Document b5r12Q7MabYN5OxDRnD98O0Mg

FILE NAME: Early Asbestos Damage Suits (EADS) DATE: 1935 DOC#: EADS025 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Documents from Case of Fred Seifert OK 1 ..- . o ) T V ) hf ) l!i THE olKCUiT COURT OF L.JCE COUJITY > * FxiCU oEIFEuT Vs, ) ) ) ) ) 2o. j'rVoii Jw ;e .3-.oviv~o x f ^e p r o- ) UUcjro CORFOILATIOii, i , ) corporation COMPLuMirr >iT ICRV PlaintIff, for cause of action against the de fendant, states: I, That on and prior to the 22nd day of July , . 19 3 3 , the defendant was a corporation and was, on and prior to the aforesaid date, carrying on its business in the City oftSlukegon, County of Lc.he , and State of Illinoic, and did maintain, operate and control a plant or factory, in the aforesaid city, county, and state; and in the prosecution and carrying on of its business, . the defendant did use and employ and operate, divers machines, tools, and implements in the manufacture of divers of its products and in the course of said manu facture, the defendant did employ a large number of employees, 11, That at the said time and place reforrod to aforesaid, and for a long time prior thereto, to-wit: since 19Co , the plaintiff was employed by fcho defendant as a 1 c*borer , and did handle and assist in the hurdling of various forms of r.sbcsto^ iiPir: , rl-.x, u* u u v a v * tme plaintiff, in the. pursuance of his dutios was required to operate and assist in the operation of various powor driven machines then and there used by the defendant in tho manufacture of its aforesaid products, and was roquirod to work in and about the room in which the aforesaid machines, apparatuses, and devices were in operation, III. That the plaintiff was engaged in the afore said work in'various rooms then and thore maintained by tho defendant v/here a large number of employees were en gaged in tho furtherance of the defendant's processor of manufacture and that in the said operation of tho aforesaid machines and the handling of the aforesaid materials, then and there in the process of manufacture., divers large quantities of dust of a deleterious nature were caused to be thrown out and to permeate the air i n ' and about the said room or rooms whore the plaintiff w.?c required to work; that said dusts were of a nature well calculated to cause injury to the plaintiff by tho inhalation thereof. IV. That the plaintiff was at all times herein after mentioned in the exercise of ordinary,care and caution for h l 3 own personal safety and did not know, nor by the oxci^cise of said degree of care, by one of his experience and intelligence engaged in .e some or similar line of work could have known, nor could he bo reasonably expected to know of, or appreciate or anti cipate, that said dusts were injurious to the health, V. Plaintiff further says that the defendant knew, or In the exercise of ordinary care and caution ;. . v/oulfi have known tint the aforrar\id dust v/a3 of an In jurious character and tint the continued Inhalation of the same by the plaintiff would then and there causo In jury to the plaintiff. VI. That it became and was the duty of tho de fendant to warn the plaintiff of tho naturo of tho said dust then and thore given off aa a result of tho said procosac3 of manufacture but U i.-*t tne defondant, regard less of his duties in the premises, negligently and carelessly failed to notify, inform, or warn, tho plain tiff thereof, VII* That the plaintiff continued to work in and about said noxious dusts and was exposed thereto, for u long period of time, to-wit: 7 years, in conse quence of which he contracted an injury and disease hereinafter set forth. Count Two Plaintiff hereby adopts Paragraph I, II, III, JV, V, and VII, of his first count as paragraphs I, II, III, IV, V, and VII of this, his second count, and proceed: as follows: VI. That It then and there became and wao tho k I duty of the defendant to exercise ordinary care and cau J tion to furnish the plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to work; that the defendant negligently failed to observe its duty in the premises in that it failed to l furnish.: * a. adequate and efficient blowers I b. adequate ard efficient ventilating devices \ c* adequate and efficient suction funs to collect : the injurious dusts as aforesaid t. That the aioreaaid blowers, ventilating devices, and * -4" suction fane wore then and thorc available and were then and there being used by employers engaged in tho same or similar lino of manufacture of which tho de fendant had knowledge, or in the exercise of the ordi nary care and caution would have had knowledge and that the aforesaid devices were practicable anu doalgnod for the purpose of collecting and x'iddlng the air of injurious dusts. Count Three Plaintiff hereby adopts Paragraph I, II, III, IV, and V, of his first count as paragraphs I, II, III, IV, and V, of this, his third count and proceeds as follows:' VI. That it then and there became and was tho duty of the defendant in the exerciso of ordinary care and caution to furnish the plaintiff with proper and efficient masks or respirators to be used or worn by the said plaintiff which would effectively prevent the plaintiff from Inhaling the said dust caused to impreg nate the air In the room or rooms in which iho plaintiff was then and thero employed. That the aforesaid masks nn respirators were then and thero available and were being used by employ ers engaged in the same or similar line of manufacturo of which the defendant had knowledge or in tho exercise of ordinary care and caution would have had knowledge and that tho aforesaid masks and respirators were prac ticable and designed for the purpose of preventing the inhalation of said dusts; that the defondunt negligently fulled to furnish or provide the plaintiff with proper -,,i -c* ^-fv.,v>cv.scr vvY^v> ':...>> ?!>;.?c ^ - ^ >*rvC ''v masks or respirators Count Pour Plaintiff hereby adopts Paragraph I, II, IJI, IV, and V, of his first count as paragraphs I, II, III, IV, and V, of thi3 , his fourth count, and proceeds as follows: VI, That It became and was the duty of the defen dant in the exercise of ordinary caro and caution to moisten and v/et down, by meano of water, the aforesaid dusty materials; that it was feasible and practicable to keep said dust down in the room or rooms in which th* plaintiff was required to work, by means of water as aforesaid, and that the defendant had knowledge, ox* in the exercise of ox*dinary care and caution, would have had knowledge that said method of keeping down the dust v/as regularly and commonly U 3 ed by employers en gaged in the same or similar line of manufacture, but that the defendant did not observe hie duty in the premises, but to the contrary, negligently and care lessly failed to moisten or wet down, by mcar,3 of water, the aforesaid dusty materials or du3t3 arising from the processes employed by the defendant. Court Five .Plaintiff hereby adopts Paragraphs I, II, III, of his first count as paragraphs I, II, III, of this, his fifth count, and proceeds as follows; IV. Plaintiff further states that the defendant well knowing the danger of the continued Inhalation of dusts by the plaintiff and the consequent injury to his wilfully - vnntouly and witn conscious Indiff erence to i'ho lifo and health and safety of the plaintiff failed to furnish a reasonably sufe place for the plaintiff to work inf and wilfully and wantonly instructed, ordered, and required tho plainLiff to continue with his work without protection by means of blowers, ventilating de vices or suction fana. Count Six Plaintiff hereby adopts Paragraphs I, II, III, of his first count an paragraphs I, II, III of this, his sixth count, and proceods as follows; IV, Plaintiff further statos that the dofondant knew that tho aforesaid du'sts did then and there imperil, and endanger the life of the plaintiff from the continued inhalation thereof, and wilful!/ and wantonly and with conscious indifferoncc to the life and health and safety of the plaintiff, ordered, required and instructed the plaintiff to proceed with his work and wilfully and wantonly refused to provide the plaintiff with masks or respirators or other reasonable apparatus to prevent the plaintiff from inhaling the injurious dusts, Tho plaintiff concludes each and every ono of the foregoing six counts as follows: Thut as a direct consequence of the foregoing, plaintiff became sick, sore, lame, and disordered and will so remain during his life, and lias become greatly emaciated, ill, and suffers great pain and anguish and will in tho future so suffer; that he is stricken with an incurable disease, tisv-5* J '"A;. `^n^',* *&<- -7* to-wit: sidcrosis, pneumoconiosis, ailicos to, pulmonary tuborculosla, and various other pulmonary and bronchial complicatIona, and will so remain during hi3 life; that he has paid out and incurred divers large sums of money in and about endeavoring to become cured of said disease, and has loot and will in the future continue to lose di vers great gains and profits which he would have otherwise made because of 3ald injury to his health, and on account of said disease3, wherefore* plaintiff demands judgment against tfco defendant in the sum of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND . DOLEAKS ($25,000*00), and costs of this suit. ^1- Thoc. O'. Hollywood -Attorneys for Plaint TiTT V<2--f. 7 - 3 $r * f- * V X ^ X j^ L u n i t e d s t a t e s o f Am e r i c a ) STATE OF ILLINOIS ) 63. ) IS THE DISTRICT COURT OF TK3 UNITED STATES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION FR5D SEIFERT j V. | JOHNS-li ATIVILLE PRODUCTS ) CORPORATION, a corporation ) No. W 563 MOTION TO DISMISS \ Row cornee JOHIiS-UANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a corporation, by Heth & Lister, its attorneys, and moves the !1 Court that the above entitled cause be dismissed, and as i1 grounds for said motion defendant shows unto the Court that \ plaintiff's complaint is substantially insufficient in law * in the following particulars: 1. The complaint purports to state cause or causes of action by setting forth duties alleged to be imposed by the common law on the defendant as employer of the plaintiff; violations cf such alleged duties by the 1 * defendant; and injury to the plaintiff by alleged occupa- I tional disease or diseases arising out of the employment * | (a) In the absence of valid statutory 1 provisions there are, and during the times in | plaintiff's complaint stated were, no duty or * 2 duties imposed by law in the Stats of Illinois I on the defendant, as employer of the plaintiff, ; regarding alleged occupational diseases contract-- | ed by plaintiff. ] (b) In the absence of valid statutory pro- 1 visions there tsas and io, in the State of Illinois, no right of action at law by on employee against 1  \ I ! i ^4 ... \r *1*. x. . ^ i.io mployc* fur injury due to occupational dlnoaoe or dlscasee arising out of the employment. 2. That had there been, prior to the effective date of the Workmen'o Compensation Act, a right of action under the Counion Law for the matter and grievances alleged . r in caid complaint, such right of action was and is barred by 'v.\ Sections and 11 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. {ParD. -\V. 1*4-3 and 1*4-6, Chapter Smith Hurd Revised Statute.) : * < / XfHBREFORE,. defendant, JOiWS-HAlIVIIiLS PRODUCTS * * '* CORPORATION, a corporation, moves that plaintiffs action may be dismissed as to it; that plaintiff take nothing by his suit, and that this defendant go hence without day. \ .... ____ Attorneys for Defendant, JOHNS-MALTJLLE PRODUCTS CORPORA TION, a corporation- STATS OF ILLINOIS ) ) 8S. COUNTY OF C 0 0 Z ) JOHN J. FLYNN does hereby certify that he is one of the attorneys of record for the defendant, JOHNS-MA3TILLE* . PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a corporation; that In his opinion the foregoing motion io well founded in point of law and that it is not Interposed for the purpose of delay. * *-v t * \ m ^ m m ^ * * TM ' * * * '*