Document Qk3a1EXzB1dX8Oo4EYp0DxXD5

FILE NAME: Early Asbestos Damage Suits (EADS) DATE: 1946 DOC#: EADS019 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Documents from Case of Benjamin Szymanski 1.1 I! tii; EENJAMIN SZYMANSKI, SOMERSET COUNTY COURT OF COW/.OH PLEA * Plaintiff, : , -vs- i- : JCHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, a corporation of New York : authorized to do business in New Jersey, a ACTION AT LAW COMPLAINT* Defendant* Benjamin Szymar.skl, reaiding in Manville, (New Jersey, ' complaining of the defendant, Johns-Manvill Corporation, a corporation of Hew York authorized to do business in Hew Jersey, states that: 1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the plaitatiff was employed by defendant corporation* S. During such time plaintiff res employed by defendant corporation in the manufacture of articles ir]. which asbestos and other substances were used* 3 Plaintiff was employed by defendant corporation in such work for about 16 years prior to May, IS44* 4* During the above time and due to the negligence of the defendant corporation, its agents and servants, the plain i, ; tiff was exposed to asbestos dust, silicate tri-oxide dust, and. various other dusts and particles of matter Y/hlch per meated the defendant's plant and the places where plaintiff worked and during all of said time, the plaintiff inhaled :: said various dusts-and small particles of matter, as a *-* U4f~u i* Imds hare been injured as well i are due to the negligence of the defendant corporation, its ii agents and servants* I i As a result of said negligence of the i defendant corporation, its agents and servants, the plain ti ! tiff has become sick, nervous and disabled and has suffered and will suffer physical pain and mental anguish*' 5 The negligence of the defendant corporation, its agents and servants, consisted of not providing plaintiff with asafe place to work in; providing poorly ventileted il places for plaintiff to work in; not taking proper precautic i for the safety of plaintiff; not advising or warning plain r tiff of the dangers of his work in the places assigned to him by defendant; and under the circumstances under which defendant required him to work; not using proper safety measures or precautions for the safety of plaintiff and for the preservation of the health of plaintiff; requiring plaintiff to work in poorly ventilated places for excessive periods of time; not rotating plaintiff and not having plaintiff do work under conditions which were not detri mental to his health; not using the proper safety devices and meajnsures for the protection of the plaintiff and pre servation of his health; compelling plaintiff to work under adverse conditions as described above for undue i length of time; not taking proper safety and health measures; not taking the proper precautions for plaintlff*s i health; not maintaining proper equipment to remove the dust and par tides of matter from the air; not furnishing the - plaintiff with safety devices and not furnish plaintiff with providing proper periodical medical examinations of plaintiff and taking the necessary precautions to preserve his health? not providing proper periodical medical exam inations for plaintiff and not advising plaintiff that his health was in danger by reason of the conditions under which he was working? and defendant^ its agents and servents, were also guilty of other and further negligence which re sulted in plaintiff*6 injuries as aforesaid# 6# Aa a result of the aforesaid negligence of the defendant corporation# its agents and servants# the plaintifi has been obliged and will be obliged to incur expenses for medical treatment and attention in an effort to cure himself of his said injuries# 7# As a result of the negligence of the defendant corporation# its agents and servants as aforesaid, che plaintiff haa lost salary and earnings and will in the future lose salary and earnings# 8* This action has been commenced within two years from the time of last exposure by plaintiff to the dusts and particles of matter stated aforesaid# and the plaintiff's cause of action has not accrued more than two years prior to the commencement of this suit# 9# The nature of the dusts with which plaintiff worked stated aforesaid# are such that plaintiff lias no remedy for his resulting Injuries under the Workmen's Compensation Act# being Revised Statutes of New Jersey 34:15-1 etc# I WHEREFORE plaintiff# Eenjamin zymanski# demands judg ment against the defendant, John3-l*anville Corporation# a BENJAMIN SZYi.'ANSKI, Plaintiff, --v s -- I J0HNS-L1AKVILLS CORPORATION, I a corporation of New York authorized to do business in New Jersey, Defendant, UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UE'i/ JERSEY Action at Law A N S V/ E R Defendant, JOHNS-I.IAKVILLE CORPORATION, a corpora tion of the Stare of New York, having its principal office in New Jersey at Danville, Somerset County, says thct: 1. Defendant admits that the plaintiff was employe: by the defendant for approximately tno time stated in the complaint, 2. It admits Paragraph 2. 3. It admits Paragraph 3 *+, It denies Paragraph *+. 5. It denies Paragraph 5. . 6, It denies Paragraph 6, 7. It denies Paragraph 7. 8. It denies Paragraph 8. 9. As to the allegations of Paregraph 9, the defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, and leaves the plaintiff to his proofs, FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE The injury and the disease, if any, as alleged In the complaint, if the result of his employment, were due to t S'vCOlvD OEi'ARATF. nuirgyrE I The injury and disease, if any, as alleged in the I* complaint, were due to one of the risks of his employment |; assumed by the plaintiff as parr of the terms of his contract of employment in that the plaintiff knew, or * r the exercise of. reasonable care on his part should have known, the alleged dangers of his employment, if any there were, i 1 1! THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE The injury and the disease, if any, as alleged ! I in the complaint, were caused by contributory negligence t on the part of the plaintiff. !! * * FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The injury and the disease, if any, as alleged in the complaint, were caused by contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff in that he failed to exercise reasonable care to protect himself against the alleged dangers of his employment. FIFTH SHPA-RxTS DFFSN3E U The injury and disease, if any, as alleged in the complaint, were due to negligence on the part of a fellow servant of the plaintiff in failing to warn and '! instruct the plaintiff as to the rules of the company 1 nromulgated for the purpose of protecting the plaintiff i t against the alleged dangers ' of his employment, if any. SIXTH SFPARATE DEFENSE The injury and disease alleged In the complaint were not due to any acts of negligence of the defendant. U iTED 3 IV,TES D13TR3 C ? COURT DISTRICT GF !S'./ JERSEY b f ::j^!3n s t y m /, Z I > Plaintiff, -vs- JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, a corporation of New York authorized to do business in 'lev/ Jersey, : Action at Law : ANSVrSRS TO INTERROGATORIES Defendant. Tc: Hobart, Minard & Cooper, E s q s . Attorneys for Defendant 1160 Raymond Boulevard Newark, K. J. Please take notice that the plaintiff makes the following answers to the interrogatories under oath: 1, I was born February 10th, 1888 in Poland. 2. Mother and father died during orld <ar I, both at approximately 85 years of age. Don't know the parti culars regarding death and cause of death of my grandparents. 5. Information as to plaintiff's employment to the best of my recollection is as follows: 1S14-1915 with Penn Coal end Coke Company, Pennsylvania. Business of anthracite coal mining operation . Nature of my work - coal miner. 1915- 1916 with Standard Oil Company, Bayonne, Business of manufacturing. Nature of ny work - laborer. 1916- 1917 with b'ilcox Babcox Company, Bayonr.e Business of manufacturing. Nature of my work - laborer. 1917- 1923 self-employed as butcher and grocer Bayonr.e, N. J. 1923-1924 self-employed as farmer, South Somerville, 4. 5. & 6. To the best of plaintiff's recollectio plaintiff has been iil during the following periods: 1940 - Dr. George A. Greenberg, Sommervilie, N. J. Ill a number of weeks. 1941 - Dr. George A. Greenberg, Somerville,. N. J. Ill a number of weeks. j 1942 - Dr. George *. Greenberg, Somerville, N. J. 111 a number of weeks. * i j 1943 - Dr. Nicholas P. Reale, Manville, N. J. Ill I ! a number of weeks, i : 1944 - Dr. Nicholas ?. Re&le, Ilanville, IT. J. Practically confined to home and/or bed for approximately a total of 8 or S months. ; 1945 - Treated by Dr. L. A, M. Feher, New Brunswick, ! IT. J. from October, 1945, to February, 1946. Practically confined to home and/or bed for approximately 12 months. 1946 - Treated by Dp. Geprce Greenberg, Somerville, >!. J. Practically confined to home and/or bed for apnroximate iy I the entire period uo to the present time. 1 Plaintiff was admitted to Somerset Hospital, Somerville N. J. on March 11, 1946 and was discharged March 28, 1946. 7. & 8. The following, are the losses, damages and expenses claimed in connection with thi3 suit to date: Somerset Hospital, Somerville, K. Dr. George Greenberg Dr. Nicholas P. Reale . Dr. L. A. M. Feher Dr. Y/illiam Klein, New Erunswick, (X-rays) Drugs No nurse. J. N. J. vl77.55 125.00 200.00 60.00 112.00 125.00 9. To the best of plaintiff's recollection the following X-rays were taken: June 6. 1946 by Dr . George A. Greenberg Somerville, K. J.  harch 11, 1946 February 14, 1946 Dr. George A. Greenberg Somerville, N. J, * i by Somerset County Tubercu-! losis and Health Association Inc. Somerville, N. J. j August 30, 1945 by Somerset County Tubercu- [ losis and Health Associa tion Inc. Somerville, N. J. 1 August 25, 1945 Dr. V/illiam Klein 1 Hew Brunswick , K . J . ' December 14, 1944 Somerset County Tuberculosis and Health Association Inc.. June 26, 1944 Somerset County tuberculosis and Health Association Inc. May 18, 1944 January 20, 1944 Dr. V.'illiam Klein ! Hew Brunswick, M. J. 9 t Somerset County Tuberculosis and Healtn Association Inc. -rays were also taker: by tne dcienc.ant from on or about 1939 or 1940 and thereafter. 10. & 11. Other substances included those other chemicals and minerals used in the manufacture of defenuant's products. Various other dusts and particles of matter included silicate dioxide dust, silicate Lrioxlae dust, asbestos dust ss well as those other dusts and particles which arise in i connection with the manufacture of defendant's products. 12. cc 15. Other parts of ;:>lainaiff's body included courhs, pains in body, weakness, loss of strength, loss of appetite, loss of weight, inability to do work of any sort, 1 * pains in abdominal region, edema of ankles, anemia. The injury to the lunrs cover all of both lungs. i 14,16,17,16,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,00,31 5:52. Defendant was negligent in not providing; a safe pla_e to work in idust or the machinery used in the ventilating equipment i ` * * * was not powerful enough to collect a sufficient amount of dust. The defendant provided poorly ventilated places in I that It failed to carry off the accumulated or accumulating dust so as to leave the air clear of the substances which caused injury to the. plaintiff. During the winter seasons, t. the defendant kept the windows closed keeping out the fresh' air. The defendant was negligent in not taking proper pre cautions for the safety of the plaintiff in that it need igently 'made it unavoidable for plaintiff to breath harmful dusts jby failing to provide for adequate and sufficient ventilation, i j failing to furnish an adequate and practical hat and mask, 'failure to provide an adequate, proper and practical respir |failing to rotate the plaintiff's employment so that he wou 'not be continually exposed to the said injurious conditions. i ,Defendant required plaintiff to work for periods so excessive in time that he thereby received injuries to his health, times plaintiff was required to work overtime for periods of i j1 to 2 hours. ' Defendant v;as negligent in not advising or warning ;plaintiff of the danger of his work in the placqs assigned to i !him by the defendant in that plaintiff was never informed that t it was dangerous and detrimental to one's health to perform Jj such i work under the harmful conditions which existed. The defendant was negligent in failing, to provide 1proper supervision and precautions for the health of plaintiff t jso that defendant could determine when the working conditions !of plaintiff became so dangerous as to cause an injury in order ' 1 that he could warn plaintiff of the dangers.- ! Defendant failed to provide proper medical examine- ! maintain healthy atmospheric conditions at plaintiff's post | of employment. I The conditions under which plaintiff worked es to j which defendant failed to adviseplaintiff consisted of the , | atmospheric conditions which were injurious to plaintiff's ; health, the fact of'the length of his employment under : 1 ! harmful working conditions, the overtime periods of work, , the lack of rotation of his employment, the inadequate medical examinations. The negligence of the defendant corporation, its agents and servants, consisted of not providing plaintiff 1 i 1 with a safe place to work in; providing poorly ventilated i places for plaintiff to work in; not taking proper precau ans : for the safety of plaintiff; not advising or warninr plain- : l tiff of the dangers of his work in the places assigned to him : by defendant; snd under the circumstances under which defendant reouired him to work; not using proper safety measures or precautions for the safety of olaint-iff end for the preserva tion of the health of plaintiff; requiring plaintiff to work ; 1 i * i in poorly ventilated places for excessive periods of time; not rotating plaintiff and not having plaintiff do work under conditions which were not detrimental to his health; not using ! "he proper safety devices and measures for the protection of I the plaintiff and preservation of his health; compelling plain tiff to work under adverse conditions as described above for ! undue length of time; not taking proper safety and health i " ` | measures; not taking the proper precautions for plaintiff?s i health; not maintaining proper equipment to remove the dust ** ' and particles of natter from the air; not furnishing the j ` . ' plaintiff with safety devices and not furnishing plaintiff with sufficient safety devices; not providing the proper supervision J4 (hi proper periodical medical examinations for plaintiff and not advising plaintiff that his health was in danger by reason t :of the conditions under which he was working. 15. Plaintiff cannot recollect all the departments and buildings in which he worked during his employment by -1 } defendant. i ! 33. In the future plaintiff will be obliged to |incur additional medical expenses in the form of doctor's treatments, drugs and medicines, X-rays, and possibly i hospitalization. , 34. Plaintiff has sustained losses of salary in the past amounting to approximately $5800.00 and losses in the future due to his total incapacitation at an average of $50.00 per week besides medical care and attention. i s (W C ilYuGN L. L.-JV7 Attorney for Plaintiff I STATE OF NEW JE:\SLY ) :SS. COUNTY OF SOMERSET ) ; BENJAMIN SZYIiANSKI, of full age, being duly sworn upon his oath deposes and saysj I am the plaintiff in the above entitled natter in the suit in which the foregoing answers and interrogatories are made and that the facts set out in the answers and that the statements made therein are true to the best of ray knowledge. Sworn and subscribed to before me this 3 - day of 1946 V 3BV JAKI1J S2Y]'AI:SKI Plaintiff vs. J0H1:S->;.A1M'ILLS CO I-;?OKATIOII, e corporation of 1-Tew York euthorized to do business in Pew Jersey, 'Defendant. ui:it e a ? l is?) i-;v co.d t d is t jic t op p-r.'i j:;j-.r>EY : Civil Action ITo. 8177 : STIFUI.V?IOn OF 1 ISCr.pTinJAPCS : It is herebv stipulated that the above entitled nether be and f:he same is bereb" discontinued, without costs to either tv? r tv.