Document qa58xm06Q3L55oLjbkoQ5278q

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KENNETH GRIMM, Personal Representative of the Estate of Helen Grimm, Deceased, z <j Xu -vsx Plaintiff, K FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a oc foreign corporation; cQ UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, a foreign corporation? aw DIAMOND SHAMROCK CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation ? STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY, a foreign corporation? TENNECO, INC., a foreign corporation ? TENNECO CHEMICALS, n/k/a 8 TENNECO RESIN, INC., a foreign corporation ; UNIROYAL, INC., a foreign corporation; ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; HOOKER CHEMICALS & PLASTICS, n/k/a o0 OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation? BH FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, 01 a foreign corporation? B. F. GOODRICH 1 8 COMPANY, a foreign corporation; 49 GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, a foreign corporation, jointly and severally, Civil Action NO. 84 CV 0734 DT Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor URL 09314 Defendants. 3 < 2 STATE OF MICHIGAN) )ss COUNTY OF WAYNE ) / PROOF OF SERVICE DEBRA C. BEEBE, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 26th day of March, 1984, she did serve a D Y H E M A . G O M I T T S P E N C E R . G O O D N O W E T R IG G 3 5 T H F L O O R 4 0 0 R E N A IS S A N C E C E N T E R D E T R O IT . M IC H IG A N 4 8 2 4 3: copy of Occidental Chemical Corporation's Answer and Affirmative ' Defenses to Amended Complaint, Allied Chemical Corporation's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint, Union i Carbide Corporation's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint, Tenneco's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint, Uniroyal, Inc.'s Answer and Affirmative > Defenses to Amended Complaint, Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production to Plaintiff, and a Proof of Service upon: Francis P. Hughes, Esquire Bebout, Potere, Cox & Hughes, 1000 West University Drive Suite 314 Rochester, MI 48063 P.C. W. Gerald Warren, Esquire Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman 800 First National Bldg. Detroit, MI 48226 Ralph W. Barbier, Jr., Esquire Barbier, Goulet, Petersmarck, Tolleson & Mead 34820 Harper Avenue Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 Ralph R. Safford, Esquire Meyer and Kirk 100 West Long Lake Road Suite 100 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48013 John J. Lynch, Esquire Vandeveer, Garzia, Tonkin & Kerr 333 West Fort Street Suite 1600 Detroit, MI 48226 by placing a copy of said pleadings in envelopes addressed as O V K E M A , G O SSETT. S P E N C E R . G O O D N O W S T K IG G 3 5 T H FLO O R 4 0 0 R E N A IS S A N C E CENTER D E TR O IT. M IC H IG A N 4 B 2 4 3 above with proper postage affixed and depositing same in the | United States Mail. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of March, 1984. DEBRA C. BEEBE N-strv fi JCAM . " URL 09316 3- - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION D V K E M A . G O M C T T . S P E N C E R . G O O O NQ W ft TR IG G T H F tO O R 4 0 0 R E N A IS S A N C E C E N TE R D E TR O IT. M IC H IG A N 4 0 2 4 3 : URL 09317 KENNETH GRIMM, Personal Representative of the Estate of Helen Grimm, Deceased, Plaintiff, -vs- FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign corporation; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; DIAMOND SHAMROCK CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY, a foreign corporation; TENNECO, INC., a foreign corporation? TENNECO CHEMICALS, n/k/a TENNECO RESIN, INC., a foreign corporation; UNIROYAL, INC., a foreign corporation; ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; HOOKER CHEMICALS & PLASTICS, n/k/a OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, a foreign corporation; B.F. GOODRICH COMPANY, a foreign corporation; GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, a foreign corporation, jointly and severally. Defendants. / Civil Action No. 84 CV 0734 DT Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant Occidental Chemical Corporation, for Hooker Chemicals & Plastics and Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, answers plaintiff's Amended Complaint as follows: :O Y K C M A . G O S S E T T . S P E N C E R . G O O O N O W Ik T R IG G 3 5 T H F L O O R 4 0 0 R E N A IS S A N C E C E N T E R D E T R O IT , M IC H IG A N 4 0 2 4 3 COUNT I 1. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 1. 2. Defendant denies as untrue the allegations of paragraph 2 to the extent they relate to this defendant, and is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations to the extent they relate to other defendants. 3. Defendant denies as untrue the allegations of paragraph 3 to the extent they relate to this defendant, and is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations to the extent they relate to other defendants. 4. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 4. 5. Defendant denies as untrue the allegations of paragraph 5 to the extent they relate to this defendant, and is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations to the extent they relate to other defendants. 2 D V K C M A . G O S S E T T . S P E N C E R . G O O D N O W ft T R IG G 3 S T M F L O O R 4 0 0 R E N A IS S A N C E C E N T E R O E T R O IT , M 1CH IG A N * 0 2 4 3: URL 09319 6. Defendant denies as untrue the allegations of paragraph 6 to the extent they relate to this defendant, and is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations to the extent they relate to other defendants. 7. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 7. 8-17. Defendant at this stage of the litigation has not been able to verify the allegations even to the extent they relate to this defendant, and therefore is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of. the allegations of paragraphs 8 through 17. 18. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 16. 19. Defendant denies as untrue the allegations of paragraph 19 and its sub-paragraphs. 20. Defendant denies as untrue the allegations of paragraph 20. 21. Defendant denies as untrue the allegations regarding entitlement to money damages, but otherwise is 3 ;D Y K E M A . O O SSETT. S P E N C C R . G O O O N O W TR IG G 35TM FLO O R 4 0 0 R E N A IS S A N C E C E N TE R D E TR O IT. M IC H IG A N 4 8 2 4 3 : URL 09320 without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 21. 22. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 22. 23. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 23. 24. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 24. 25. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 25. COUNT II 26. Defendant reasserts its answers to the allegations of the paragraphs in count I. 27. The allegations of paragraph 27 constitute legal conclusions which defendant denies to the extent they are inconsistent with the applicable law. 26. Defendant denies as untrue the allegations of paragraph 28. 4 D Y K C M A . O O M E T T . SPEN C ER . G O O O N O W A TR IG G 3 8 T H FLO O R 4 0 0 REN A I9 S A N C E CENTER O CTRO I t M IC H IG A N 4 6 2 4 3 : 29. Defendant denies as untrue the allegations of paragraph 29. 30. Defendant denies as untrue the allegations of paragraph 30* AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES I Failure To State A Claim Each count of plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. II Statute Of Limitations Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. III Comparative Negligence The damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff were caused by the negligence and contributory negligence of plaintiff and plaintiff's decedent, and must be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to them. IV Sole Negligence Of Others; Intervening And Superseding Cause All of the damages, if any, allegedly suffered by plaintiff were caused by the acts and conduct of other parties, 5 D Y K E M A . O O M C T T . S P E N C E R . G O O O NO W ft TR IG G 3STM FLO O R 4 0 0 R E N A IS S A N C E C E N TE R D E TR O IT. M IC H IG A N 4 S 2 4 3 : which intervened between defendant's acts and conduct and plaintiff's alleged damages, thereby barring plaintiff from any recovery from defendant. V Abuse, Misuse And Alteration Of Product All of the damages, if any, allegedly suffered by plaintiff was caused by the abuse, misuse and alteration of defendant's product, thereby barring plaintiff from any recovery from defendant. VI Sophisticated Vendee Ford Motor Company is a sophisticated vendee of the product at issue, and was aware both of any risks associated with that product and the proper use of that product. VII No Proximate Cause There exists no proximate causation between any alleged acts or omissions or any alleged breach of duty or warranty by defendant and plaintiff's alleged damages; all of plaintiff's alleged damages were the result of the conduct, product or causes attributable to persons other than defendant, and defendant's product was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's damages. URL 09322 VIII Assumption Of Risk Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent that plaintiff or plaintiff's decedent assumed the risk of knowingly exposing themselves to discharges from the Ford Vinyl Plant without proper precautions* IX Absence Of Duty a Ihd Z Defendant had no duty and made no warranty to uId UId m2 plaintiff or plaintiff's decedent in connection with the n <zuc product at issue. 00 X No Benefit Of Presumption aoo J Id Knmz Plaintiff must prove this case without the benefit of any presumption to the extent he seeks to recover damages J 3 c caused by products 10 or more years old. i 0 z a XI ooo Reservation Of Right c w uUz Defendant reserves the right upon completion of its 4. (ft K investigation and discovery to file such amended answer and id s such additional defenses as may be appropriate. < id X > a URL 09323 7 D V K IM A . G O S S E T T . *R E N C E R . G O O O N O W T R IG G 3 5 T H F L O O R 4 0 0 R E N A IS S A N C E C E N IE R D E T R O IT . M 1CH IG A N 4 8 2 4 3. WHEREFORE, defendant requests this Court to enter a judgment of no cause for action, together with an assessment of costs and attorney's fees against plaintiff. DYKEMA, GOSSETT, SPENCER, GOODNOW & TRIGG By ennis M. Haffey (26378 Attorneys for defendant 35th Floor - 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, Michigan 48243 (313) 568-6704 URL 09324 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant hereby demands a jury trial of all issues in this case. DYKEMA, ^jBpSETT, SPENCER, GOODNOW & TRIGG By: >entimiss Mm. HHaafffey (P26373E Attorneys for defendant' ' 35th Floor - 400 Renaissai Detroit, Michigan 48243 (313) 568-6704 Center DATED: March 26, 1984