Document DDX8RX13Bv414rqVeLZp3v6QN

FILE NAME: Early Asbestos Damage Suits (EADS) DATE: 1932 DOC#: EADS017 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Documents from Case of Magdalena Stepka for Paul Stepka iTETVf JERSEY SUPREME COURT 3 r.d c''::3 i-'t'- clr.-vn. pr-vrim ity i f th8(l[ERSETiC0UNTYir&pn MAGDALENA'STEPKA^ g e n e r a l a d -4~hr.) hC. crime in to .c o n ta c t w ith , n i n i s t r a t r i x o f PAUL STEPKA, ' l / 1* ` ' t ACTION AT LAW f * Jit'yb^ tij l-~& not i tt f-c.) i ijd c r tr~r-,,d h r ' "" "' - I COMPLAINT ` JOHliS-MAWILLE:-CORPORATION,1-at:;9 )of thfi n atu re j e f . ths. Raid corporation of the State of New * '' ; *. York,;-ia-,?*flbealso fiVerc and $?):.'tic.IsSv Vilt-h wUioh he to* * | . : , - v V . * - * . - ( * * u b -o u cb t ,'rii o i\: yr. D efen dan t* by )thtf defendant* e. a lo a n ee, t\ , Vr-c -j.r * de f e ndant e x p l a i n e d o f in a y- *' i,. r, r *: FIRST COUNT. The.pldntiff, Magdalena Stepka, general administratrix of Paul Stepka,' deceased presiding- at. lianville, ]New Jersey, I.-,-, i' i;-` ik roc vOrio.lly *afr plcc-o of way!:. says th a t:t S' } v i r t*v^i AV'TT n'r'V *fi * T. i ' The' -in te s ta te ^was `'i n '; t h e vemployCof.:tha; d e fe n d a n ta iu i >..1 \ corporation, at its plant in Hanville, Hew Jersey, in the I \ 1 *\ V * r- " ' v. * . ; - ; i7 ; -v v * month o f November,' 1 9 3 0 ,'-and f o r s e v e ra l y e a rs p r i o r th e re to * 2*' The d e f e n d a n t'c o r p o r a tio n 'a t .thet..time h e r e i n j s e t .r A * * v . ' ?'''; *i. ~ nv : '>1; t '*` forth was engaged inthe manufacturelof.:asbestos;products ' ; `1 :"i>;11u*z r: t!i- 1 '?ri pi; for commercial purposes* 3* The said defendant employed .therinteatate:at?the -- time and place above `aet forthvin'itatmanufactureHoffsaid asbestos products, and theo Bald defendant nottOnlyiknew,' but Bhould 'have known, -that'the >said,:asbestos-.productslcontained certain dangerous,' insidious'and harmful agencies composed of -aoboBtos `fibers'and' Other' particles'ithat^.vrere .^destructive to''life and health* in'the,human::bodyiLwhenrbroughtjintoa a i . cldse:contaot with''same*-? ?.'/ I'-iZl* r>y rxinn';n or \e. t i e*?'' I n 1 ti t n th e "Xter.t o f 3?0OOO.QO > and come i n t o c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t f t h e i n t e s t a t e . * s . p e r s o n fj , V Jl . *'l **''.' iy," . ( . f t * t . *.tlO plil l'-lt Ai ! -ai5i.Jv. and expose t h e i n t e s t a t e so t h a t ,, h e . c a m s intQ c o n t a c t with* Stv.'.k?, v,-* ciuiy ajr.noiu.trji r.eawrftl ria*.u:i *.r'ra i.rx-* c^. . to*. and i n h a l e d t h e s a i d d a n g e r o u s f i b e r s and p a r t i c l e o t o t h e , f > .. c t --'rtu';. c e c a ^ ' i ^ o , c v t o e fi.u*rvgat . d . ...;v v ' *JT` 5. I n t e s t a t e was n o t informed or warned by the . d a n g e r o u s a s b e s t o s f i b e r s and p a r t i c l e s w ith w hich h e was " ' u f r r y foo ^ l >t-:`? >'it , uno.^r \ u i s brought into close proxim ity by the defendant' s negligence* l Jk d . ' - o <.* 6* The n e g l i g e n c e o f th e d e f e n d a n t c o m p la in e d o f i s as followsi- y.uO 'crui j7 ; r . (a) In fa ilin g to use reasonable pare to provide, the i n t e B t a t a ' * w i t h a- r e a s o n a b l y ! ' s a f e p l a c e fo f J wdrk#'i'r - /'; * iO* l: c*f- {*. r-? 5u it'.g i n ^1-trriV.* , v:`"' ' (b)' -' In f a i l i n g * t o u s e r e a s o n a b l e ca re t o p r o v i d e the in te s ta te with proper masks or other appliances .or safeguard i n s a i d work."-2]M& ^ ,**!.,* *u 5. i f*<r' i * < ' (o) In fa ilin g to use reasonable care to provide a proper v e n tila tin g system a t its plant*. \ (d) In fa ilin g to use reasonable care to give proper^., w a r n i n g ,' i n f o r m a t i o n a n d knowledge a b o u t t h e 4;d a n g e r o u s ' i' * 0* c h a r a c t e r o f i t s work w i t h the s a i d a s b e s t o s f i b e r s and p a r tic le s to the said In te B ta te at th e time and place r .a^bo1-vre m e In t:i on' e' d .J ^ ^ ^ *. *.1 f - *X i~' *. 0 C;'.v 7 The s a i d a s b e s t o s f i b e r s and p a r t i c l e s were^ i n t r o duced into the if c td s ta te ' s body a t the time and place a f o r e s a i d , so t h a t t h e i n t e s t a t e was p e r m a n e n t l y i n j u r e d e x t e r n a lly and i n t e r n a l l y , in and about hlB head, body and : -> .' >' r yt <* r ,,v` r i ' < limbs, c a u s i n g *him g r *e a t pain i 4 a n* d . < * s u' fr*f ; e r, i f ni g , i both .mA e n t a l . and p h y s ic a l , g r e a t l y lowered h is r e s i s t a n c e . t o . d i s e a s e , - , \ y ; '.iMV.ii V V . ' ' i-'i `` and he became a v ic tim olpulmonary d i s e a s e s , and d ied as a , ... , - ; v 1T O x i .Ua % T1-' nonn ivT t h e -" V. '* 4 * i ' I * i | J ;! i ji expenses and damages, to the e x te n t of $50,000*00 8T;,, O;n.D ecem be..rj..2,,6, 109 3 1 , t h e p.. l a i nj.t;-i fafn, ftM; vagl rd-aalieun,a S te p k a . was d u l y a p p o i n te d . g e n e r a l . a d r a i n i a t r a t r i x . o f t h e t w wi*J : > i v oX<-:,v ftcr.-w 1 Ti, .'3 V't-vCu c-y e s t a t e o f P a u l Stepica, d e o e a a e d , h y t h e s u r r o g a t e o f - . . . . . . VJirif'W b* 1..: / >!V!i.',Vt ifi.Swidi i..;7> a^-.iO W1 t h. .*; T \.> "- , . ' . THE PLAINT IF F , J l a g d a l e n a S t e p k a , g e n e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t r i x of the e s ta te o f.P a u l Stepka, : ** ftr vi C.-4 of $50,000,00.as damages.from ; . i ui. ci>. c l ujo f i r s t ;count. <: `- .;i w - > f V 1V * * d e c e a s e d , demands t h e sum t i t - {-?u p.-i-inAor*.* i. v-Sr-rtiV ' the.defendant,, under th is iau*. iij. i r ; Ujo :: r" r * AJ.N7 7TV, ?v>-5- - J ->r.-a 3 1e rva, o ici i n 1s t r a t *'i x a d r-r c o -*; :'**- ' f r r * *r.-S-E--CrOlNifDe?lCinOUNt-nTC.i O. UTt. . The p l a i n t i f f , Magdalena S te p k a , a d m l n i s t r a t r i x . a d prosequendum o f P a u l S t e p k a , d e c e a s e d , '^ r e s i d i h g ^ i n ' M a n v i l l e i New . J e r s e y , s a y s t h a t - 1 . She . r e p e a t s th e a l l e g a t i o n s o f p a r a g r a p h s o n e , two th re e , fo u r, fiv e and six of the f i r s t count... 2 . The s a i d a s b e s t o s f i b e r s ' a n d p a r t i c l e s ' w e r e ^ i n t r o duced into the i n t e s t a t e 's body a t the time and place afore s a i d , so t h a t the in te s ta te 'b e b a m .e p e rm a n e n tly i n j u r e d , e x t e r n a lly end i n t e r n a l l y , in and about h i s head, body and lim b s , ca u sin g him g r e a t p a in ana s u f f e r i n g , b o t h m ental and p h y s ic a l, g r e a t ly lowered h i s `re s is ta n c e to d is e a s e , and he became a v ic tim of pulmonary d i s e a s e s , and d ied as a r e s u l t th e re o f on December 17, 1931. . - 3 . On D ec em b e r 26, 1931, th e p l a i n t i f f , Magdalena Stepka was duly appointed by the s u rro g a te of. Somerset County, a d m in is tra trix ad prosequendum.of. Paul Stepka, rierpnaed. and h e r e and now p r o f f e r s h e r s a id l e t t e r s of intestate for support. 5 The p l a i n t i f f ) aa a d m i n i s t r a t r i x a s aforesaid) .- * * :-T* :r *' , * *,*;V * ' * r "* ;. f o r the' "benefit o f the said next of k i n , is Tested by i- . ,.'s .1 v i r t u e of. th e' s t a t u t e i n such case made and p r o v id e d , -with '.t : \ fj . **' *. .'/ * * t & S M ? *.? * *{ r * * ; *v * . i . 1 `a, c a u s e o f a c t i o n . a g a i n s t t h e , d e f e n d a n t f o r n e g l i g e n t l y / ? ^ J `.k- f ?. 'V1'-.-" '*.<r'' *v ` Vi causing the death o f h e r in t e s t a t e , and b rin gs thiB" action"* . * Li ^ *; -, i - *_ * * t . . ** * /. , i / ; *.* V- .. w i t h i n two y e a r s ' *r. v . v \ * . t , >-*'* * < Ci ' / T* t \ ; i , . a f te r the death of the said in te s ta te . - * #; 6 . The s a i d n e x t '.of k i n . s u f f e r e d p e c u n i a r y , l o s s e s by reason of the death of the said Paul Stepka, in the. sum o f ^ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . THE PIAINTIFP, Magdalena S t e p k a , a d m i n i s t r a t r i x ad prosequendum o f P a u l S t e p k a , d e c e a s e d , demands th e sum of 050,000.00 as damages from the defendant under t h i s second count. , ' ; ' jt* ,, , ? ** * * - ** . (1Ji'DORF?F?' iL*HTS) SAMUEL GREENSTONE Attorney for P la in tiff. I h e r e b y d e p u t i z e Chae. H. Murray t o s e r v e t h e r r i l u i n v : r i t . V /itness my h and pad F e a l t n i s 26 day oi Jen I S 32. 7/r*. R. S u t p h i n Sheriff J e n . 2G. 1932. I s e r v e d tne w i t h i n sturaone and comn l e u i t m o n The J o h n s - H a n v i i l e C o r p o r a t i o n , c c r o o r p t i o n of t n e S t t e o f her; York, by s e r v i n g A. R. F i s h e r , ' P l a n t Manager, p e r s o n a l l y a t i l a n v i l l e , N. J . Fees G3.7B I- iI 4 ;i 0 , : 4 i` J i i 3 '-r * fe '3! O .s * IS Vi j >;? 4 O : & ^s J*'>i', ~$ .f;( "r.-5 -n **> . '* * -y--,-'`-"-*--7---V--*-;r-:-v-x---' _)_7*Lo--^L";.'.*:./..-> O-- -r. r.--v^. -p-', * '>': < v* : . :*.-';. ** r : UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . DISTRICT OP liEW JERSEY 11AGDALEITA 3TEPKA, g e n e r a l : a d m i n i s t r a t r i x o f PAUL STEPKA, d e c e a s e d , and MAGDALENA STEPKA, * ad m in istratrix ad.prosequendum o f PAUL STEPKA, d e c e a s e d , * * : ; 1 A c t i o n t Law Plaintiffs, A N S W E R . -*. * . ,, * r:. f** -V S - JOHNS-ANVILL3 CORPORATION, a corporation of the State of New Y ork, Defendant. * * * y` i j D e f e n d a n t , JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, a j c o r p o r a t i o n o f t h e S t a t e o f New York, h a v i n g i t s p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e i n New J e r s e y , a t M a n v i l l e , S om erset C ounty, s a y s th? FIRST DEFENSE TO FIRST COUNT ' 1. I t denies paragraph 1, except th a t i t says * t t h a t the p l a i n t i f f ' s i n t e s t a t e was in i t s employ a t i t s p l a n t in M a n v i l l e , New J e r s e y , from December 2 8 , 1926, to i l November 12, 1930, ( 2. I t denies paragraph 2, except th a t i t says l j t h a t i t was and has been engaged in the m anufacture o f I jasb esto s products for commercial purposes from December 28, | 1926 to the p r e s e n t tim e. | 3. It denies paragraph 3, except that i t says ! ~ j th a t i t employed the p l a i n t i f f 's in te s ta te from December I j 28,1926, to November 12, 1930. 4. I t denies paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7, 5 . I t has no knowledge or in fo rm a tio n s u f f i c i e SECOND DEFENSE TO FIRST COUNT The i n ju r y and th e d is e a s e a lle g e d in t h e c o m p l a i n t were due to one of the ris k s ' o f h i s employment assumed hy the p l a i n t i f f ' s i n t e s t a t e as p a r t of t h e ,terms of..his O' .............. -r * ->v,:U - i % ; . i- c o n tra c t of employment. . - rit i t q t o d 41. ` . THIRD DEFENSE TO FIRST COUNT ;ifi'i $ i '* ` f '' The i n j u r y and th e d is e a s e a lle g e d in the com plaint ; were due to one of the r i s k s of h i s employment assumed hy the p l a i n t i f f ' s in te s ta te as p art of the terms of h is c o n tra c t of employment in th a t the p l a i n t i f f ' s i n t e s t a t e knew, o r hy t h e e x e r c i s e of r e a s o n a b l e c a r e on h i s p a r t should have known, the alleged dangers of h is employment. ! FOURTH DEFENSE TO FIRST COUNT I | The i n j u r y and t h e d i s e a s e a l l e g e d i n %t h e c o m p l a i n t were c a u s e d hy 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 lain tiff's intestate. I- FIFTH DEFENSE TO FIRST COUNT r - j The i n ju r y and th e d is e a s e alleged in the com plaint were caused hy 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 i Ip la in tif f 's in te sta te in that the p la in tif f 's in testate |fa ile d to exercise reasonable care to protect himself agai i the a l l e g e d d an g e rs of h i s employment by u s in g t h e mask an I ! o th er ap p lian ces provided by the defendant f o r th a t purposI I SIXTH DEFENSE TO FIRST COUNT i -------------------- ....... -- * ---- - J The i n j u r y and th e d is e a s e a lle g e d in the complainl jv/ere due to n e g lig e n c e on the p a r t o f a f e l l o w - s e r v a n t of th e p l a i n t i f f ' s i n t e s t a t e , in f a i l i n g . t o warn and i n s t r u c I th e p l a i n t i f f ' s i n t e s t a t e t o use th e mask and o t h e r ap- -Li: seventh defeuse to f i r s t count 1 . The a l l e g e d i n j u r y , i f a n y , t o t h e . p l a i n t i f f *a i n t e s t a t e was. a t r e s p a s s done t o t h e p e r s o n o f s a i d i n t e s t a t e . 2. Said alleged in ju r y , i f any, was caused b y 'th e alleged wrongful a c t, neglect or default -of-the defendant. 3* No a c t i o n was commended'and i n s t i t u t e d 'b y ' s a i d , i n t e s - ,-r- - .**; n ** ' J t a t e , w h ile he was l i v i n g , to recover f o r sa id a lle g e d in ju r w i t h i n tv/o y e a r 9 n e x t a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d c a u s e o f a c t i o n a c c i to said in te s ta te . .` ' - v EIGHTH DEFENSE TO FIRST OOUNT 1' ' 1. I t re p e a ts the a lle g a tio n s of paragraph 1 of the Se' Defense to the F ir s t Count. 2. I t r e p e a ts the a l l e g a t i o n s of p arag rap h 2 of the 3e Defense to the F irs t Count. 3 . llo a c t i o n was commenced.and i n s t i t u t e d hy t h e p l a i n to r e c o v e r f o r s a id a l l e g e d i n j u r y , w i t h i n two y e a r s n e x t r the alleged cause of action accrued to said in te s ta te . FIRST DEFENSE TO SECOND COUNT 1. I t rep eats the alleg a tio n s of paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 o f the F i r s t Count. 2. It denies the allegations of paragraph 2, except t h a t i t has no knowledge or in fo rm a tio n s u f f i c i e n t to form a b e l ie f as to the date of the alleg ed death of the p la in tiff's intestate. 3 . I t h a s no knowledge or i n f o r m a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t tc form a b e lie f as to the alle g a tio n s of paragraph 3. 4. I t h a s no knowledge or i n f o r m a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t( form a b e lie f as to the alle g a tio n s of paragraph 4. r4- n n knowledge or information sufficient t