Document Exm53B9Ewq949E6Owmdrwz0J0

FILE NAME: Early Asbestos Damage Suits (EADS) DATE: 1934 DOC#: EADS008 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Documents from Case of Concetta Ferone UlilTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW-JERS CONCETTA PERONE, a d m i n i s t r a t r i x ). of t h e e s t a t e o f MICHAEL P E R O N E , ' n d e c e a s e d , and CONCETTA PERONE, ) a d m in is tra trix ad prosequendum o f ` '-l* .-.. v i*.;. MICHAEL FERONE, d e c e a s e d , . ; , ACTION AT LAW ..-Plaintiff, \ ) * * " * - * * * ;AMENDED''AND SUPPLENTENTAL -vs- ) :. COMPLAINT. V o ' 1}\P JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, a c o r - ) p o r a t i o n o f t h e S t a t e :o f New Y o rk , =: -i - . ;i \ ' i r* ; D e f e n d a n t . `.V : FIRST COUNT. The p l a i n t i f f , C o n c e tta P e r o n e , a d m i n i s t r a t r i x o f t h e e s t a t e o f M ic h a e l P e r o n e , d e c e a s e d , r e s i d i n g a t Bound v Brook, S o m e rse t County, S t a t e o f New J e r s e y , s a y s t h a t : - 1. The i n t e s t a t e , M ic h e e l P e r o n e , was i n t h e employ o f the defendant corporation a t i t s p la n t a tM a n v ille , New J e r s e y , i n t h e month o f A u g u s t, 1927, and f o r s e v e r a l years prior thereto. | 2. At the time herein s e t fo rth , the defendant c o r p o r a t i o n was engaged i n the m a n u fa ctu re o f a s b e s t o s I products for commercial purposes. i1 3. The s a i d d e f e n d a n t on p l o y e d t h e a t the time and place a f o r e s a id in i t s m anufacture o f s a id a s b e s to s products and the said defendant n o t only knew, but s h o u l d have know^ t h a t th e s a i d a s b e s t o s p r o d u c t c o n t a i n e d c e r ta in dangerous, in sid io u s and harmful agencies composed Io f 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 to l i f e and h ea lth in the human body when brought in to close Icontaot with the same. n e g lig e n t in allow ing the said dangerous f ib e r s and p a r t i c l e s to escape and to come^into close proximity of the i n t e s t a t e 's p e r s o n and exposed t h e i n t e s t a t e ' so t h a t - h e oame i n t o . c o n t a c t w ith and in h a le d the sa id dangerous f ib e r s and par t i d e s ' t o d t h e e x t e n t t h a t h i s b r o n o h i a l t u b e s , lu n g s an d body b e c a m e i- ;\ p e r m e a te d and i n f e c t e d w i t h ; th e same# c u v !.'T ' ' ' k 4 5, The i n t e s t a t e w a s'n o t'in fo rm e d o r warned by the d efen d a n t, and had no knowledge o f th e n a tu re o f the s a i d 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 i t h - w h i c h he ** was b r o u g h t i n t o c l o s e p r o x i m i t y by r e a s o n o f . t h e n e g l i g e n c e of the defendant. . 6. of is as follows The n e g lig e n c e of the d efen d a n t complained (a) In fa ilin g to use-reasonable care to p r o v i d e t h e i n t e s t a t e w i t h a r e a s o n a b l y s a f e p l a c e o f . work*. (b) . In f a i l i n g to use reaso n able care to provide the i n t e s t a t e w ith proper masks or o th e r ap p lian c es or safeguards in said work. (c) I n f a i l i n g to use r e a s o n a b le c a r e - j to provide a proper v e n tila tin g system a t i t s p la n t. | (d) In f a i l i n g to use reasonabb care to j give proper warning, inform ation and knowledge about th e dangerous c h a ra cte r of i t s work w ith the sa id asb esto s f ib e r s and p a r t i c l e s , to the i n t e s t a t e , a t the time and place above | jmentioned. j ' 7. The s a i d a s b e s to s f i b e r s and p a r t i c l e s were i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the i n t e s t a t e ' s body a t th e tim e and xu by reason of the lo s s of the major p a rt of h is lif e tim e ,' t i o f h i s p h y s i c a l and m e n ta l w e l l ' b e i n g , o f h i s wage e a r n i n g s , . and also the considerable amount o f medical expense involved in h is e f f o r t to r e ta rd the su ffe rin g from h is d ise ase , and \* - -- mend the w recking o f h i s body, he was c u s s e d * to s u f f e r 1/ l o s s e s and d a m a g e s 't o ' t h e e x t e n t o f $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . " ' : ' 8 , On th e 1 4 t h d a y o f J u n e , 1930, ' t h e " p l a i n t i f f , G o n c e tta P e r o n e , was d u ly a p p o in te d by the s u r r o gate of Somerset County a d m in is tra trix o f the goods and 1 ' *, c h a t t e l s , r i g h t s and c r e d i t s which were of Michaei Perone d e c e a s e d , and h e r e and now p r o f f e r s h e r s a i d l e t t e r s o f admini s tr a tio n . WHEREFORE, t h e a d m i n i s t r a t r i x as a f o r e s a i d , demands th e sum o f $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 under t h i s f i r s t count f o r l o s s e s s u s ta in e d to the e s ta te o f Michael Perone deceased, from the defendant. SECOND COUNT. The p l a i n t i f f , C o n c etta Perone, a d m i n i s t r a t r i x ad prosequendum o f M ichael P ero n e, r e s i d i n g a t Bound Brook, S o m e r s e t County, S t a t e o f New ^ e r s e y , sa ys t h a t : - 1. She re p e a ts the a lle g a tio n s of paragraphs one, two, th r e e , fo u r, f i v e , s i x , and seven of the f i r s t count. 2. On t h e 1 4 t h day o f J u n e , 1930, t h e p l a i n t i f f , C onc etta P e r o n e was d u l y a p p o i n te d by t h e s u r r o g a t e o f Somerset County, a d m in is tra trix ad prosequendum o f , M ic h a e l P e r o n e , d e c e a s e d , to p r o s e c u t e th e a c t i o n f o r damages, ; j ___ - John Perone, Mary Perone, Dominick Perone, Ralph Perone, Charges Perone, Nicholas Perone, and BenjaminPerone, J r . a l l d ep e n d en t upon t h e s a i d i n t e s t a t e f o r s u p p o r t . ... aforesaid, 4 . The p l a i n t i f f a s a d m i n i s t r a t r i x a s >,--'r * * 4 * f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e s a i d n e x t o f k i n , ' i s .: t W * s r- v e s t e d by v i r t u e o f t h e s t a t u t e i n ' such. c a s e . made.' and p r o v i d e d *. r- with a cause of action against the defendent fo r negligently causing the death o f her i n t e s t a t e , and b rin g s t h i s a c tio n w ith in t?/o y e a r s a f t e r th e d e a th o f the s a i d i n t e s t a t e . 5. The sa id n ex t o f k in s u f f e r e d l o s s e s by reaso n of th e d ea th of the s a id M ichael Perone i n the sum o f $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 . Y/HERZFORE, the a d m i n i s t r a t r i x a s a f o r e s a id , demands th e sum o f $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 u n d e r t h i s se co n d count f o r losses sustained to the e s ta te of Michael Perone deceased, ' from the defendant. Attorney for P la in tiff. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TRE DISTRICT OF HEW JERSE ; CONCETTA PERONE, a d m i n i s t r a t r i x : t " . i . of t n e e a t a t e -of MICHAEL PERONE, d e c e a s e d , and CONCETTA PERONE, 'J.<> ; * a d m in is tra trix ad prosequendum, of MICHAEL PERONE, d e c e a s e d , t JfA \ f t.'jfi * f crsr7 P l a i n t i f f , t Action a t Lav - v a - V. VtJOJP/, tiT. ANSWER TO AMENDED AND SUPP1 JOHNS-MANVILIE CORPORATION, a c o r - - t..r. H-MENTAL COMPLAIN1, p o r a t i o n of t h e S t a t e o f New Y o rk , >' ; r; ' v - Defendant. f.ITv;-5..-nli 5 ' J i - : - v,-. s,t.- V---1 j The d e f e n d a n t , JOHNS-MANVTLLS CORPORATION, i c o r p o r a t i o n o f th 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 ? ^ 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 o m e r s e t County, s a y s i that; ' FIRST DEFENSE TO FIRST COUNT 1. I t denies Paragraph L, except that i t . , t ' ' ' ' 1 1 s a y s t h a t th e p l a i n t i f f r s i n t e s t a t e was i n i t s employ a* ! i t s p l a n t a t H a n v i l l e , New J e r s e y , from December 28, 19: ! to the month of August, 1927. t 2. I t denies Paragraph 2, except that it s i t h a t i t was and has been engaged I n the m anufacture of i asb esto s products fo r commercial purposes from December i 1926, to the p resen t tim e. | 3 . I t d e n i e s P a r a g r a p h 3 , e x c e p t t h a t i t a? ^ t h a t i t employed the p l a i n t i f f * s in te s ta te , from December i : 28, 1926, to the month of August, 1927. 4 . I t d e n i e s P a r a g r a p h 4 1 ! 5 I t d e n i e s P a r a g r a p h 5 . i ; 6. I t denies Paragraph 6. - ** 'l SECOND DEFENSE TO FIRST COUNT . . . , i 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 in. t h e .com p l a i n t -were due to one o f t h e r i s k s o f h i s employment. -> assumed by th e p l a i n t i f f * a i n t e s t a t e a s p a r t . of,,.the..ite rm e of h is c o n tra c t of employment* v r - M I c . ,n.i r i * . THIRD DEFENSE TO FIRST COUNT- . 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 in-.the.. com p l a i n t , w ere due t o one o f t h e r i s k s o f - h i s employment ; v l. assumed by the p l a i n t i f f * a i n t e s t a t e as p a r t of th e .term s of his c o n tra c t of employment* ; FOURTH DEFENSE TO FIRST COUNT , 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 th e com p l a i n t were caused by c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g lig e n c e on the. p a r t of the p la in tif f 's intestate* ... FIFTH DEFENSE TO FIRST COUNT | 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 com p l a i n t were caused by c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g lig e n c e on the p a r t : | the p l a i n t i f f 's intestate; in th at the p la in tiff* a .in te s ta te | failed to exercise reasonable care to protect himself agair I the a lle g e d d angers of h i s employment by u sin g th e mask and ; other appliances provided by the defendant for th is purpose SIXTH 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 com p l a i n t were due to n e g lig e n c e on the p a r t of a f e llo w | servant of the p l a i n t i f f 's in te s ta te In f a ilin g to warn and I n s tr u c t the p l a i n t i f f ' s i n t e s t a t e to use the mask and 1i other appliances provided by the defendant for the purpose of p ro te c tin g the p l a i n t i f f 's in te s ta te ag a in st the alleged the original action when commenced a n d .instituted ,by the p la in tif f 's in testate during.his lifetime.,, 'had.not b e e n : 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 t h e alleg ed cause of actio n accrued, and by reason of t h e f, . f - ' /" - 't f t premises the present action of the plaintiff..isr,harred*xll^ FIRST DEFENSE TO SECOND COUNT .r..-vjr.'.V 1* I t r e p e a t s th e a l l e g a t i o n s of P aragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the F ir s t Defense to F ir s t Count. 2* I t h a s no knowledge o r in fo rm a tio n s u f f i c i e n t to form a b e l i e f a s to the a l l e g a t i o n s of P aragraph 2. . 3 . I t has no knowledge o r in fo rm a tio n s u f f i c i e n t to form a b e l i e f as to the a l l e g a t i o n s of Paragraph 3. 4. I t denies the a lle g a tio n s of Paragraph 4 except that i t has been informed and believes th at th is a c t i o n v/as b r o u g h t w i t h i n two y e a r s a f t e r t h e d e a t h o f t h e p la in tiff's intestate. . 5 . I t h as no knowledge or in f o rm a tio n s u f f i c i e n t o f o r m a b e l i e f a s t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of P a r a g r a p h 5* SECOND DEFENSE TO SECOND CpUNT I t re p e a ts the a l le g a tio n s of the Second Defense to F ir s t Count. THIRD DEFENSE TO SECOND COUNT I t repeats the alleg a tio n s of the Third Defense to F i r s t Count. FOURTH DEFENSE TO SECOND COUNT I t repeats the alleg a tio n s 6f the Fourth Defense to F ir s t Count. I SIXTH DEFENSE TO SECOND COUNT I t rep ea t the a lle g a tio n s of th e Sixth Defena to i r a t Count* : ' *j . ; ' , * * . /./- ---w Iri *i - k: , * ' V ** ; Attorneys . !' / . - - rr- o f D e f e n d a n t ,-v-> ^ - *' : * , ; v r. - 1 $ `* `>.Ti -:Vr, r . r'- V*' -*`.'V*r*- * '.>.; x.-s.*i.1...'l.<iv>t'*-V/r UKIT3D STATES DISTRICT .^OlU't FOR THE DISTRICT OF 1ETY JERSEY C01JCETTA PERODE, a d m i n i s t r a t r i x o f t h e e s t a t e o f MICHAEL. PEROHE, d e c e a s e d and CONCETTA PEROliE, a d m i n i s t r a t r i x a d prosequendum o f MICHAEL P E R O h ^ ^ d e c e a s vs. J0HHS-KAKVILL3 CORPORATION, a c o r p o r a t i o n o f t h e S t a t e o f liev/ Y ork, Defendant Action at Law. ORDER FOR DISCOJfTIXUAJfCE. The above entitle d cause h avin g been settled between the parlies thereto; It is ORDERED, that the same be, and it is hereby discontimced, without cos&to either party as against the other. Entered J u n e 1 3 , 19 34 On motion of K^ l f- ' 'Y )}' <-"K-- Attorneys of defendant