Document rexa87LGbOk9w0zV6jvyRdLDV

AtlG-29-97 09*08 FfO:WElK DUNBAR H 0 7138261388 T-723 P.05/03 Job-913 NO. 93-07046 LOUIE WHITE, ET AL. Plaintiffs VS. KEENE CORPORATION, ET AL, a Defendants IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF $ $ TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS 5 S 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT union PACiFir RAir.BQAn roMPAMv> ambxmnn OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S BEQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO: Plaintiff Decedent E. L. Lambright, by and through his attorneys of record. Kimberly Schauck, Baron at Budd, The Centrum. 3102 Oaklawa Avenue. Suite 1100, Dalles. Texes 73219-4281. Pursuant to Rule 166b and 167 ofthe Texes Rules of Civil Procedure, Union Pacific Railroad Company. Successor-in-interest to Missouri-Kansae-Texes Railroad Company (Improperly named as Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. Individually and d/b/a Union Pacific Railroad Co.. Successor-in-interest to Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co.). Defendant herein, hereby submits its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS f request FOR ADMISSION NO. i: Admit or deny that asbestos-containing products were in general use aboard Defendant's railroad during the time period Plaintiff Decedent was employed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the term "general use" in this Request. Further, this Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unlimited in scope and seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ. 2: Admit or deny that Defendant ordered, purchased or otherwise acquired asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products, machinery requiring die use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that it used asbestos-containing products during the steam era. However, Defendant denies that it had knowledge during the period of plaintiff& employment Urn railroad employees were at risk of acquiring an asbestos-related disease under the circumstances in which railroad employees worked. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit or deny chat Defendant used or implemented on Defendant's railroad, asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request because it is not limited in scope to the plaintiffs employment period, subject to this objection. Defendant admits that it uaed asbestos-containing products during the steam era. FOS-tfCTft.i a 1 RECEIVED TIMEAUG. 23. 9:11AM AUu-2$-3? 09:06 rroa:PHl?$ DUNBAR n 0 i 7136261366 T-723 P.06/09 Joe-813 request pop admission no 4: Admit or deny dm Defendant's cars, engines and/or locomotives which Plaintiff Decedent worked on or around were unreasonably dangerous and unfit because of the presence of and/or use of asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE; Defendant denies (his Request. REQUEST POP ADMISSION NQ1 5: Admit or deny that Plaintiff Decedent was a railroad worker, as that term is generally understood, dining bis employment with Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that E. L. Lambrigbt was employed by the railroad. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ 6: Admit of deny feat Plaintiff Decedent, in fee course and scope of his work as a railroad worker and/or employee of Defendant, worked on and/or around Defendant's railroad, railway cars, engines and/or locomotives, shops, roundhouses, and transfer sheds where asbestos, and asbestos containing products were present. RESPONSE.- Although Defendant lacks direct knowledge. Defendant admits feat Plaintiff Decedent Lambright claims that he worked in fee proximity of asbestos materials for a limited time period. 0 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ 7: Admit or deny feat Defendant was aware during fee periods of time Plaintiff Decedent worked for Defendant that airborne asbestos dust created a potential health hazard to those who breathed such dust. RESPONSE- Defendant denies that it bad knowledge during the period of Plaintiff Lambrtghl's employment feat railroad employees were at risk of acquiring an asbestos-related disease under fee , circumstances in which railroad employees worked. request pop admission no. a-. Admit t deny feat Plaintiff Decedent was employed by Defendant or by a predece$sor-in-interest of Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant admits this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit or deny feat Plaintiff Decedent worked on and/or around Defendant's railroad In areas where asbestos-containing products were installed, used, prepared for use, replaced or repaired, stored or loaded, unloaded or transported. RESPONSE: Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny this Request in its entirety. Defendant admits feat asbestos-containing products were used during fee steam era but denies that it had knowledge that the products were a potential health hazard to railroad employees under the type of duties they performed. REQUEST fOR ADMISSION-NO. 10: Admit or deny that Defendant did not distribute any literature or warnings of any kind to Us employees during fee period of time Plaintiff Decedent worked for Defendant regarding fee potential health hazards to those who breathe airborne asbestos dust. RESPONSE: Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny this Request in its entirety. Defendant admits feat asbestos-containing products were used during fee steam era but denies that it had knowledge that the products were a potential health hazard to railroad employees under fee type of duties they performed. 2 k RECEIVED T1MEAUG. 29. 9:11AM AUG-29-97 09:09 Fro*:PHELPS DUNBAR H 0 * 7138281388 T-723 P.07/09 Job-813 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION no. li: Admit or deny that asbestos-containing products were placed on or used in the conduct of Defendant's railroad during the dme period Plaintiff Decedent was employed by Defendant including die following asbestos-containing products: a. atiy asbestos-containing product and/or machinery requiring fee use of asbestos or I. asbestos block j- asbestos packing asbestos-containing products and/or materials k. boilers b. asbestos tiles 1. brake shoes c. asbestos millboard d. asbestos friction products a. brake linings n. clutch lining* e. asbestos pipecovering f. asbestos gaskets fi asbestos joint compound ll. asbestos cement 0. firebrick P- refTacrories/castabies q- turbines RESPONSE: Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny this Request in its entirety. Defendant admits that asbestos-containing products were used during the steam era but denies that it had knowledge that the products were a potential health hazard to railroad employees unA-r the type of duties they performed. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 12: Admit or deny that Defendant engaged in no abatement programs for the removal of asbestos at any time since 1965. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit or deny that Defendant was aware of the presence of and/or use p of asbestos-containing products at me Railroad during me time period Plaintiff Decedent was employed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny this Request in its entirety. Defendant admits that asbestos-containing products were used during the steam era but feat it had knowledge that fee products were a potential health hazard to railroad employees under the type of duties they performed. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit or deny feat Defendant became aware of fee potential health hazards of airborne asbestos during the time periods in which Plaintiff Decedent was employed by Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant denies feat it was aware of any potential health hazard to railroad workers under fee type of duties they performed. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. IS: Admit or deny that Defendant did not continuously provide face masks to railroad employees working wife or around asbestos from 1945 to the present for fee purpose of protecting these employees from inhaling asbestos. RESPONSE- Defendant denies this Request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit or deny that during the time Plaintiff Decedent was employed by Defendant, it was foreseeable that asbetot-containing produoss oc Defendant's railroad would or could be removed, stripped, replaced or repaired at some time after installation. 3 % RECEIVED TIMEAUG. 29. 9:11AM AUG-29-97 09:06 Proe:PHELPS DUNBAR H 0 713S2S1388 T--723 P.00/09 Job-019 response: oojectioa. Defendant objects to ttic term "foreseeable* in this Request. Further. this Request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unlimited in scope and seeks information which is *^tW relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit or deny that during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, Defendant failed to comply with the requirements of the Boiler Inspection Act, formerly 4S U.S.C. 23; and restated at 49 U.S.C. 20701 et seq. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit or deny that Plaintiff Decedent filed suit against Defendant within three (3) years of die date of discovering his asbestos-relamd conditioe or the eiittmrc of any aabestoe*eelated causes of action. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit or deny that Defendant is liable for Plaintiff Decedent's asbestos related illness. % RESPONSE; Defendant denies this Request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit or deny that Defendant knew or had reason to know that fee asbestos [was] in use on its railroad since the 1930`s. response: Defendant admits this Request. * REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 1\- Admit or deny that Defendant consciously decided not to warn iu employees of the dangers of asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit or deny feat asbestos is still in use and/or in place on Defendants railroad. RESPONSE: Objection. This Request seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit or deny that Defendant no longer uses asbestos on its railroad. RESPQNSfr Objection. This Request seeks information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR aDMISSTON NQ TAr Admit or deny dun Defendant acquind knowledge, during die 1930'e of fee Alton Railroad's responses to fee Diinois Occupational Diseases Act. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request feat it acquired knowledge in the 1930`s. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2S: Admit or deny feat Defendant was a member of fee National Claims Registry which reported information regarding injuries claims of railroad workers. RESPONSE: Defendant denies this Request. rOS:6tf.l 4 RECEIVED TIMEAUG. 29. 9:! I AM t MJG-29-97 89:89 Frar.PHElPS WfiAR H 0 7138261398 T-723 P 09/03 Job-813 Respectfully submitted. PHELPS DUNBAR UBy. Deborah A. Newman Texas Bar No. 01237257 3040 Post Oak Boulevard Suite 900 Houston, TX 77056 (713) 626-1386 FAX (713) 626*1388 Attorney for Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and comet copy of the foregoing Defendant Union f Pacific Railroad Company's Amended Objection* and Response* to Plaintiff* Request for Adsusnons has been sent via Facsimile to Kimberly Schauck, Baron & Bodd, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281, fcis day of August, 1997 and vie First Class Mail to all parties of record on attached service list, this day of August. 1997. D ip Deborah A. Newman i PMitfSTt. 5 RECEIVED TIMEAUG, 29. 9:11AM