Document By8Qm72Lxo5j8qdmKoK1g3xwm

FILE NAME: Early Asbestos Damage Suits (EADS) DATE: 1932-1934 DOC#: EADS018 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Documents from Case of Matius Grabow J * /' : C*< *** `M>3 vi . . i' /. * % t * i. r. -\tWt * *Viri V. *r i " v . `- ,n , v.ir,.--s .xrd l NEW JERSEY SUPREME-COURT *r.S01ERSET COUNTY. f r . t p r ' - *Vf name. :' ! * ' ' - I-IATIUS GRABOW, >r rif ` s " ' `` .v v ' , ' :i v f ia .n o t informed: ox .warned'.by.'bp;:;.,. P la in tiff, -* - ' `,, . . 1 :i;.d iw i no kriftvrlod.v o f *>* - r t:-e n a i f . . \ : ACTION AT. L A W r . i ^ .... . . . . . . /-.j f j f . - v ? ?itvd -p^rt* ' ' I n '.vi'h .which h e w&6 JOHlTS-LCAlTVIIxLE CORPORATION, ' ? C O M P L A I N T V - - ' ; : ::')<} a '- c o r p b r a t i o n o 0 f 3 t h e r S . t A t e t y and c o n t a o t - h y ^ the;, d e f end an ** * -r-'* of liev/ Y ork, 2 >i s - g 1 '< . Defendant. * .*' ***i - * - 6. The ncrJLif.ence o f ` the d s f e n d a r . t 'c o n p l . a i n e d f t f , . 1{ f o l l W T - - . / r \ ?.. :'p.j : ?:?* e 'e t o p r e s i d e th e . vIf; i i"5 .MThe .p l a i n 1 1 f f *:v re8i d i n g atuManv i 11e ykNew J e r s e y , sa y s ( t h a t s - ' .Lurf to :i:*e r e a s o n a b l e c a r e to nroYid*.- t h e n ] n j r ' : ; - r>p , : r ;*r r'li r.r*:'4^ r r !r!.a r ' I . ' - . The p l a i n t i f f was in t h e employ o f t h e d e f e n d a n t c o r p o r a t i o n . a t ; i t 9 p l a n t - a t ^ l i a n v i l l e , ;Neir J e r s e y H n t h e j. - *.'.* ** - ** 5 * *- < ***: **Ift!** # I month o f A p r i l , 1932, and f o r a long tim e p r i o r t h e r e t o . ; - - - . - - * . -** * - . - - *' * r q * * r i ** * r?t; > - 2 . t T h e - d e f endan t r . c o r p o r a t i o n at'. t h e :. t i m e i - h e r e i n : s e t c i* j vor k ".`i In tho r :.J. i a s b e a '. o s f i d e r b -.no .: : f o r t h , was engaged .in^the m a n u fa c tu re io f a s b e s to s prod- ' *\ - ( ucts fo r commercial purposes. * :*' '* 1 * . ^ ^ fl" '.i-rt ' ; ~ *.*-yi. f '] ~ T time 3 , The s a id d e f e n d a n t employed t h e p l a i n t i f f a t t h e ?r- ; I. , r*r* ^r'!"' a ' *:' ; %l y`" hv* \*l-i and p la c e above s e t f o r t h in i t s m anufacture of said = .5 ; f *. -1 *.) v i n -2d , asb e sto s p ro d u cts, and th a t the said defendant not only i ** * * ' -rSy kney/, b u t s h o u ld have known t h a t t h e s a i d a s b e s t o s * - r- * * ,, i t * * i . ->, T *. # '.3 -. p roducts contained c e r t a i n dangerous, inB idioue and harm- ' ** <*r > . i ' ' *; /*** f t7 f. y ;* \~f^ f u l a g e n c ie s composed of a s b e s t o s f i b e r s and o t h e r p a r t i c l e s t h a t were d e s t r u c t i v e t o l i f e and h e a l t h i n t h e human ,. * r body, when b ro ught i n t o d s e c o n t a c t w i t h t h e same. . * * * . ' . ' ' *- , t ** ; '*** r. ~ i 1 \ *" * 4. The d e f e n d a n t n o t o n ly knew, b u t should have known . - . . . r ; r i i f 'i; f ! "al. und th e dangerous n a tu re of the sa id a s b e s t o s f i b e r s and * ar* r*f' y*. ***.*' : :* 11 f; ? o p a r t i c l e s and f a i l e d to k ee p t h e same i n c o n t r o l , b u t *. . * -* * ? (r4 1 | r, ;*)\ . * ' v ii^ ^ i , * <* 4-v, dangerous f ib e r s and fe-ii * ' -*'** o l r , - . d a n g e r o u s f i b e r s and p a r t i c l e s t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t h i s ,V b r o n c h i a l tubes,* l u n g s u a n d r b a d y i b e c a m e 3 P$rmeatedaQdr4 n - . f e t t e d ' r^ i t h f * t h e same^ody, he r i l l b e - c a u s e d ' t&: s u f f e r . 30 30 5; , T he-plain tiffd w a sg n o tt i n f ormedtortwarnegobyc^SOO. ' > defendant and had no knowledge o f the n a t u r e . o f the sa id T:vl :-U\.7'.'`TTT dr-.indn th e o r n 'f $3 (Y*. O-O. :'C ,--3 d a d a g e s dangerous a s b e s to s f i b e r s and p a r t i c l e s w ith which he was '`r o '.i t ) e doJ on**un brought in to close proximity^.and, contactsby^thebdefendantfsW - * - " * ` *' ^ ( negligence. 6 . The n eg lig en c e of the,.def endantfLcpinplaiinedf o f , . is as follows:- ;x- (a) In fa ilin g to use reasonable care to provide fhe p la in tif f with a reasonably safe place of work. " '" 1 f l ? . -> >> T-*1? t- t hi n (b) In f a ilin g to use reasonable care to provide the t p l a i n t i f f with proper'maskaror'.other.^appliances or -.safe guards in said work. (c) In f a ilin g to use reasonable care to provide a p r o p e r v e n t i l a t i n g sy s te m a t i t s p l a n t , r-hor i f f (d) In f a i l i n g t o use r e a s o n a b l e ' c a r e ' t o - g i v e Tp r o p e r w arn in g , in fo rm a tio n and knowledge about th e dangerous c h a ra c te r of i t s work w ith the said a sb e sto s -.fibers and p a r tic le s , to the said p l a i n t i f f , a t the time and'place above ment xoned . * % *; ^hi i ri ,****.jp*-'-1 'i p, -n----jX - j ; 1 7 , xhe s a id 'a s b e s to s f ib e r s and . p a r t i c l e s ,w ere0 introduced into the p l a i n t i f f f s .body at-th^e -time. and,.place a fo re s a id , so th a t the p l a i n t i f f was permanently in ju re d , e x t e r n a lly and i n t e r n a l l y , in and a b o u t, h i s - h e a d , body and lim b s , c a u sin g th e p l a i n t i f f g r e a t p a i n and s u f f e r i n g , both m ental and p h y s i c a l , g r e a t l y lowered h i s power o f :**c *n 1 " . ' *- ' * - r e s i s t a n c e to d is e a s e , and he became a v ic tim of p u l monary d i s e a s e s , and t h e r e b y s e r i o u s l y cut;- o f f t h e sp a n and d u r a t i o n o f h i s l i f e , and t h a t by r e a s o n o f t h e l o s s - v Hfafinw. of his physical and e f f o r t to r e t a r d th e s u f f e r i n g from h i s d i s e a s e and mend )' t h e w r e c k in g of h i s "body, he w i l l he ca u se d , to s u f f e r ( V j l o s s e s , expenses and damages to th e e x t e n t of $ 1 0 0 , 00 0. 0 0 . " ; THE PIAIHTIl'P demands t h e sum: o f $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 a s damages..- from the defendant., '*-'v v* - 1** !,L*( J-v \ i *! * * * * /* tj --.* . 1**^ v J; - . *jt. ,, ri".-1ifV0 V* 'vpv*"?*^?*"*''Is!* 'v': i < ) / ; : .* va \ . ;ti t' :j --j Samuel G reenstone ' , . i* V , *\ ; %J .Attorney fo r P la in tiff.' l;.1' < .r.t *; f 1 >. ; >;. . i ' . h- I V. ; . NDORSEM53TS V ^ -2 3 ^ I** i % - . i`* i .. . I hereby d e p u t i z e Remsen Howardh t o . s e r v e t h e w i t h i n w r i t W itn e s s my.band and 9e a l t h i s 5 t h day o f May 1 9 3 2 . ` * . ' 1 * I . \ -- Wm R. S h e r i f f , . " S h e r i f f ' '' V . , By E l l s w o r t h Rrokaw, .... Under S h e riff.' . "'K* May 5, 1932. I s e rv e d t h e w i t h i n summons and c o m p l a i n t upo n . th e Johns - B anville C orporation a co rp o ra tio n of the S ta te of Hew York, by s e r v i n g A. R. ^ i s h e r ~ l a n t manager p e r s o n a l l y nt Banville, l.J. Fe>s 3.^8 V/m. R. Sut oh en Sheriff of Somerset County h 'T Remsen Howard . Special Deputy S h eriff 1 * * - * ' * - *. I * .. . 1* 1 ( I h" M J 4 U I f i ^J n KATIUS GRABOW, Plaintiff* . -Y 3-- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT- DISTRICT OP. NEWo:.JEIRLSEY ' '*v- -* *i*s*+' . . * : :*.<j . known, , ` ,v /r\ *4/? rr* * , ,* - 1 *; i. * A c t i o n a t La.w i. : * i * *** ^* i r : JOHNS-IlANYILLE CORPORATION, S a corporation of the State o f Hew Y ork, .s Defendant. * A -- -N-----S----W----- E.... R ' -: v/ irlM -V w t ^ ,., . ^ a i , ^ \ > ' V . i l t . i ' ^ L L r . - . A I U m ^ h fr i i - j U J u i S ,- D e f e n d a n t , JOHHS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, a corporation o f t h e S t a t e o f New Y o rk , h a v i n g i t s p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e in New J e r s e y , a t Y a n v ille , Somerset County, sayB t h a t : FIRST DEFENSE 1. I t denies paragraph 1, except that i t says that the p l a i n t i f f was in i t s employ a t i t s p la n t a t lia n v ille , N. J . from December 28, 1926, to A p r i l 8 , 1932. 2* I t d e n i e s p a r a g r a p h 2 , e x c e p t t h a t i t says t h a t i t v/as and has b ee n engaged in t h e m a n u fa c tu r e o f a s b e s t o s p ro d u cts f o r commercial purposes from December 28, 1926, to the present time. 3. It denies paragraph 3, except that i t says that i t employed the p l a i n t i f f a t i t s p la n t a t lia n v ille , N .J ., from December 28, 1926, to A p ril 8 , 1932. 4. I t d e n i e s p a r a g r a p h s 4 , 5 , 6 and 7* SECOND DEFENSE The i n j u r y and the d i s e a s e a l le g e d in the complaint were due to one of th e r i s k s of h i s employment assumed by -- ' ---- A ~.T f t h e p l a i n t i f f as* p a r t o f th e t e rm s o f h i a . c o n t r a c t .. ** *.: v-i ,v * ' ' . of employment in t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f -knew', o r by .-the ..exercise^ of r e a s o n a b le c a re on h i s p a r t should K alleg ed dangers of h is employment . .. .. .. ... 5 , - FOURTH DEFENSE / ' ' - The injury ani..d.. the d ............ ise ase , alleged ` in>the : /' complaintJfc^&V ; A---. - '.V/i.i-'* * * * * * f ,^\ * 1 w ere caused b y coann t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t ..of `thenitCV 'V Lf. - -..r p la in tiff. ' ' *- - . - - .* . r . , *.?v. .. .i-*-. *..- < /:*l*,' V? Vi" ' t ::v.*. ...:........ FIFTH DEFENSE * 1 - . - . ' * '*f *' ,rr 11 .v-`'V *. The i n j u r y and th e d i s e a s e a l l e g e d . in th e .complaint sS! were c a u sed b y c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t ' o f t h e ';:- p l a i n t i f f in th a t the p l a i n t i f f . f a i l e d to e x e rc ise 'reason--" ;`13S able care to p rotect him self against the alleged dangers of a h i s employment by u s i n g t h e mask and o t h e r a p p l i a n c e s p r o - '/ -> * <f vided by the defendant f o r th a t purpose. ? SIXTH DEFENSE- The i n j u r y and th e d i s e a s e a l l e g e d in th e complaint^' ~ /? were due to n e g lig e n c e on the p a r t of a f e llo w - s e r v a n t of t the p l a i n t i f f , in f a i l i n g to warn and in s t r u c t the p l a i n t i f f to use the mask and o th e r a p p lia n c e s provided by th e d efen d *->nJ ' ant for the purpose of protecting the p la in tif f against r.O U the alleged dangers of h is employment. SEVENTH DEFENSE '1 P l a i n t i f f ' s a c tio n i s barred because i t was not ,' V commenced and i n s t i t u t e d w i t h i n two y e a r s n e x t a f t e r th e alleged cause of actioh accrued. \\ Attorneys for Defendant. t UNITED STATES DISTRICT DISTRICT OF IISV/ JERSEY O l U `t KATIUS GRABOW Plaintiff vs. JOHHS-HANVILLE CORPORATION, a corporation of the State of New Y ork, Defendant Action at Law. ORDER FOR DISCOjYTIXUAXOE. ^3/0/ The above entitled cause Juiving been settled between the parties thereto; I t is ORDERED, th a t the same be, and- it is hereby discontinued$ without cosi^fo either party as against the other. * Entered June 1 3 , JO 34 On motion o f ~ V J}^ L--v*--{Ls't--', Attorneys of defendant Consent is hereby given to the making and entering of the above order.