Document oeDGB0oLVMzXQxX5Zdk7djQXg

L IA B IL IT Y CALVIN P . REID , Ma n a g e r O SW A L D R E IN 'L , A d j u s t e r R A L P H E . LO G A N , ADJUSTER REFER, PLEASE TO FILE. NO. E th y l G a so lin e Gorp* re ` LIABILITY CLAIM DIVISION 30-42 EA ST 42d STR EET NEW YORK, N. Y. a d d r e s s a l l r e p u e s t o l ia b il it y d e pa r t m e n t CLAIM DIVISION PHONE 8 1 2 0 MURRAY HILL August 27, 1929. Dr. R o b e rt A- E eh o e, C ollege of M edicine, Eden and B ethesda Avenues, C in c in n a ti, Ohio. Dear D octor: I am e n c l o s i n g f o r y o u r re v ie w a co p y o f a l e t t e r from our a tto rn e y s and a copy o f th e d e p o sitio n o f Dr. Cash. I h av e s e n t c o p ie s to M r. Y/ebb. CPR:LH i, t 1- * COPY THOMPSON, KNIGHT, BAKER & HARRIS R epublic Bank B ld g ., D allas, Texas August 23, 1929 Mr. C alv in P . R eid , M anager, L i a b il ity Claim D iv isio n , The T ra v e le rs , 30 - 42 B ast 42nd S tre e t, New Y ork, N.Y. Re: v * C o n tin e n ta l O il Company - E th y l G a so lin e Corp. Dear Jir: On th e . 2 5 th d ay o f J u l y , 1929, th e w r i t e r p a r t i c i p a t e d in th e ta k in g o f th e d e p o s itio n o f D r. Cash o f A b ile n e, T ex as. The w r ite r went away a f t e r th a t on h is v a c a tio n , v/hieh acco u n ts fo r th e f a c t t h a t we have n o t w r i t t e n you w ith r e f e r e n c e to th e above m a t t e r . I en clo se h erew ith copy o f Dr. C ash 's d e p o s itio n , which g iv es in co n sid e ra b le d e t a il h is co n n ectio n w ith th e case and h is fin d in g s and h i s tre a tm e n t* I th i n k t h a t Dr* Kehoe w ould l i k e to c o n s id e r t h i s d e p o s itio n . Since you w ill probably want to read th e d ep o sitio n , I w ill n o t u n d ertak e to summarize it* The f a c t i s th a t Dr. Cash does n o t seem . t o knoYi w hat c a u s e d t r o u b l e . He th in k s t h a t is un- usu ally susceptible e c t s o f g a s o lin e He a ls o seems to th in k th a t E th y l g a so lin e had som ething to do w ith th e tro u b le , and he says he has had a n o th e r p a t i e n t , b y th e name o f who had h a n d le d o r d in a r y g a s o li n e f o r some tim e b u t upon s t a r t m ^ t o h a n c u ^ S th y l g a s o lin e he develo p ed t h i s . same k in d o f r a s h b u t t h a t ^ ^ P B r g s p o n d e d r e a d i l y t o th e same tre a tm e n t which th e y gave M cD aniel and t h a t n e T T B H j , i s now a w e ll man. I t 'would seem a l s o t h a t he th in k s th e b u rn s co u ld h a v e h a d som ething to do w ith th e change in th e bone s tru c tu re in th e jo in ts , as i s evidenced from th e q u estio n and answer on page 25, as follow s: "Q. T hat s t i f f n e s s in th e j o i n ts and th e e n la rg e ment th a t you spoke o f, is th a t evidence of th is prim ary co n d itio n th a t you spoke of? "A. No. I t would he evidence o f b o th . In o th e r w ords, you could g et -- from a burn, la s tin g over a p erio d o f fo u r or fiv e m onths, you could Mr* Galvin-P. 'Reid 2- 8. - 23-29 get a change in th e bone s tru c tu re i t s e lf , ju s t as in thp p rim ary .H Of c o u rs e , he goes on to say t h a t th e a r t h r i t i s c o u ld have been caused by v ario u s kinds o f poison in th e system . 1 Taken as a w hole, I b e lie v e t h i s d e p o s itio n i s n o t damaging to u s to any g r e a t e x te n t* I b e lie v e t h a t h r . Gash i s . a f a i r l y good man and thoroughly conscientious* `. U r. Scarborough in d ic a te d th a t th e case could be s e ttle d fo r ' a t o t a l o f 7,5 0 0 .0 0 and th a t th e G S F & G had te n ta tiv e ly o ffe re d to pay 2,500.00, and th a t i f he could get 5,000.00 fo r the C o n tin en tal people, th e case could be s e tt le d . I-u n d e rsto o d Mr. Scarborough to say th a t th e U 3 F U G had te n ta tiv e ly o ffe re d to s e ttle fo r the com pensation claim of .'-2 ,5 0 0 .0 0 b u t U r. C h am b erlain o f th e B a l i a s o f f i c e o f th e U 3 F & G, t h i s b ein g a b ra n c h o f f ic e o f th a t Company and Mr, C ham berlain b ein g th e A s s is ta n t S u p e rin te n d e n t o f th e Claim D epartm ent, s a id th e y had made no such o f f e r , bu t chat t h e i r r e p r e s e n ta tiv e c a lle d on l b . S carb o ro u g h b e fo re Dr. Cash' s d e p o s itio n was ta k e n -and e n d ea v o red to p ro c u re a r e le a s e , i n c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e c o m p en sa tio n paym ents a lre a d y made and th e tre a tm e n ts g iv en to M cDaniel, and d en ied l i a b i l i t y and f u r t h e r com pensation* He to o k th e p o s i t i o n t h a t th e y h ad n e v e r been l i a b l e to pay c o m p en sa tio n u n d er oi.tr lav/* He f u r t h e r sa y s t h a t U r. '3 e a rb o ro u g h o f f e r e d to ta k e 2 ,5 0 0 .0 0 a t t h a t tim e and f i n a l l y come down to 1 ,8 0 0 .0 0 b u t th e y -would n o t p ay i t , and Ur* C h am b erlain a d v is e s me th e y have n o t i f i e d th e I n d u s t r i a l A ccident Board th a t th ey have denied l i a b i l i t y and are d isc o n tin u in g com pensation payments and a re going to c o n te st any fu rth e r claim . Mi'. C h am b erlain a d v is e s t h a t i f any paym ent i s made th e s u b r o g a tio n r i g h t s o f h i s Company w i l l have to be c o n s id e re d a s he f e e l s th e 3 F & G h as been th e ' g o a t' a l l th e way a lo n g and he w ould l i k e t o re c o u p e some o f h i s l o s s , i f p o s s ib le . However, in denying l i a b i l i t y on th e com pensation claim he au to m a tic a lly p la c e s h is company in th e same b o at w ith -u s . Of c o u rse , i f any paym ents a r e made th e s u b r o g a tio n r i g h t s o f th e U S F & G, u n d e r th e T exas s ta tu te s , w ill have to be considered. As to Mr. S carborough' s p ro p o s itio n to s e t t l e th e m a tte r f o r 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 from t h e C o n tin e n ta l O il Company, I am r a t h e r i n c l i n e d t o t h i n k s a id p r o p o s itio n was one made w ith a vie?/ o f tr a d in g on i t , and th a t he would ta k e l e s s m oney. I am i n c l i n e d t o t h i n k t h a t U r. S carb o ro u g h was w e a rin g h i s 'poker fa c e ' the m orning he made th a t p ro p o s itio n . . I am aw are t h a t Mr. Srnedley and M r. H am ilto n th i n k t h a t ?/e w i l l n o t be a b le to g et him to red u ce h is demands. Of c o u rse , I may be m istak en in my ju d g n e n t, b u t I have had some d e a lin g s w ith Mr. S carb o ro u g h , and h is a t t i t u d e i n t h i s m a tte r l e a d s me t o b e l i e v e t h a t he d o e s n o t th i n k a g r e a t d e a l o f h is ease and w ill tak e le s s money. Mr. Sm edley h a s been to Denver and c o n s u lte d w ith th e G eneral A tto rn e y f o r th e C o n tin e n ta l O il Company, and I u n d e rsta n d from him t h a t a Mr. Galvin P. Beid 3 8-23-29 l e t t e r has been w ritte n from Denver to th e E th y l G asoline C orporation in an e f f o r t to fin d out i f th e E th y l G asoline C orporation w ill c o n trib u te toward a s e tt le m e n t and I u n d e rs ta n d from him th e y h av e a b o u t come to th e c o n c lu s io n t h a t th e y w i l l en d e a v o r to w ork o u t a s e tt le m e n t o f th e case* He h a s a sk e d u s to a d v is e him w hat we t h i n k ab o u t a s e t t l e m e n t , and we a r e a d v i-sin g him . much in li n e w ith th e e x p re ssio n s in th i s l e t t e r . ' In view o f th e im portance o f th i s case upon th e b u sin ess o f th e E th y l G a s o lin e C o r p o r a tio n , we a r e a l l i n ag ree m en t t h a t same sh o u ld be handled in such a way as to not in ju re th e b u sin ess and to p rev en t o th e r s i m i l a r d a m n s , i f p o s s ib le * V/e w i l l s t a t e , h ow ever, a t th e o u t s e t , t h a t o r d i n a r i l y we a r e n o t in f a v o r o f m aking t e s t s u i t s i n damage s u i t c la im s . In a g re a t m a jo r ity o f such c a se s th e outcome i s ad v erse to th e b u sin e ss concerned. 7/e have a l r e a d y e x p re s s e d to you th e th o u g h t, an d , o f c o u r s e , we . Tinders ta n d you a l r e a d y had i t i n m in d , t h a t i f we c o n t e s t e d t h i s c a s e and g o t a fa v o ra b le o p in io n i t would be o f g re a t b e n e f it in th e h a n d lin g o f fu tu re c la im s, i f any should a r is e , bu t th a t i f an ad v erse r u lin g was had i t would be d e trim e n ta l in th e h a n d lin g o f fu tu r e claim s Our th o u g h t i s th a t a s e ttle m e n t should be had i f i t c a n be had f o r a n o m in al sum. I am n o t i n c l i n e d , h ow ever, to recommend a s e ttle m e n t o f $5,000.00 in t h i s case* The q u e stio n o f w hether se ttle m e n t should be made on th e b e s t p o s s ib le b a s is , should be determ ined m o stly from th e s ta n d p o in t o f p o li c y . A f te r g iv in g th e m a tte r some c o n s id e ra b le c o n s id e r a tio n we r e c o g n iz e t h a t t h e r e i s some ch an ce o f an a d v e rs e v e r d i c t a g a i n s t th e C o n tin e n ta l O il Company, p ro v id ed th e p l a i n t i f f h i t s upon a p ro p er th e o ry and amends h is p le a d in g s so as to m eet i t , th en I th in k th a t th e adverse ru lin g would p ro b a b ly be based upon th e fin d in g th a t th e p a r ti c u la r b a tc h o f g a so lin e which p M . handled was im p ro p erly mixed in th e r e f in e r y o f th e C o n tin en ta l O ^ G m m m y , and th e p ro o f would be, as I co nceive i t , somewhat along t h i s lin e - a tto rn e y would concede th a t o rd in a ry com m ercial E th y l g a s o lin e , In w n ic r^ h e t e t r a - e t h y l f lu i d was p ro p e rly m ixed in p ro p e r q u a n t iti e s , would n o t be h a rm fu l to a. f i l l i n g s t a t i o n a tte n d a n t and t h a t such harm a s came to t h i s man c o u ld o n ly come a s a r e s u l t o f th e p r e s e n c e o f l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s o f t h e f l u i d i n th e g aso lin e, taking th e p o sitio n th a t te tra -e th y l flu id , being a lead e x tra c t o f some k in d , w ould a c t u a l l y c a u s e harm , and l a r ^ s s u r n i n g t h a t i s a f a c t , when used pure or In la rg e q u a n itite s , and th a t having handled th is E thyl g a s o lin e w ith to o much t e t r a - e t h y l f lu i d i ^ ^ ^ c a u s e d h is tr o u b le . But i f th e d e c isio n i s b ased upon t h i s s t a t e o f f a c t s , i t would n o t n e c e s s a r ily r e f l e c t ad v ersely to th e E th y l G asoline C orporation. Of co u rse, th e Court might n o t perm it such an a p p lic a tio n o f th e d o ctrin e o f re s ip sa lo q u itu re and he m ight n o t be ab le to g et to a ju ry on th is k in d o f a th e o ry . The a u th o r itie s are in c o n f lic t in th i s k in d o f a s itu a tio n . A lso he i s up a g a i n s t th e problem o f p ro v in g b y some one t h a t h i s c o n d itio n i s th e r e s u l t o f le a d i n th e sy ste m . I r e a l l y do n o t see how he i s g o in g to prove th a t. ` Y/e have one c a s e i n T ex as b y one o f o u r i n t e t e n n e d i a t e A p p e a tla te C o u rts, b u t w hich was approved by the'S uprem e C ourt in which l i a b i l i t y was found in an an alo g o u s c a s e . I t i s th e c a s e o f A rm strong P ack in g Company v . Olem, l o l 3W 576 M rs. Clem b o u g h t a c e r t a i n b ra n d o f la u n d r y s o a p , m a n u fa c tu re d Mr. Galvin P. Reid -4- 8-23-29 by th e Arm strong p eo p le, w hich she used in th e fam ily lau n d ry and h er hands, arms and' o th e r p o r tio n s of, her; body came in c o n ta c t w ith th e soap and she became poisoned and h er sk in became in fe c te d , cau sin g co n sid e ra b le tro u b le . Prom th e o p in io n h e r c o n d itio n m ust have been somewhat li k e th a t o f l.'cD aniel' s , e x c e p t t h e r e d o es n o t seem t o have b e e n an y t r o u b l e w ith t h e j o i n t s , .-and th e p ro o f showed t h a t th e A rm strong P a c k in g Company u se d seme k in d o f p o is o n i n . th e m a n u fa ctu re o f th e so ap , w hich, when p r o p e r ly p ro c e s s e d , was n e u tr a liz e d in the m anufacture o f th e ?oap and became h arm less in th e p re p a ra tio n o f th e so ap . The o p in io n ,.s ta te s t h a t th e p o is o n u se d in th e soap s o ld t o A rs. Clem was n o t n e u t r a l i z e d , b u t I am n o t s u re w h e th e r t h a t i s b a s e d upon d i r e c t e v id e n c e from an a n a l y s i s o f seme o f th e so a p a c t u a l l y soJLd t o M rs. Clem o r w h e th e r t h e y arriv ed a t th a t conclusion by c irc u m sta n tia l evidence to the e ffe c t th a t the p o is o n vras alw ays p la c e d in th e so ap in i t s p r e p a r a tio n and w as, when p r o p e r ly p ro cessed , n e u tra liz e d , and th a t t h i s p a r tic u la r q u a n tity o f soap produced .the r e s u lts always o b tain ed from such p o iso n n o t n e u tra liz e d , and th e Court fin d s t h a t th e e v id e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t to show* t h a t th e P a c k in g Company was n e g l ig e n t in the p rep aratio n o f th is p a rtic u la r batch o f soap. I t , o c c u rs t o u s t h a t i f p l a i n t i f f ' s a t t o r n e y h i t s upon some su ch th e o ry in th e f l ^ H V c a s e th e y would have a b e tte r chance o f going to th e ju ry . In view o f th e f a c t th a t our e x p e rt p ro o f w ill show, u u d isp u to d ly , t h a t com m ercial E th y l g a s o li n e p r o p e r ly m ixed w i l l n o t p ro d u ce harm , I am in c lin e d to th in k th a t th e C ourt would alm ost be fo rced to ta k e th e-v iew th a t th e C o n tin e n ta l O il Company had a r i g h t to p la c e p r o p e r ly m ixed E th y l g a s o lin e on th e m arket a d th a t th e re would be no l i a b i l i t y from th e s a le o f o rd in a ry E th y l g a s o li n e , b u t , o f c o u r s e , i f th e y sh o u ld come i n u n d e r t h i s o th e r th e o r y t h a t t h i s p a r ti c u la r b a tc h o f g a s o lin e was n o t p ro p e rly m ixed and co n ta in e d to o much o f th e le a d f l u i d , th e r e m ig h t be some chance o f an a d v e rs e v e r d i c t , b u t t h a t should not n e c e ss a rily r e f le c t a g a in st th e E th y l g aso lin e g e n e ra lly . Eh* ' 'ash seem s to h av e an id e a ,, th a t t h i s E th y l g a s o li n e h a n d le d b y ^ f j m ^ h ad so m eth in g to do w ith h i s c o n d i t i o n . I am i n c l i n e d t o th i n k he b-.-lieves th a t more s tro n g ly i^ v ie w o f th e ex p erien ce o f th i s m a n ^ ^ H f b u t i t i s i n t e r e s tin g to know th a t o n ly had a ra s h which was r e a d i^ ^ c u r e d by th e s ta n d a r d tr e a tm e n t f o r su ch t h i n g s , b u t , upon t h i s th e o r y ,' we -o n o t a n tic ip a te an adverse ru lin g by the C ourts. I judge t h a t D r. C ash' s id e a i s t h a t from th e s e two c a s e s E th y l g a s o lin e would n o t lie harm ful, to th e o i'd in a ry f i l l i n g s ta t i o n a tte n d a n t, b u t th a t c e r ta in p eo p le would be more s u sc e p tib le to th e i l l e f f e c ts o f E th y l g a s o lin e much a s some p e o p le a r e m ore s u s c e p t i b l e t o th e i l l e f f e c t s o f o r d in a r y g a s o l i n e . I f th e p l a i n t i f f s h o u ld p ro c e e d on t h i s th e o r y , I am i n c l i n e d to th in k th e y would lo se as a m a tte r o f law . I do n o t th in k th a t th e C o u rts would e v e r h o ld , and I have found no a u th o rity th a t would su p p o rt such a h o ld in g , th a t a m a n u fa ctu rer . would be l i a b l e under any th e o ry fo r m an u factu rin g a p ro d u ct g e n e ra lly s a fe but Hr.'Calvin P. Reid 5 - 8-23-29 t h a t w ould p ro d u c e harm i n a v e r y , v e r y s m a ll p e rc e n ta g e o f p e o p le who m ight be g re a tly su sc e p tib le to th a t p a rtic u la r kind o f product P l a i n t i f f , so f a r , h a s n o t amended h i s p le a d in g - I am s u re i f he goes to t r i a l t h a t h e 'w i l l do so . The p re s e n t p le a d in g , a s you know, iS v e ry s h o r t and m e re ly s t a t e s t h a t th e C o n tin e n ta l O il Company m an u fa ctu red E th y l ga s o lin e which co n ta in e d p o iso n , t h a t .t h i s g a so lin e was so la to th e employer o f^ m H |^ a n d d isp e n se d i t and came in c o n ta c t w ith i t , ab so rb ed th e p o x B O ^ in to h i s sytem w hich h a s produced th e harm com plained o f . I do n o t th in k he 'would be a b le to s u b s t a n t i a t e any such a l l e g a t i o n s and f e e l c e r t a i n t h a t he w i l l p ro c e e d on some o th e r th e o r y , p ro b a b ly on th e th e o r y o f th e - Clem case m entioned above. I f e e l re a s o n a b ly su re to o th a t a t le a s t th e ju r y would fin d , i f th e y w ere p e rm itte d to do so, t h a t th e E th y l g a s o lin e produced th e r a s h on the body o f M cDaniel. " v7e t h i n k t h e i r ch an c es o f g e t t i n g a f in d i n g t h a t th e a r t h r i t i s was a r e s u l t o f the E th y l g a so lin e are n o t v ery good. To r e v e r t a g a in to th e a d v i s a b i l i t y o f s e t t l i n g t h i s ca se w i l l s t a t e , in my o p in io n , t h a t s e ttle m e n t o f t h i s c a se would have v e ry l i t t l e e f f e c t , i f an y , u p o n ;th e b u s in e s s in v o lv e d , and I am f u r t h e r i n c l i n e d to th e b e l ie f th a t th e lo c a l p u b li c it y th a t would r e s u l t from a t r i a l o f th e case in th e F e d e ra l C ourt a t A b ile n e , even though th e r e s u l t was fa v o ra b le to th e Company, would have more, d e trim e n ta l e f f e c t upon th e s a le o f E th y l g a so lin e th a V a s e t t l e ment o f th e case out o f court* Of c o u rse , th e new spapers would p la y i t up somewhat' and l o t s o f p eo p le would re a d about th e t r i a l , and even though th e v e r d ic t w ere fa v o ra b le to th e Company a good many p eo p le would d o u b tle s s become su sp icio u s o f even buying E thyl g a so lin e . Mr H am ilto n f e e l s t h a t t h e c a s e s h o u ld be s e t t l e d . He i s a man who h a s h ad c o n s id e r a b le e x p e r ie n c e i n th e h a n d lin g o f damage s u i t s f o r r a i l r o a d com panies and o th e r i n t e r e s t s , b u t we a r e n o t i n c l i n e d to t h i n k th e re i s a s much danger in th e ease a s he seems to th in k th e re i s . Since d ic ta tin g th e above I have re c e iv e d another l e t t e r from i i r , Sm edley and e n c lo s e h e re w ith a copy o f my r e p l y . Yours v ery tr u ly , THOMPSON, KNIGHT, BAKER & .HARRIS PG:D Enc. By (Signed) P inkney .Grissom . - ; -r KB 0011522 /T O P T TH0MP30H, KNIGHT, BASER & HARRIS BA L L A 3 , TETAS. August 23, 1929. H r. G* 3 a n e d le y , le g a l Departm ent, C o n tin e n ta l O il Go., G ichita P a lls , Jemas R3 : C o n tin e n ta l O il Co. jar v i r : - I have your l e t t e r o f August 22nd ivitli re fe re n c e to th is m a tte r. Y esterday aftern o o n I d ic ta te d a l e t t e r to our c lie n t, and I assume th e E th y l G asoline C o rp o ratio n w ill communicate d ir e c t w ith th e C o n tin e n ta l O il Company on th e q u e s tio n o f s e ttle m e n t. I a d v is e d them , -in my o p in io n t h e r e was some l i t t l e dan g er in th e law s u i t , b u t t h a t we h a d a g r e a t d e a l o f c o n fid e n c e in o u r d e f e n s e , t h a t I b e lie v e d i f th e p l a i n t i f f wa3 a b le to r e c e o v e r he would have to do so upon th e th e o ry - th a t t h i s p a r ti c u la r g a so lin e which llcD aniel handled was im p ro p erly m ixed, and th a t I b e lie v e d th e overw helm ing te stim o n y would show th a t o rd in a ry commercial E thyl g aso lin e is not harm ful and I b eliev ed i f the p la i n t i f f expects to re c o v e r he would p ro ceed on th e th e o ry laid*dow n by th e Court o f C iv il A ppeals o f D a lla s i n th e e a s e o f A rm stro n g P a c k in g Company v . Clem, 151 ST/ 576, i n which w r it o f e r r o r was re fu s e d by th e Supreme Court I f you have n o t ex amined th a t c a se I would lik e f o r you to do so and a d v ise us what you th in k about i t . The c o u rt u n d o u b ted ly a p p lie d th e d o c trin e o f r e s ip s a lo q u itu r in th a t case, b u t reco v ery was p erm itted o n ,th e th eo ry th a t th e soap in q u estio n c o n ta in e d p o is o n , w hich I assum e was l s re , and w hich had n o t been n e u t r a l i z e d in th e m anufacture of th e soap, and th a t th e p la in ti f f proceeded on the th e o ry th a t o rd in a ry ly e was n e u tra liz e d in th e m anufacture o f th e so ap ; th a t l i r a . Clean b o u g h t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r b a tc h o f so ap and u s e d i t and was b u rn e d by th e ly e ; th a t she could have got th e ly e from no o th e r source than from th is soap; th a t ly e was used in th e m anufacture o f th e soap, th a t, th e re f o r e , t h i s m ust have been th e same ly e a s was used, in th e m an u factu re o f th e so ap ; t h a t , .' th e re fo re , th e soap was not p ro p e rly m anufactured; th a t th i s p a r tic u la r b atch ; o f soap w hich ivlrs Clem b o u g h t was n e g l i g e n t l y m a n u fa c tu re d . I cannot b eliev e th a t p la in ti f f could e ffe c t a recovery on any o th e r th e o ry th a n t h i s , and I do not b e lie v e th a t a c tu a lly th a t should r e f l e c t G. B. aaedley 2 - 8-25-29 a g a i n s t o r d in a r y E th y l g a s o lin e , b u t, o f c o u rs e , i t w ould to some e x t e n t, but i f re c o v e ry was allo w ed upon th a t th e o ry in t h i s ca se and same was p u t upon th e books i f wpuld n o t be such a dangerous p rece d en t as would a re c o v e ry on th e th e o ry th a t o rd in a ry E th y l G asoline was harm ful. I am i n c l i n e d to th i n k t h a t Mr. S carb o ro u g h w i l l ta k e l e s s than .34,000.00 fo r t h i s case - I cannot b e lie v e he th in k s a g re a t d e a l o f h is su it, - I fu rth e r expressed the opinion to our c lie n t th a t I did not b e lie v e a s e ttle m e n t o f t h i s s u it would p re ju d ic e th e p ro d u ct, in q u e stio n to any app reciab le e x ten t, and I expressed the fu rth e r opinion th a t a t r i a l of th i s case in fe d e ra l Court a t A b ilen e, even though i t m ight be su c c e ssfu l, ~/ould damage th e p ro d u c t much more th a n ?/ould a s e ttle m e n t. The o n ly th in g t h a t th e a v e ra g e man: w ould know a b o u t th e law s u i t would be t h a t t h e r e was a law s u i t in v o lv in g p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s w hich w ere a t t r i b u t e d b y some one t 'o :: E th y l G aso lin e and many p eo p le would become s u sp ic io u s o f th e p ro d u c t. I think these conclusions are c o rre c t. The q u estion o f w hether or n ot the s u it should be s e ttle d should be based more o r le s s upon th e p o lic y which th e in te r e s te d p a r tie s in te n d to p u rsu e. I th in k th a t in view o f th e fa c t th a t l i a b i l i t y , i f any e x is ts , w ill be p re d ic a te d upon th e im proper m anufacture and im proper m ixture o f commercial g a s o lin e r a th e r th a n upon th e f l u i d i t s e l f , th a t your c l i e n t i s much more in te re ste d in a settlem en t than is th e E th y l G asoline C orporation. I a g re e w ith you t h a t vie s h o u ld e i t h e r have th e d e p o s it io n s o f D rs. Kehoe and Maehle o r have them p e rs o n a lly p re s e n t a t th e t r i a l , and a lso have some one c o n n e c te d w ith th e E th y l G a s o lin e C o rp o ra tio n to t e s t i f y a s to th e c o n te n ts o f th e f lu i d and th e e x te n t to which E th y l g a so lin e is sold th ro u g h o u t th e U n ite d S t a t e s and to th e p r o b a b le number o f men who h a n d le i t in serv ice s ta tio n s , etc,. I w i l l ta k e t h i s m a tte r up w ith th e . Company and se e v/hat can be done about making arrangem ents fo r p e rso n a l atten d an ce o f th e se w itn e sse s or the taking of th e ir d ep o sitio n s. Yours v ery tr u ly , THOMPSON, hKTGHT, BAKER & HARRIS By ' 001 1524