Document M41wpZ5KBaxJ08e2K88vrg59

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HARRY R. HASSEY and CATHERINE HASSEY, h/w 3230 "A" Street Philadelphia, Pa. 19134 VS UNIROYAL, INC. Oxford Management fc ResearchCenter Middlebury, Connetieuit 06749 : CIVIL ACTION : s : t 8 s 8 : 8 NO. MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 30(a) OF FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR LEAVE TO TAKE DEPO SITION BY PLAINTIFF PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF 30 DAYS FROM SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT UPON THE ______ DEFENDANT 1. The above-captioned matter is based upon the defendr- alleged negligence and engagement in ultrahazardous activitu = which have inflicted plaintiff, Harry R. Hassey, with lun? cancer. A copy of the Complaint has been served upon defender. counsel. 2. At the present time plaintiff's condition has proarc to the point where the length of his life and his continued ability to communicate in regard to past events may be in dam.* - 3. Plaintiff, Harry R. Hassey, will be a principal witness as to the activities of defendant which were the caur.c- of hisI condition, and it will be necessary to preserve hi 3 testimony in regard thereto. It is therefore respectfully requested tl .t this Court grant the proposed Order allowing the taking of the depositior of Harry R. Hassey on Friday, January 11, 1980 at 9:00 a.m. at his residence, 3230 "A" Street, Philadelphia, Pa. URL 12662 CLARY, MIMNAUGH McGONIGLE, P.t\ BY:;;* 1 2 3 * * * 7. ANDREW F. MIMNAUGH, ESQUI.U'1 ' Attorney for Plaintiffs 2^ 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HARRY R. HASSEY and CATHERINE HASSEY, h/w 3230 "A* Street Philadelphia, Pa. 19134 vs. UNIROYAL, INC. Oxford Management a Research Center Middlebury, Conneticut 06749 : CIVIL ACTION : : t t NO. ORDER AND NOW, this day of . 19 upon the motion of Andrew F. Mininaugh, Esquire, Attorney :Toc Plaintiffs, Harry R. Hassey and Catherine Bassey, h/w, and for good cause shown, as set forth in the motion annexed hereto, i. is hereby ORDERED and DECREED: The deposition of Harry R. Hassey shall be taken on before an Official Court Reporter for the United States Dr.stri Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the purpose of preserving his testimony for presentation at the time of trial or hearing in the above-captioned matter. in n BY THE COURT: .3 URL 12664 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the attached r ot h : was Bade personally upon Spencer A. Manthorpe, Esquire, otter-.* for defnedant, at his office located at 2000 Two Penn Centex Plaza/ Philadelphia/ Pa., 19102 on January 4, 1980. V / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 1ARRY R. HASSEY and CATHERINE HASSEY, h/w J230 "A* Street >hiladelphia. Pa. X9134 vs . TNI ROYAL# INC. )xford Management 4 Research Center liddlebury# Conneticuit 06749 : CIVIL ACTION : : NO. MOTION FOR SPECIAL APPOINTMENT TO SERVE PROCESS Pursuant to Rule 4(c)# Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs in the above-captioned civil action, hereby move this Sourt to specially appoint Andrew F. Mimnaugh to serve the iiuj-uronS ind Complaint upon defendant. Uniroyal# Inc. in this action, m<l represents that: 1. Said person is or would be competent and not less than eighteen (18) years of age. 2. Said person is not and will not be a party to Suck qctiOY* 3. Granting the instante motion will effect substantial savings (e.g. time, travel fees) to the U. S. Marshall. i / ft ANDREW F. MIMNAUGH, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiffs URL 12665 IN THE UNITED STATES DISRTICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HARRY R. HASSEY and CATHERINE HASSEY t h/w 3230 "A" Street Philadelphia, Pa. 19134 CIVIL ACTION VS t UNIROYAL, INC. Oxford Management 6 Research Center Middlebury, Conneticut 06749 NO. ORDER AND NON, to wit, this day of r it is ORDERED that Andrew F. Mimnaugh, Esquire be and th game, i> hereby SPECIALLY APPOINTED to serve the Summons & Compla\vd u.on in this action. It is further ORDERED that proof of such service shalL be.; by affidavit in accordance with Rule 4(g), FRCP. URL 12666 BY THE COURT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the attached Motion was made personally upon Spencer A. Manthorpe, Esquire, attorney for defendant, at his office located at 2000 Two Penn Center Plaza, Philadelphia, Pa., 19102 on January 4, 1979. Andrew f. mimnaugh , ESC URL 12667 u ,i*i \ <6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HARRY R. HASSEY and CATHERINE HASSEY, h/w 3230 "A" Street Philadelphia, Pa. 19134 vs. UNIROYAL, INC. Oxford Management ft Research Center Middlebury, Conneticut 06749 8 CIVIL ACTION I x i t t t X t t NO. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs herein demand a trial by jury on all issues. CLARY, MIMNAUGH ft McGONIGLJ, E. BY VANDREW F. MIMNAUGH, ESQClF Attorney for Plaintiffs URL 12668 mm IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HARRY R. HASSEY and CATHERINE HASSEY, h/w : CIVIL ACTION vs. UNIROYAL, INC. OXFORD MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH CENTER MIDDLEDURY, CONNETICUT 06749 * NO. URL 12669 COMPLAINT PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs, Harry R. Hassey and Catherine Hassey, art- individuals residing at 3230 "A" Street, Philadelphia, Penn^ylvQKto 2. Defendant, Uniroyal, Inc. (hereinafter "Uniroyal*> , is New Jersey corporation (formerly Known as U. S. Robber Company) , with a principal office located in Middlebury, Conneticut, and c all times relevant to the Complaint doing business within Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. JURISDICTION 3. Plaintiffs are citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsyl** vania and defendant is a corporation of the State of New Jersey, having its principal place of business in a state other thai tin Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The amount in controversey exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $10,000 and is in excess of $50,000.00. BACKGROUND 4. Plaintiff, Harry R. Hassey, commenced working at the Masland Duraleather Company plant (hereinafter "plant") at Colli** and Allegheny Avenues, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on or about September of 1951, and was continuously employed at this plant until August, 1978. URL 12670 5* Has land Duraleather Company was a manufacturer and-^abrtcator of vinyl upholstery at the plant. 6* In or about the year 1962, defendant Uniroyal acquired Mas land and thereafter continued the above manufocturing op^ritiO'n of Has land as a division of Uniroyal up to and including Sept^ambec" of 1978, at which time it closed out operations. 7. During the period 1951 through 1978 the manufacturing operations at the plant included the purchase and processing (Vverc inafter "process*) of certain chemicals under heat and pres&uY& the purpose of producing a material known as poly-vinyl chloride (hereinafter "PVC") used in the production of vinyl upholstery. 8. At various times material to this Complaint, Uniroy.t.l >a supplier of chemicals used in the preparation of the PVC qt &\\s Iplant. 9* Commencing in 1951 and continuing through 1967, Horry R Hassey's direct duties of employment engaged his constant pre sence in the calendar room of the plant. From the year 196'* through 1978 inclusive, Harry R. Hassey's duties were plant main tenance which required his presence in various departments Of -tineplant involved in the process 10. Hie properties of the chemicals supplied, and tUc. i of the process involved In producing PVC compounds in a tucjten st aVcreated a working environment which included the presence or PVC in a finely dispersed and vaporous state which was inhaled end otherwise ingested into the plaintiff's body systems. COUNT I - TRESPASS | 11. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all altera tions of paragraphs 1 through 10 as though fully set forth here, 12. At all times material to this Complaint, Uniroyal pro duced certain chemical and hydrocarbon compounds (hereinafter "formula") a*- it* various plant locations which it sold, distrib ted and supplied in commerce for use in the manufacture of PVC. 2 // 13. For the period 1962 through 1978, after Uniroyal Masland Duraleather, it engaged directly in the manufacture of using its chemicals at the Masland Duraleather plant. 14. At all times material to this Complaint, Uniroyal should have known# or could have reasonably determined that the chemicals which it manufactured# distributed# supplied# sold and otherwise placed in commerce for use in the production of PVC, a which it used directly on its own account in the production o PVCwas dangerous# deleterious# harmful# potentially deadly and other wise inherently destructive to the human body systems and function 15. At all times material to this Complaint, Uniroyal kpcw, should have known, or could have reasonably determined that tie chemicals which it manufactured and supplied# and which it us^0. the production of PVC# would in the ordinary and forseeablc bsC and handling thereof be ingested into the workers9 body system , by inhalation or otherwise. 16. Notwithstanding its knowledge and awareness of tho abct'C set forth factual circumstances. Uniroyal# in breach of its diti to use reasonable care for the protection, avoidance of harm <mi prevention of injury to plaintiff bys (a) Failure and omission to adopt monitoring and testing procedures disclosing the necessity of further action to be taken. (b) Failure and omission to initiate or conduct resenr or utilize available information which would disclose the noccssory of further action to be taken. <c) Failure and omission to provide a working environ ment which contained or excluded the presence of the injure agent. (d) Failure and omission to utilize a manufacturing !' process which would contain or exclude the injurious agent. i 3 URL 12671 UHL 12672 (e) Failure and omission to provide, or advise a5 4 sufficient safeguards, special equipment or wearing apparel a* would contain, exclude or prevent contact with the injurious (f) Failure to provide sufficient warning or advice, so as would bring notice of the fact of danger by the presence of injurious agent. COUNT II - ASSUMPSIT 17. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the allegation of paragraphs 1 through 16 as though fully set forth herein. 16. At the time Uniroyal sold and supplied the chemicals used in the manufacturing process at the Masland Duraleathetr pl&nV it knew or had reason to know the particular purpose for which goods were required. 19. At the time Uniroyal acquired Masland Duraleather pl$h4* for the purpose (among others) of providing a captive customer *f&Y* the sale and supply of the chemicals used In the manufacturing pro cess, it knew or had reason to know the particular purpose for vvj* rb its goods were required. 20. Uniroyal knew that Masland Duraleather was relying ?n Uniroyal's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable good: 21. In fact, the goods sold and supplied to Masland, both 45 1 an independent and captive entity, were defective and'unfit for'the. intended purpose, causing grave and serious injury to the usersthereof. COUNT III - TRESPASS 22. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the alleqa*V-ion" >f paragraphs 1 through 21 as though fully set forth herein. 23. Uniroyal, Inc. at all times material to this ComploiwV /as the supplier of the PVC. 24. Uniroyal, Inc. knew, or from facts known should realized, that the PVC was or was likely to be dangerous for 4-