Document byg0mQbqYd50r7qbVG092w5n6

WAS CP KXfliOtUtl PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT JLULMM Cff CP *T LC8XS -is me cisccrr coott o? see art or ff. iouis, ---------------- ----- --*^gg ktsannay CLOT* DBAS fifcSF, UUIas nuju. Rs&t --------------------------- tOLLHST ELECTS* HEB>* KBAEAItt-aifi USED. >Iranicx sess, and BS1T05S3Z gSH2ARt> JGKD, , By tLLAiaa TOOT, KSfS* mad^ I CABS# SO* V'/sY ^ cxTUicn so. J_ Plalntiffe ta wwaois ccsjunr, tU,pgr*lfT4 .92./5"<^Wfv^- PIF.OOF.,d .omnm.MLzl WOOF: --.sC!HC2-_V_ LcL'S^a,,xiJ. MTC:' 3- 3Q - /? j>- / mmsussjsmm 1* VlalskUtl ittta ttit Oay u ynldoAs Kf SH City cf It, Leul*# Stato 0f aiMouri# that ftafeedoet* 5h* Safeareid Coepeay, ana at all tlHi herein tmsdiicaed a earpcratien organ lead eadexirsiag 2er'C lefts' IP the State p saw 4Rsey,-cud fegiy Usartaafl to d Inwiasee is the State ef StaSenri* t, naisiirfs farther state Hast they ace rurritlBg IhlUrM f Opu B* ftuk she died is the City T It, kds, State f Xlsseeri Am SL* 1752# '* wm bora ef the walea sf said Oyil b Seed and XUaree Seed fao sere lawfully serried in firnott, ti4ctBSU, j* Plaintiffs farther state that froa the year 19*U; ant LI the Biddle ef the year 1952# said Cpll B Seed was anplayed as a emiMiori laborer at fiefendani'e plant is the City ef &t* Louis* Slseourit that derisc att-f Said yesdad ef eplj*fc-he-ea principally employed in tbs Mraafaetarlng and proeesaing depart* sate* end in tbe aabeatoa reca or warehouse ef defendant's said pleati that In said swaufaeturiae >d processing dspantasaala Itfsahnt need various string mehlaes and smba&jUel equijsasst; Chat throughout said period of aitiTpyieait said eesployee was f* dptinsd As mrfc on SBmrooa oaoaaiena sad far great lengths of *i. * *_** -f-: . ~ . . M t| er sheut Mid aoehlneo and pqttijsB*| that tha earn* in 'the operation generated greet quantities of aSbestos and cement -----doai+-and. that fron tire W tiape daring hi* onployswat Mid - - -ploys ti required to varlt In a dusty acaoephars in dafaadant** amnufacturing and processing dopartaests and in defendant1* Mbewfco* roots op warehouse, *11 of whlah contained lore* Quanti ties of asbestos end Meant dust} that * result of *11 of tha operation* carried on in said plant and ths work whiah said 'T - - ? f- - V . ... _ , . * apleyve wss required to perfora as aforesaid, Mid aspleyee inhaled great quantities of dost during the antirp. period of his soployawnt which am In oontaet with Mid asplcy**1* *7**t nacec throat, hronehial tubes, lungs, ehest and respirator systan gsesrally. k* Plaintiffs farther state that as a result of inhaling said dust, and ef seating in eonSast with Mar as afqresaid, Mid Opil B, leed wac rendered ill and suffered disease ineddsmt to his work, resulting in his death es er about funs 2ti, 17S3* 5# ta) Plaintiffs further stats taast said employee'* illness and disease were duo to the negligence of defendant In that de fendant, In the eooduat of its business, operated said aaehlaes and aquipotent which eaused and' arested east quant1tie* of dast to be emitted into the atmosphere where Mid employee teas at work as aforesaid and negligently and carelessly failed te provide eaeh and every one of the said machines with a heed, blower or sweticaa fan of sufrislent power to earry efT said dust and to prevent its inhalation by said erployee and ether enpleyees there at work, in violation of the duly enacted Statute ef tbe State of Hieaouri then da full fora* and effect, 4mown as Section 272,120 of the Revised Statutes of Ktsaourt of 1949, and also known ss Section 10194 af the Devised Statutes of Kiaeouri ef 1939, which provides that every parson, firm or corporation using sny naehlno of any character which rensrmtos dost in ltc operation shall provide such mehlne with a hood which ahull be - eonneeted with a blowar or suction fan of sufficient power to oarry off aald Aut ad yntwrt it* Inhalation by Uom aapleysoa about said oaahlm. tb) Pat aald dafondagt was also tsITrwrtHfrv-trwt said work and waanfaotara la which dafndant was one*C4 was work litasly to produeoa and which did produce, illnoss or diaaaao ia- dlaoaso or er prbooaa thsrs oarrled on# to-srit* tho * fro* which said oaployoo wnffsrod sad which caused his AmUxi ausl7 asb*stosl* mineral affusion* bronchitis and e^n>mf sai dofoadant did aofllgoatly and car*lslr fail to adept and provido approved and affoatirs dovisa, swans or . ... wstboda far tbs pravsatlan ar awsh dfsaasa or lllaoaa ia riola* tioa ofwba* la known as Motion 292*300 of tbs Rovisad Btatutos of klsaourl of -1949 and also known aa Motion 1C2U of tho Korlsod ItrttttN of Mteaoari of 1959, which was la mil fordo and offset aad which provides that ovary owployor of lobar ia this stafto ongsgod la asrfjlae *n any works trad# or precoos whisfc way prodws* any lllaaoa ar diaaoo* lacidoat to aoeh work, trad* or pro^oti osrriod ea or #hiSh SSbJMts tho wsployoa to \ tb* danger of illaaas or dlaoaso iweldoet to rash works trod* or proosas towhioh az^loyoaa art sxpoord, shall for th* protection of all onployoo* oagagod in as*h writ, trad# or prooess# adopt and proviso approved and effootlvo davioot, ^snsat, or methods for tho prevention of aoeh Industrial sr occupational di*asoa as aro loddsnt to such wastes trad# ar pioeooa* (a) Plaintiffs forth*r stato that daring tbs tins that said eopleyee was aagsgod in aaid work as aforesaid, dofsndant negligently and Is violation of what la known as Motion 292*330 of- the Revised Mato*** of fflsoonrl of 1949# and also known as Motion 10214 of tho Ksvlaed Statute* of KisOouri of 1939# which was than in full for*# aed offoets fkllad to eauao tali ewploys* to bo naswlrtsd saacthly by a aoepotsa* ll--oeod and rspntabls physician for tho perpoao of ascertaining tbs oxlstese* of afty dlsoaas or lUnaoa IneldMrt'to'aaid work or any Induatrial or ooupaiional diaaaaoa duo to tho character of tbo work in which r*\ ' *** ....... mlA snpleyoe wi and aa * result of sal* failure said cs^lejee oontrectod the Illness so disease as abo<ro geniiened mod grow ecBterttly sroree without being warned of hi* eoBdittcie snd which resulted in Ma death as afsrotaid. --------- -------- (4) That defendant au also Beftigont in that aegllgaotly and In TioXatios of Section 292.380 of the Bericed Statutes of llwowl of .195*9* .and also Section 10219 of the Borised Statute* efJi*aourlofl9398which waetWn in full fore* and offset* It failed to prortda and waintela adequate and efficient faoili- ties for oarrylng off all lajurlou* test and failed to present tho rai*iap. of test# and eootrerjr to said Statutes ongaed in t Weeping during working hour* without first dampening the floor* --- ia Its said flaat aad failod to Isnrui sr sorer tho notarial - which vaa handled and transported U said plant by said apl*7*s Od stbsr swpleyisd of sold defendant, <*) that defendant was also negligee^ in that negligently ted in Violation of Section 292*393 sf the loriaod Sfcsfeztaw of ~ hlsrowri of 2**9* toad also flection K920 of tho Boris*: statute* of Xiasouri of 1939* whiah was than in foil fores and offset. It of failed to prowl4# and Maintain sufTleloat* ndoqoate and sfTioieBt c-__ roans jot, dorleoa, ^steh os sorras tags or otter teriec* to collect,du*t er to despen cv wot deam tho dust or to proaid* and aoistain sap otter officiant wothod of eotehine or collecting tho dust end pjsTtot It frees unreasonably fouling or polluting .. tho air la which said aopleyae ooa obliged to work at sueb tines when tho mlxiMz naehineo ad aeebOBleal ogulpnent as aforesaid wore Wing sloaaod or anptled, and defendant further failed* in flelatloo of said It*Wats* Jfce darapon or rot down or aercr the test garoreted in the wort or proaaoa aorriod on during said arployeo** period of anplo7wab aa aforosald and to adopt oror7 - reasonable prooaution to prurent the waoeosaaary oroatica or -~w. raising of dust* and during said tiro failed to wash and sen* ^^-Tths floors in said plant orar-y working dap and to wash and clean suitable and offlelent devies to jraoove tha danger to the health of said estdoyw* end other ewployees, sad, as iwJ.t af the failure to secpljr with said Statute said estplay*** cuffwd fch* csuSltioQ above awntlcteod aad Mi said condition craw scoatssfcly wane which vaulted in his'death as aforesaid* {f} That defendant was also negligent 1st that nogligeetly and la violation of whet la known as Section 292*h00 of ths Ravieed Statute* of Masoori of 1%9 and also section 1S&21 of -the Revised statutes of Missouri of 1939* which was then la fall fovea end offset* it failed to properly eerer or dsapsn ia sash -a way as to protect the health of sold ewpleyse nd other ear* ployee# all sowrayanese or reewpteelea wood far the transports, tlon about or the atorags in said plant of said asbestos and erssnt and pcseltted refuse and dust cf Said mterlal to ranis ae emulated a the floors ttui'Csf* - *' (g) That defendant was also negligent la that nsgUgsstiy : and la violation ef Seotloa 29?*U20 of the Revised Statutes of Mlsacuri of 191*9 and also Section 10223 ef tbs Revised Statutes cf Missouri of 1939* whleh was then la fall force sad offset* it railed to poet any aotlee at sold plant dlsamlaatiac ganaanl knowledge of the dangers to the health sf the snplayees emga^sd in the work or proeess in which said dsseaaad ewpleyea was engaged as aforesaid and containing staple Instructions as to any known weens of avoiding* as far as posalbla* the Injurious ecauMfuaaces thereof, sad* as a resalt af said failure to eooply with said Statute sold oaployes In igacranse of sail dangers and without knowledge of the laborious oosee^uensea thereof sactiia* In sold, work for a long period of tins as aforesaid, causing hie to bosons week and run Soon and during which tins be contracted the diseases shoes swotlonsd and his condition grew constantly worse wad ca. aoocwsxft of the failure to easply with seld St&tuta 5 eald p^fN vu art ad-rlaad: of tba saaaaslty ft takln* pT*aaMilanary wmwi to praTont or to railot tho aopdltloa so sffamd >7 Ub and that mi raault tharaaf catId aaaployoa dlad aa afrrpQMddt (h} Tfrst dafandast nogligawtly fallod to prortda Mid oployae With o raasonahlrcafa pLfcyJjn ghlfch to wflLi and a* a result af ofeiah Mid qriplbjoa vac randarad 111 and diad as aferaaald. WEEHITOJW, tha pratBlaaa aensidarad plaintiffs atata that th*7 hara Wan daaagad In tba bub of ftftaan Thouaand ^ollara (fl5000*00)# for wfctdh tnm toc*tbar rit!> thair aoati baraln tbay pray Judgwent apal&ct tha dafandaat. t i'f"-,* 1204 Pullartan St. Lo-uia 1, Klaaourl Co. 12Z? C^XT.5. St* lout* 1* Hawruri 1*1990 - Attornara far Plaintiff* <Sr ircuit Gnat for the Gty of St, Louis Glorla^a~5*3-i6~ *1, Ike Ruberoid Zoapasj Dhr...l________ Defendant.. The State cf Missouri to Defendant.. SUMMONS th Juberoid Cowyay You are hereby summoned to appear before the above-named court end to lie your ylrriTttng to the petition, copy of which la attached hereto, and to aerve a copy of your pleading open.______ __ ______ _____ -- Wright fc Qoodaan............................................................................................. .attorney...*.. for plaintiff....., 722 Chstout Street whose address Sa.------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------------- ------- ---all within SO day* after service of this ""him upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If yew fail to do o, judgment by default will be taken against you far the relief demanded in the petition. Dated . June,,21j..1.954,,................... . U PHELIM OTOOLE Circuit Clerk. (Seel of Circuit Court) HU.DDEF, or^l IXKBJT NO. =SW0F: 'tfc _ .f-3a-.fl.. <? t. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI,. EASTERN DIVISION. GLORIA DEAN REED, et al.. Plaintiffs, -vs- TKE RUBEROID COMPANY, a corporation. Defendant. ) No. ^<5*7^ ) ) ) Courtroom No.vJ? ) ) DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' PETITION. petit|c'_ - For anawer to plaintiffs' petition defendant states: 1. Defendant admits the averments of paragraph 1 ` ` i of said petition. 2. Defendant admits that Opil B. Reed died in the City of St. Louis on June 21+, 1953. Defendant has no, knowledge or information, sufficient to form a belief, regard ing the remaining averments of paragraph 2 of the petition. 3. Defendant admits that Opil B. Reed was employed as a laborer at defendant's plant in the City of St. Louis during the period alleged in paragraph 3 of the petition. Defendant denies the remaining averments of said paragraph. lj.. Defendant denies each and every averment set forth I in paragraphs and 5 of the petition, including all sub- paragraphs of paragraph 5 -1 - J>. For further defense, defendant states that plaintiffs' petition fails to state a claim upon which therelief prayed for, or any relief, can be granted the plaintiffs or any of them, and fails to plead facts showing that the plaintiffs or any of them have any right to bring or maintain this suit, 6, For further defense defendant states that prior to and during the entire period of the employment of Opil B. Reed by defendant, as aforesaid, the defendant was a major employer under the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Law (now Sections 287.010 - 287,800 Missouri Revised Statutes, 1949); that defendant at all said times had more than ten employees regularly employed; that defendant was a duly qualified selfinsurer under said law; that defendant had duly elected to accept the occupational disease Section of said law, as provided in Section 287.020, Missouri Revised Statutes 1949 by filing with the Division of Workmen's Compensation and Industrial Commission written notices of said election, and by posting and keeping posted in conspicuous places in its said plant, wherein Opil B. Reed was employed, notices of Its said election furnished by the said Division and Commission; that said Opil B. Reed was In defendant's service and employment, as aforesaid, for more than thirty days after the posting of said notices, and that he at no time filed with said Division or Commission any notice that he rejected said Workmen's Compensation Law or any -2 - part or section thereof; by reason whereof, defendant states that if said Opil B. Reed contracted an occupational disease as alleged in plaintiffs' petition, and died as a result there of, (which allegations defendant denies) the sole and exclusive remedy of the plaintiffs therefor, if any, is under said Workmen's Compensation Law, and that the plaintiffs have no right of recovery against defendant in this suit. WHEREFORE, having fully answered, defendant prays to be hence dismissed, with its costs. ne foregoing answer was served pon plaintiffs this SpTi. day of July, 1954 by mailing a irue copy thereof to their attorney of record, Mr. Courtney S. Goodman, at 122 Chestnut Street, St. Louis 1, Missouri. ' ; r.- - ~3L ohn S. Marsalek, MOSER, SA.LEK, CARPENTER, CLEARY & CARTER, Attorneys for Defendant; 330 Pierce Building, St. Louis 2, Missouri, GArfield 1-53&4. -3-