb N YP NY YN NR NY NY Be Be Be Be Be ewe ewe ew Be
on DH FF YW NHN = SOB ww KAA WARD YH CS

/ VL

proximate or legal cause and/or contributed to plaintiff decedent's

injuries or damages.

AND FOR A TWENTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

24. There should be no recovery against this defendant and
all claims are barred because the products which are claimed to
have caused injury and/or death were manufactured in compliance
with the specifications established by the United States government
and/or an agency, department or division thereof and that the
United States government's knowledge of any and all health hazards,
if any, were equal to, if not greater than, that of the defendants

who were contractors to the United States government.

AND FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

25. Plaintiffs are barred from recovery in that all products
produced by defendant were in conformity with the existing "state
of the art" of reasonably acceptable medical, scientific, and
industrial knowledge, art, and practice and, as a result, these
products were not defective in any manner, and as such, this

defendant is not liable for plaintiff decedent's injuries, if any.

AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

26. Further answering the first amended complaint and the
separate causes of action thereof, and as a further, separate and

distinct affirmative defense thereto, said defendant alleges that

- 10 -

163152.1 1$4,15849 (Idn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTSelman + Breitman

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Co ON DH RF WY

YN Ne YY YN YN NR NY NY KY HB Bee ewe eB ewe we ew Be
oy DAH BF YH NH FF DBO eI DH BF WH SS

SS

the plaintiffs named defendant in this litigation without
reasonable identification of what acts, if any, defendant
participated in, and without a reasonable investigation. Pursuant
to California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, defendant
requests reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred by
this defendant as a result of the maintenance by plaintiffs of this

bad faith action.

AND FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

27. To the extent that plaintiffs’ first amended complaint
prays for damages which are subject to Workers' Compensation
benefits, plaintiffs’ recovery herein shall be diminished or barred

to the extent of compensation benefits paid to plaintiffs.

AND_FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

28. As to any claim for Workers' Compensation benefits paid
which may be made with regard to this matter, the negligence or
other tortious misconduct of plaintiff decedent’s employers and/or
co-employees causing or contributing to said plaintiff decedent’s
injuries and damages shall be imputed to plaintiff decedent’s
employers or the employers' Workers' Compensation carriers so as to
diminish or bar any claim with regard to said benefits.

///
///
// 1
///

- 11 -

163152.1 154.15849 (Idn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTSelman - Breitman

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SO em ND HW BR wwe

~
nA & WwW NY

16

Lo wd

AND_FOR A TWENTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

29. Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery herein as against
answering defendant in that, pursuant to Labor Code section 3600,
et seq., plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy as against defendant with
respect to the incident and damages complained of would be and is
pursuant to the Workers' Compensation laws of the State of
California and subject to resolution only in a Workers!

Compensation forum.

AND FOR A TWENTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

30. As to plaintiffs’ claim for Workers' Compensation
benefits paid, plaintiffs’ recovery herein, if any, shall be
limited to answering defendant's proportional share of

responsibility for the injuries and damages complained of, if any.

AND_FOR A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:

31. Plaintiffs’ actions are barred by California Civil Code

section 1714.

AND _FOR A THIRTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

32. If plaintiffs have received, or in future may receive,
Workers’ Compensation benefits from defendant under the Labor Code
of the State of California as a consequence of the alleged

industrial injury referred to in the first amended complaint, and

- 12 -

163152.1 154.15849 (Idn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTrei

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Selman : B:

0 Om QW DH BF WN

NN NY YY NY KY NHN BSB Be Be ewe ewe ew ee ee ee
oN DAM BBW NH fF SBD we AA A RF DH FS

wo VU

in the event plaintiffs are awarded damages against defendant,
defendant claims a credit against this award to the extent that
defendant is barred from enforcing its rights to reimbursement for
Workers’ Compensation benefits that plaintiffs have received or may

in the future receive.

AND FOR A THIRTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

33. Plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein in that
plaintiff decedent’s injuries and damages, if any, were the result
of no human intervention but were solely caused by a superhuman
cause or Act of God, the effects of which could not have been
anticipated or prevented by the exercise of care on the part of the

defendant.

AND _FOR A THIRTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

34. All claims for damages for fear of cancer are barred

because there is no theory of recovery under California law.

AND _FOR A THIRTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

35. This defendant is entitled to a set-off of all amounts
paid to the plaintiffs by other defendants pursuant to pro tanto
settlements.

//7/
//f
//7

- 13 -

163152.1 154.15849 (Idn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTttman.

rel

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Selman - B:

Oo Om NY DH BF WN

Nw N Ye YP BP NY NN NY Be Be ewe ew ew ewe ew Be oe
oN DW RE YW NF SOD we aA AH BRB wD HFS

Y YW

AND FOR A THIRTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

36. Both the plaintiff decedent's employer and their union
have had knowledge, during the periods alleged in the first amended
complaint, of any possible defects which could result from the
inhalation of asbestos particles and the failure of the various
employers and of the plaintiff decedent’s unions to require the use
of known safety precautions and devices to prevent harm is an

intervening cause and is pled as a complete defense.

AND_FOR A THIRTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

37. Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or
information upon which to form a belief as to whether it may have
additional, as yet unknown, affirmative defenses. Defendant
reserves herein the right to assert additional affirmative defense

in the event discovery indicates it would be appropriate.

AND FOR A THIRTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

38. If it is established that this answering defendant made
any warranty of any nature whatsoever relating to any product
containing asbestos which it manufactured or distributed, said
warranty has been fulfilled or terminated, and any claim based
thereon is, therefore, barred.

///
f/f
///

163152,1,154,15849 (Idn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTSelman + Breitman

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Oo oO IY DA HW BR WN

Nn N YP YN YN NY NY DY ee Be Be we ewe ew we eH
oN DH FF HH |= SFO MAA A RBH FS

YY VW

AND FOR A THIRTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

39. This answering defendant did not know and had no
reasonable grounds for knowing, at the time any of its products
containing asbestos were manufactured, at the time the plaintiff
decedent, was allegedly exposed thereto, or at any other time, that
any of said products could be hazardous, and further, this
answering defendant has had no reason to know or believe that any
of its products could be hazardous, in that any asbestos fibers
contained in its products are locked in, encapsulated, and firmly
bound and therefore do not release dangerous amounts of asbestos

fiber.

AND FOR A THIRTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

40. This answering defendant did not know or believe and had
no reasonable grounds for knowing or believing, at the time any of
its products containing asbestos were manufactured, at the time the
plaintiff decedent was allegedly exposed thereto, or at any other
time, that any of said products posed a risk sufficient to give
rise to a duty to warn, beyond any such duty otherwise imposed by
law or regulation. This answering defendant's products have
carried at all appropriate times the warnings required by OSHA and
rules and regulations thereunder.

// 7]
//7/
//f
///

- 15 -

163152. 154.1849 (Idn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTrei

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Selman : B:

AND FOR A FORTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

41. Neither plaintiffs nor plaintiff decedent were in privity
with defendant and may not rely upon the theory of any alleged

breach of any alleged express or implied warranty.

AND FOR A FORTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

42. The first amended complaint and any purported cause of
action thereof, insofar as it is based upon alleged inadequacy of
warnings, is barred by OSHA regulations that require standard
warnings and thus preempt state law tort claims based on the

purported inadequacy of such warnings.

AND _FOR A FORTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

43. Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is barred by the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

AND FOR A FORTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

44. Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is barred by the
proscription of the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment, prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines.

// 1
// 1

- 16 -

163152.1 154.15849 (In) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTSelman - Brei

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

o ON DW BW NY

Nb N Dh YY NY YN Ye eH Be Be eB Se ew ewe ek
oN DM BF YW NH =F Sb we A DAA BR DH FS

AND FOR A FORTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

45. Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is barred by the
"double jeopardy" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, as applied to the states through the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

WHEREFORE, having fully responded to the subject first amended
complaint, answering defendant prays:

1. That plaintiffs take nothing by reason of their first

amended complaint on file herein;

2. That defendant have judgment of dismissal;

3. For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred herein;
and

4. For such other and further relief as the court may deem

just and proper in the premises.

DATED: April } , 2003 SELMAN + BREITMAN .up

By:

A. SCOTT GOLDBERG
Attorneys for Defendant SEPCO
CORPORATION

1631521 154.15849 (Idn) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTCON DH BF WH He

NN YY NY NY NR KY KY HY He ee ee Se ewe ew
oN DAH F&F WH KF SLO we A DAHA Fw NH KF SS

PROOF OF SERVICE
Mary M. Williams, et al. v. A.W. Chesterton Co.; Sepco, et al.
SFSC Case No. CGC-02-414536

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES:

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within
action; my business address is 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Sixth
Floor, Los Angeles, California 90025. On April 2., 2003, I served
the document(s) described as ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on
the interested parties in this action as follows:

& by placing O the original & a true copy thereof enclosed
in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

Xl BY MAIL: By placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope
addressed as above, and placing it for collection and mailing
following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar
with the firm’s practice of collection and processing
correspondence, pleadings, and other matters for mailing with
the United States Postal Service on that same day with
postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in
the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion
of the party served, service is presumed invalid if. the
postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than
one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

O BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: I caused the above-referenced
document (s) to be delivered to for
delivery to the above address(es).

O BY FAX: I transmitted a copy of the foregoing document(s
this date via telecopier to the facsimile numbers shown
above.

O BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally delivered such envelope

by hand to the offices of the addressee(s).

® [State] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.

Oo [Federal] I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on April Z; 2003, at Los Angeles, California.SoD OY D HM FB WY eS

NH NY NY YW NY NY NY VY Ye eee Ree ee ee
CIDA BF wWwNH FEF SO wm AA HA KR wWBH

Williams,

SERVICE LIST
et al. v. Sepco, et al.

SFSC Case No. 414536

Dean A. Hanley, Esq.

PAUL, HANLEY & HARLEY, LLP
1608 Fourth St., Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710

BERRY & BERRY
P.O. Box 16070 °
Oakland, CA 94610

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Tel: 510.559.9980
Fax: 510.559.9970

BERRY & BERRY
Tel: 510.250.0200
Fax: 510.250.0023