Document rx8pGmrErdxnwQggYXbE0Y8z0
P-GAF
,o OMTN&-A^2
'fc _
IX THE UTHTSD STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTARX DISTRICT 0? MISSOURI. SaSTffllM DIYXSXO*.
GLORIA DAM RES, at al.. Piamtiffa
) so. f/;j*
nu RUShROID COMPAXT a corporation,
Dafandant.
j Courtroom Ho.JJ
DEPhNDa.HT'S AHSW2B TO PUIRTIPPS1 PEKTIOB.
Pop ftawor to plaintiff!' petition dafandant itatas: 1. Dafandant aoalta tha ava manta of paragraph 1 of said patlclon. 2. Dafandant adalta that OpU B. Raad dlad In tha "ity of Sc. Loula on Juno ZU, 1953. Dafandant baa no icnowladga or lnfomatlon, aufflciant to fom a baliaf, ragaraing Cba raaalnlng aramanta of paragraph 2 of tha patlclon. 3. Dafandant adAlta that OpU B. d'aad vaa aaployad aa a laborar at dafandant'* plane In cba City of St. Loula during tha parlod allagad in paragraph 3 of tha patlclon. Dafandant danlaa tha raaalnlng avamanta of aald paragraph. U.. Dafandant danlaa aaeh and avary fttaman t lat forth In paragrapha it and 5 f tha patlclon, including all tubparagrapba of paragraph 5.
1-
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT
5* For further defense, defendant states that plaintiffs' petition fails to jut* a claim upon which the relief praysd for, or any relief, can do granted the plaintiffs or any of them, and falls to pload facta showing that tho plaintiffs or any of them have any right to bring or maintain this suit.
6, For further dafna*dafandaat states that prior to and during tha sntlrs period of the amploymsnt of Qpll 3. Heed by defendant, as aforesaid, the defendant was a major employer under the Kistouri Worteen's Compensation Law (now Sections 287.010 - 287.300 Missouri Revised Statutes, 19U9t ); that defendant at all said times had aore than ten se^loyees regularly employed; that defendant was a duly qualified self* insurer under said law; that defendant had duly sleeted to accept the occupational disease Section of said law, as provided In Section 287.020, Missouri Revised Statutes 19U9 by filing with the Division of Wortaen's Compensation and Industrial Casnlssion written notices of said election, and by posting and keeping posted In conspicuous places in Its ssid plant, whtreln Op11 B. Reed was esployed, notlcas of Its ssid election furnlined by ths said Division and Calsslon; that said Qpll 3. Seed was in defendant's service and employment, as aforesaid, for more than thirty days after the posting of aald notices, and that he at no time filed with said Division or Commission any notice that he rejected said Wortasen's Compensation Law or any
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT
part or soctlon thareof; by reason whoroof, defendant imUi that if tali Opil 3. Rood contract** on occupational disease a* aliogad In plaintiff*' petition, and died *e a rasult there of, (mich allegations dsfendsat denies) the aola aad esluslr* raaady or th* plaintiff* therefor, If any. la under aald Workmen's Compensation Law, and that th* plalntiffa bar* no right of recovery against dafondant In this suit.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered, dofondaat pray* to oo banco dismissal, with Its costa.
"* foregoing aaswar was tarred p*n plaintlffj this 0JVH. visy of July, 195L by sailing a ---ao copy thereof to thslr attorney of record, Mr. Courtney S. Goodman, at ">22. Chaatnut Street, St. Loulo 1, Missouri.
John S. Heresies, MOSER, KiflSALSK, CARPENTER, CLEARS k CARTER,
Attorneys for Defendant, 330 Flare* Building,
St. Loulo 2, Missouri, GArfiold 1-53*4.
3
ia DEFENDANT'S i EXHIBIT
`t
I hJ.axf.a^l ED3JT BO. m m- oZ? 'lit .9 '3&-F-2.- (7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, &STERN DIVISION.
GLORIA DEAN REED, at al., Plaintiff#,
-TS-
TKi RU5ER0ID COMPANY, a corporation,
Dafondant.
) )
) No. ff JJ-
) ) ) Cour troom No. 3
)
) ) )
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS1 PETITION.
For answer to plaintiffs' petition defendant states: 1. Defendant admits the avements of paragraph 1 '
of said petition.
2. Defendant admits that Opil B. Reed died in the
City of St. Louis on June 2k, 19S3. Defendant has no
knowledge or information, sufficient to form a belief, regaro*
lng the remaining averments of paragraph 2 of t ,1 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 denis# the remaining * Termer.? cf csii
li. Defendant denies each and avery averment set forth in paragraphs k and 5 of the petition, including all sub*
i paragraphs of paragraph 5.
1
5. For further defense, defendsnt states that plaintiffs' petition fails to state a claim upon which the relief prayed for, or any relief, can be granted the plaintiffs or any of them, and falls 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 - 287.000 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 lav, as provided in Section 207.020, Missouri Revised Statutes 1949 by filing with the Division of Workmen's Compensation and Industrial Comtission written notices of said election, and by posting and keeping posted in conspicuous places in its said plant, wherein Opil B. Read was employed, notices of its said election furnished by the said Division and Commission; that said Opil B. Reed was in dsfendant's service and employment, as aforesaid, for more than thirty days after the posting of eald notices, and that he at no time filed with said Division or Commission any notice that he rejected eald Worloaen1 a Compenaation Law or any
2
t r.
*
part or section thereof; by reason whereof, defendant states that If said Op11 B. Reed contracted an occupational disease as alleged in plaintiffs' petition, and died as a result there* oi, (which allegations defendant denies) the sole and exclusive remedy of the plaintiffs therefor, if any, la under said Voriaaen'e 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.
*e foregoing aniver was served ?on plaintiffs this
uay of July, 1954 by mailing a true copy thereof to their attorney of record, Mr. Courtney S. Goodman, at Ilk Chestnut Street, St. Louis 1, Missouri.
a
MOSER,
John S, Maraaiel
ttALEK. CARPENTER, CLEARY k CARTER, Attorneys for Defendant,
330 Pierce Building, St. Louis 2, Missouri,
GArfleld 1-5364.
3
}. V
I J> --1 L~
1----L_____L
JH THE VM1TLP STATIS H-iTMCT CUCH.
UiTthU JUDICIAL DISTMC7
I'I .ui''..!:j,
EASTERN DIVISIOU.
. '.
...
1
-LCihLft UoJ.h lUxJ). ot *1..
riniiw.ri. y-
) ) ) 1 1 )
TP- u ri**b ItxJL' fc corporation.
)
Def er.Jhnt.
) ) )
tp.-oval
He. Court Toon Mo. Circuit Court Mo,
XKOW ALL BEN F-Y iliESE J-FESENTS: T.ni the uncersifiied
Tt BuLorold titvony, | cory oration onJ lUryljnd CoauAlty CoepMty
. ;i principal, , hi :urrty,
nrc I1..10 nnj rirDly I ound iinu ^ pmr.UlT*, -lerl* Lota-koul, et 1., fcr nil costs and di sF-jrumcnts incurrod Fy rev.on ef tl.i- riaov.-ii
or this c.iuoo to tliC tinned Suiter- District Court. for the p!--*r'.-r.t
of ehieh cell nnd truly to fi* BMJe, *0 do Jointly and severally lii.-f ourselves. our heirs, li-fiol ri-pref.ru'..11 ivt:i and ossinn:
finely Fy thane prt-r.onir..
"lit* Condition of tliO nl-ovc Fon.l i- -if. folloest
71.nl, TliEi'EAS, tl.t nl-ovc rounder. yi-- Buhcj-jid Ca..vnj,
* eoiyorBllon,
1,4,1 fllei 4 Ptlllln ln lhe 3-f'fiet
Court of the United States far the Eastern Judicial District ef
Missouri, Enstf-rn Divieicn. for the rcsovni to the sni.t ecurt of
* certain enure pendii.f, in U.o Circuit Court of
of St. Louie.
< l\
-r
i j';
* .
' V * T 4- :J.; '
Miboonri, alibruii) onld Ulrlt Vtlo BJwl, at ll,, op*
and snld Vlt* hutoroltt tocpkny, eorj.ortUon,
jn dufcnJflnl.
. ' H0', If 0tfcn:nru
*f 11 mu truly \- u hit ecu:.
and d > oturaeoients incurred by reason or CjIj rnuv:.l proct ri
that Buy be (ir.irdod l>y enld District Court or u.t liulta Slot.-,
If sold court
|,ol>l tl.nl said dull ;.s :.,,t rreovmle ti t.-u
loproperly reooved thereto, then this alUg-woti ilu.il it vi;;
oUttrviee to resjin In full faro* uni virtue. ftlTMESS our hand: and eeuii tun )
day or
3u\f ___________$!{,
irr
w.
i .V
i. y i ..
by
/1>V>P
n
T
j- J.
*>
//
i
,/
/_____
> Agent or,7 Attorney in this ..noi r.
Ul^rtiie CAi'JALTI TxrtKT______
,,Y tf(uO
Aticrnry-ln-inot. .
/
t0
Qrculi Cotut for die Giy of t. Louis
luu J MiMewt
(Ilorll. lion IiiirJ -ft *), y Th* HuUrrolJ Company
ruitus.
Dt. ? .
Primliiil
Tba SUU al Uluaurl Is Dcfuiul
fumioK* XhcxJafkuhu Th* hulitroid fospsnjr
t
tz
i
You an hertbf ruasacsd Is appcaf befan th* *bav*-umsd aturl *sd Is Ui foul plid!s| Is th*
)
petition, espj of shlsb I* ttuehed herns, and Is tare i copy at your pleading ipso *
................. -
tfriht k GoodC.ifl ______ wba* eddrsu 1* __7}-''l`* Crii^h*rsttru1 itt. 33tt!r**mtt
allanry * far pliinlLT ,
/ i
*11 vllhls IS i*p alter mrrtea et this sumacsi upas you. txehuiv* of th* 4*7 of urvle*. U 7i 1*11 ts 4s
.!i *' is. Judgment by default rill be taken if Hut you let th* relief demanded Is ths prSBea.
v:
t Dated Jjm* ~U.i954.......... . 1.
fUELUl OTOOLE Ctrrjt Clift.
(5u2 et CimaJI Curt)
. J
nD_e_p_udty>t_Ci lerk.
. , v
. . ' .`-i "
*
/
'mi' .
or f.-rn friskd
T
FlU-iJ ..
tS'.t.ArruiNftD AMD
-V- CCUSEMT TO ACT. *
3
i r
-S
14
I
.4 .* .
Ctuy c? wc:u'i.J iiTi't? ti, IClilS |c
received
"..`SEP i 71979
; . iu u- cir.c-iJ c:;..v tr z::~ c;:v cr cr.LECAljjept.
cron:* t-:r in', "
ri;i w.-.i.l
: >'
;
c;:r. r;.T,tUi r:.2
' .
r.; r:.j c: .2,-;;.. v '
; ;:; i\v7, --
H:. ..vtJ u.:
rr/T-;., -
rrr?,
!,, XWi!.-2 i... 3, pit Frier.*,
:;i; '-* ` fltuturc,-
/,p.'V.;73
s;.j i.rrrnjro'cc-uss*,
. L. t Cir wl itlUt.... V. . : -y..
V- :-r\-pfcr.~t. , .1 , I * 1 '
i-'r'
*`
'..' . f~~TTTrr r.~.r r y
fV .......... >
r` v
71s j.ctitler.cr, Illcrco tUcl, ltd-.: i...; ;,,3 it t...
cr th-, f.Olrri.-; irfcr.tr.
y. :
f . .. - ;____:
X:jr.sr.ib C:r::rJ, iKcricI;, t--.i Z-j.-U.aa,
C;Ftti;ia'r.::i;
c.
r
,-.V Jitltlcr.cr father ititts lUt c!;a Is lb ss'.i.:r s? tisrisj
\ 1 *"
**
t;on.cr.l Illllta Pearl ti.il, iu'^.'.s ever to
cr lea:.:::
ycir*.'.:-1 . . '`jvi'y-
-j ... v . ;
V FttUieKcr rt;U:cr cldcs U_t ell cr t;.w il-llii.- tc
.til? dciira to IccUtuto o cult lr. the C:;;uit (: c: t c.r t'_. l.l
Of-- tculs ejiitst ths F.ctrcrsli C:; r~.y to iccc.cr c .-c.;:: fa ttj Cccth of tLclr falhcr{ C;il C, till la tto ccccp.t tf Firtco
roouaend Dollcra {{15*000,00); that r.:n or ecld Irfents icr#
utf lccilly cpioizted Cuariica toi falltlccar liortfcre jrc":
that tho to o;;::ltted oa Etst TrLtzl fop *;id IiJ'ir.la fo? the
rur;a:a of la:`.if-ti"* acid suit* W--4 ,*?iV / /
Jv
Satd
e_ /F*_
I
cortrtrr c? ortrT^ r--/--> tTir.T,`:
r~3
t, Gloria Ecoa Rtod and tUlitn Fotrl fiocJ, lrXuU ever a. ;
1
I
th* c of feurtocn yc:r ar.d ccrci la t:. ftrccelr.; r-.'.li horeby eenecnt end #cfc# that cur either, TUtrsa f. - 1# appointed to e:rvo si cur Cut Trltr.i for the f.T.-cti cf lr.:titutin; asl prejceutinc on o-ur behalf t!;a tfcevo e:r.ilcr.:d cult for dc=30 ecilnattts Ruberold Ccrpcny',
"* ' '
*> ' '' ' ' *
su
y' --
, .C'Cj^r ,v_.
"h .iliu v .- u.~-- i... j
''*k* ** v
. ccrrir? cr rr:T rrrr~>".
I, Illarc* H;a, tbe ibori acred pitltler.tr e:..:cr.t cri X
is dllir-c to *erv* * Cut Tried cf cll'ef the c'Jct: r.ir.:l children for ths pur7.de ef ii.it 1 tut lay. cult cyili.it'Tia Ruberelfl Ccrpizy for Carcye* * afcreiiii and cyr:i to b* 'rccponilbl* fcr th* eocti of eatdauit.
i
S>. *
Xilte4U 4b4
" Eofor# Mi Eotarj Publlo elthin tr.i for tho City cf Ct.
Zeal*, Stit* of Ulcioufi, appeared IXlcres r.iodcr.i cthr.tclci.:i
that cho oxceutod the eboro rrlttra cer.eent to c::r; t: l'cxt
frithi of til of the above hired children la ttilr cult ccilr-et
. / . ',,\
*
pse Buberold Ccr-pcny as aforesaid to be ir. , -utci In the Ci: :..l
Court of th* City of St, tout*, flteta of/linourl.
M>,.... ..
ii *1 liy ee=elselen expiree:.
O' l-oJ>i-i--'ei ^iuuolie
fttl 4Ct VCIS^Mr.'rbJU. im cm ami. /*
2 * 1 *. * , ;
A
* % .*
II
I
; AFrUCAllON\FQH APPOINTMENT OF NEXT FMZHD
. fiLCD ANDi!?^--APPOltITCD /J 4 -v CCLSaiTOACTE, ..
I. lr
\ X` .
-I
1-
filed' JU!1 ;j JS
l;:>~
i :-:
<y
.
*t ..' * { * 1 < i**.
' ** '
J!
y
I' il
1
A
4'
-* tnif
0
I
-'I Va.' J
1-.
1.
lit nit uiijtel sum Msn ui oi'iy.T.
SU-itemi judicial Libriwc: n vivd-wm, t*jiti;i< Diviiiui..
P-
LbliU pU.t HLiV, $t !.,
'.me
Plaint ifCf
(Ui
lilt llUilLSvIlJ Ctl'UI/Y, * corporation, *
Defendant.
j
Court lots Mo. .'/ * C.ioult Court to.
i
HOTICE 0^ FILINC Of m-nV/L FfTITlOM.
to vue move Htuco PutNTtrrton Courtney u, uosiuttn, thoir
uulou* r. vr!
ta of mccsDi
You an herely notified that tha defendant above nnood has filed in tho Unitad Stotts District Court for tha Eastern Judicial District ef Missouri, Eastern Division, a petition tir.i hond for rteoval, capias of vhleh nra hereto attached.
ttO$K. UBSALEX, CAKPENTF..:. CUAKT I CFTTEF.,
4 V/;i lI)///.' ( I.ro- A'
lliifD.fd JtVnJivlLiiU,
l'Jrreo building, St. Louis 2, Missouri,
SArf iclii 1-SJC4.
Service of n espy of tha above notice and of the atieehad ressval potltlon and bond for rtaoval is aeioorledjtd thlc -----------day of__j4iljr----------- . 19^,
A copy af tha nfeve notice and
of the attached renoval petition
and bond filed in the Circuit
Court ef tha qtj `
cf
It, Lolita- UiioJilri. this
day of"July-
19 5u.
1 Attorney, for flamtifS.
Clem of s.- : u Circuit Court.
/
i 1 I i
yt-:,. i.U.-.:.;.:
IIJ:; t'.!; ; SiUu.
..
.
t! V- -. U:-.a
Mtfr. ts l -
H - . ..
Ct.-ri fir U:*iiU:a
x:.ti
' i'Cr V- t H 2*2 V * f 4 ZZf l X' iXX-I'fc tj
Cl tZf C ^4*4 ' ' . '
iui ii`J
k:nsS
;-v.r. 7-i' '
i.v 5:-t tfc# !cijw:tcUtltS f
*`=U:i 1 s..';Jr- ie ./
; ,Cj Ct;:JlV Cf-ii if iLi fiiy tf Sk.'Ir-!** Mi::;.!, is r'
\ 'iJvJl Mil'll at'xtv liasjst tViu
`r.---- *-.-i
.C-KiiLEt Z.SizliiX la'ifWeV' t '-*-:-* W fev-..i cf t\j
'
(* Ci'il iii
wtjcii jjsls.'.if i tj lx- l...Ip j,f '! U > .
.
; ;' ' r't,
e^vc-.i ti ai.aiui'-j# ca Cia j.*.n if \cn* .:-:.:.
.V;cut iia ccr.treTirri Jn tMo tftii-i jt
':,r ivswun eltltxns of Clhornr.t oUtcsj t:.-t ililiillfxt v;ra ii
r*"
*"n * - , * *
. .4
*
,
; .: iko tl= of Ua
of UI *>sUen, oai ovi r t tree 2:x. `
-> ..s .
1 -X .
t
I
.i 1
/* 7\
.. *9
f.i
r /' /
o
:C*k, ktJ .*r M tUUt:.| . U
Ct (.. .lit'/ ,,(
.*mrl, *.w ir.; d<fr<xr.t kti v t.-.
ci im. cor
i*< H u* U.*J -cilon, cr ilr.i. Mt o..ir, f*u it o.w, (, C.'tlx.r,
4
if If.i MU
tfe* Jtr*11, r.4 t t * iltict* ur
rit.'ncnt tl thj itl* *.'*.*.curl,
. 1U[ t^a *Ur lid ttoanl It dr.r.lfSTirij In .:
jnXbtlTt et
ir.4 icitj, umri U.t t^ wr
..i. of /urtw fho :;*:!& l-ol.irt {.C'0>.
i,. .lt t`;:#
ler c-.s :r:,r.;fr<4
i-r.<0 - :rj r ;iu la lilt i.ri
o.,i tfur
i!w 1/ Qf.oitCuni afiea,/ or pUtr.ilff'i
is
til a ciiiiti, tttUi. urtr. Ui rli:a fir nl-.af u;`r, v! ,<s ttie
uiu. it inti .,
,times. .at uf>*> ovt'i ai'itMi.r.t : it
t icp; at (ti* tur.ioi.t.
>, ;.'vLi:iLt I/Jurt /Jtrtrj til tor.J b, It, $.ct tr.s
i.f col pir*k/ lor t(>
cl U tt.tit .nc tin M--.-.tt
mi.'cc At; 1>j tnftred P/ r-mn if t.Mi i-/trr.
U it l
9titrv.nd ;nt ttla 'ilus vi not r*mv*il* or m is, rc;*rlf
i l: t t ev-trl, md flit* Li.-tv'.iL t n;/ of til ,
plc-.}':i. t i..c if *rt i>ru ufcn ctfkB:&ct J i. it'd fttin.
. i.-.'-i - u. d:rt.i<at
I4l
T
(,'r;..:ctiui if *14 ctlen.
t
tc.n lo
' r>
11-i.t: *1; /1, *1 i- ,
1-:.///-;V .
i..
j
1.
* *'
~ i.-r. ticki
kli::r.,yi sr i-fi..: i:,
J.-i I'tlilf > -11. i i- ,
t * 9 if
'IllitC i*,
J v:.
r.-j:-'-, f!?< n *t ii.; i
-i
q
A
;
/
v
4
!
i
\
>
J
t i
II
.. 1
U
J
STATE 0? VJSSuUIH ct-nr cf st. utils
SB.
in ;e circuit ci-oar or txt cttt or st. ucib,
STATE Of "ISJUSiI
CLOHIA DEAR BEEP, ULUiii ranL he:-e,
owl Patricia nL'.s, colli:!: ELoovih held,
ed;:a eaiuxak aete,* ALEZMCK REED, and S/.WOIO: &EJ1KARD rtEED, By ILUtRiE KITED, Lett FTland,
CAUSE SC. nvision kc.
Plaintiffs vs
tie rossariD cchpai.t, . corporation.
Da fondant.
TETITI0K FOB DM1 era
1. Plaintiffs atats that th7 ara raildants of the City of
St. Louis, State of L'ltoourlj that dafandtnt, Tha Rubsrold
Ccnpany, was at all tines haraln cantlenad a corporation organ-
irad and existing undor tha last of tha State of few Jersey, aod
duly licensed to do business In tha State of hisasurl.
2. Plaintiffs Turthsr stete that they ar* tha surrlring
chi 1 dron of Opll B, Boad who died In the City of St. Louis, State
of L'liiourl June
1953* tnd sera born of th unlen of laid
Opll B. Baad and lllaraa Bead who were lawfully aorrled'ln
Demottj Arkansas.
-- 3. Plaintiffs further state that frea the year 19iL until the
alddle of the year 1953* **ld Opll B. Bead waa employed as a
eoston ltborsr st defendant's plsnt In the Clt7 of St. Louis,
Missouri; that during all of said perlo:
explcynent ha sai
j
principally snployed In ths sanufeeturlng and processing depart-
*I
nents* snd In ths asbestos root: or osreheuss of defendant's ac.ld
plant; that In said nanufaeturlng end processing dapartnonta i
defandant uaad rerleus nixing eaehlnea and neehahicsl tqulpxsr.t; .i
that throughout said ptrlcd of exploynent said employee was re
quired to rv.Js on ausercus oecatlona and for graftt lengths of
l I I
j I !
1
\
rV
J
tin* at, or about said naelilues end equlpwcr.t; tlu.1 if esne jrr the operation generated great quantities cl cstesles end cancfit dulf iu>H l]il froa tUe to tlaa during Ms ar^leybont said n-
ployae wa'i required to work In dusty etroa-hars In defendants .lomifoclurlnc and processing deperliv-riti and In dsfsndant' aabaatoa roon or warehouse, all of arid, contained large quentltlaa of aabaatoa and assent duet; that aa a roault of all of tha
operation* carried on In aald plant and tba work which acid
sraploye* aos required to perfom at aforesaid, aald arployse
Inhaled greet quant l tie a of duat during tha antlra parlod of his
aaployaent which cant In contact ltb aald employes'* eyes, ooaa,
throat, bronchial tubaa, lunga, ehest and rraplrator7 systsa
generally,
i
li. flat nt If fa further atata that aa a result of Inhaling
aald duat, and of eosilng In contact with sice aa aforesaid, aald
Opll S, Read vaa randarad 111 and auffared dlaeaat Incident to
hla aork, resulting In hi a doath on or about June 21;, 1953
5. (a) Plaintiffs further atata that aald esploy*d,a lllnaet
and dlatase acre duo to tha negllganee of dafanUant In that de
fendant, In tha conduct ef lta builnaia, oparatod aald cschlnea
and equipaent which caused and eratttd Teat quantities of duet
to be adttad Into Vba ataoaphere There aald asploya# waa at aor.k
at aforesaid and negligently and carelessly failed to provide -
each and awery on# of tha aald caehlnas with a hood, blower or
auction fan of aufflclast po*ar to earry off aald duet pnd to prewant Xta Inhalation by aald e^leyee and other e^lojeea there at work, la rlolatlea of tha duly enacted Statute of tha Stcte of Klaseurl then In full force and affect, known aa Section 292.120 of tha Revised Statute* of Kleaourl of 191*9, and alio ]0ion aa Soetlon 1019lj ef tha Rawlsad Statutaa of Missouri
ef 1939, whleh prorldea that ewary person, firs or corporation
using any caehlne of any character which generates dust In Its
operation shall preride auefc eaehlne' with a hood which shall be
r'
connected with a hlcwsr or auction fan of sufficient pccar to
*; *-2-
r
t. * * * V
j eerT7 err eeld dust and prevent 1 ta JnJjlitit-r. bp these ~ i qilo;s(i about aaid aachlne, -
~ fb) That eeld defendant eae alao negligent In that esld work and aianufeeture In which defendant an engaged via work likely to produce, and which did produce, lllnese or dlaoia* In etdent to tho wsrk or process there carried on, to-wit, the disease or lllnoae fro* wuleh aald en^loyee suffered and which cauaad hi* death, nicely, asbestcels, plural effusion, brone.Mti and t-pjruna/ and defendant did negligently and carelessly fail to adopt and prowlda approved and effective - device, aaana or cetcods for the prevention cf aueh dlaeaaa or lllnaaa in viola tion of what la known a a Section 292.300 of the Re via ad Statute* of klasourl of 191*9 and alao known aa Sactlon 10211 of the Revived Statute* of Klssaurl of 1939, which waa In full forea and affect and which provldaa that every erployer of labor la thle State engaged In carrying on any work, trade or proeaaa which cay produce any Illness or dlaeaaa Incldont to aueh work, trade or proeaaa carried on or which subjects tko esplcywe to the danger of lllnsss or dlacese incident to aueh work, treda or procoaa to which e.-plcyeci art exposed, ah'. 11 for the protection of all enployoes ongtgod In aueh work, trade or proeaaa, adopt and provlds approved and affsetlwa devices, scans or cethoda for. the prevention of ouch industrial or occupational dlieasat as era incident to eueh work, trade or proceie.
(e) Plaintiffs further state that during the tine that aaid ecployve was engaged in aald work aa aforesaid, defendant negligently and In violation of what la known aa Section 292.330 of the Hvleed Statute! of Hiseouri of 191*9, and also known aa Seetlcn 10211* of the Revised Statutea of Kiasourl of 1939, whieh waa than In full force and affect, failed to cause aald eeployeo to be examined aonthly by a eoepetent licensed and reputable
disease or lllnexs Incident to eald work or any Industrial or *
occupations! diseases due bo the character of the work in whieh J
3-
I
tlrt oapli-pee was eng'ced; end as ree It cf said failure ;*d
employee contracted the Illness or dlseert si slsve rentlc.hcj ;
and grow ccnstentlp worse without being rarned cf Ida ec.hilll;-;
rut *1.1 eh resulted la Ui death aa aforesaid,
|
(4) Tint dsfendtn t was also negllvent In tint negligent:,
and in vlolctien cf Saeticn Zl)c.)LCt ot the Itcvlaed Itctutct cf j
l!l;eeurt of 19!<9, and also Section 10219 of tha ftevloed Statute:'
ii:t` -1 ef 1939 which vis then in full forca and affoet,
it failed to provide and natntaln adequate and afflelant fcciU-
tlae for carrying off all lnjurleue duet and failed to prevent >
tha raising of dust, and ccntrir7 to said Statutes engaged la .
sweeping during working hours without first deepening the fleet;1
In Its said plant and falltd to deepen or eovar tha ceterial
t
which rae handlad and transported la laid plant bp aald ecplc;uoi
and othor ecplopees of aald dafandant.
j
(a) That do/andant was also negligent in that negligently
and In violation of Seetlcn 292.390 of tha Bevlaed Statutes of
tllsacuxl of 1949, and alas Section 10220 of tha Sovisad Statutes
of Missouri ef 1939, which was then In full foret and effect. It
felled to provide and salntsln sufficient, adequate and efficient
nocnj or devleas, such at canvas hags or other devices to
f
collect duet or to dampen or vet down tha duit cr to provide and *9
ealntaln snp other afflelont cathod of catching or collecting
tha duet and prevent it free unrtarenably fouling or polluting
the air In which aald scplopse was obliged to work at such tinaa
whan the nixing rachinas and csehanteal equipment at aforesaid
wart being cleaned or srptled, and defendant further failed. In
flolatlon of aald Statute, to dtaptn or wet dawn or eover the
duat generated In the werh or process carried on during aald
s=plopta*s period of srplcpient as aforoseld and to adopt ovary
rtteerttblt precaution to prevent tha urauceasarp eroatlon or
raising ef dust, end during said ties felled to wash and scrub
the fleers In said plcnt avorr working dap end to rash and clean
at reasonnl.Je Interval* thn fixture*', tool*', **clili:iry end equip-
wont eaplojed In *fId worse or procett, n.1 failed to carry on
said yerfc, or protest In aapnrat* rcoma and tinder cover of acme
fultall* and efficient device to ra.ucvo the danger to the health
of aatd employe* and other eayloyaea, and, a* a re*.U of th*
failure to coisplj with tald 6tatute atld employe* tuffared the
condition above r.ontloned and Ml *al<t condition grew constantly
worse which ros.lted In hi* death e* aforesaid.
It) That defendant sat ilao necllf,*nt In that negligently
and In violation of shat la taorn at Section 292.1*00 of the
^evliel Statute* of t'laaourl of 191*9 and alao Section 10221 of
the Hevised Statut* of Klaaourl of 1919, which w*i than In full
fore* and affect, It ftllad to properly cover or dar.ptn to aueh
a way aa to protect the health of aald ecployoe and other an*
ployea* all conveyance* or raeaptaclaa uaad for tb* transporta
tion about or th* atoraga in aald plant of laid tibaate* and
cement and pcr=ltted refute and dust of aald saterlal to rasa In
accumulated on the floors thereof.
(g) That defendant wa* also negligent In that negligently
and lr. violation of Section 292.1*20 of the ftaviaed Statutes of
Missouri of 191*9 ar.d alao Seetlon 10223 of tb* Atvlsed Statute*
of Klstouri of 1939, which wa* than In full fore* and affect,. It
fallod to peat any notle* at tald plant disseminating general
knealsdga of tta dangera loth# health of tha acployea* engaged
In th* work or process In which aald daeaaaod employe* was
engaged aa aforaaald and containing alcple Instructions at to
any lawwn s- l.-.* of avoiding, ao far as possible, th* injurious
constqueaees therecf, and, aa a reeult of aald failure to eosply
with said Statute said employe* In Ignoranc* of said danger* and '1
without laoeltdg* cf th* Injurious consequence* thereof ecstlnuad
11 -
*
in said work for a long period pf tine at aforesaid, causing Kirs
to bacon* weak end run down and during which tine ha contraeted
th* diseases above mentioned and hit eondltlen grew constantly
worse and cn account cr the failure to ccsyly with aald Statutos
: .
i!
;;
' -5- '
eald eployee tea net adrlied of tha neeeaaity of taking pre cautionary eetaurea to prevent tr to rollere the eonlitlcn ao eufforod by hla, end that ea a reault tharaof aald ecployee died aa aforesaid.
(h) That dafendaot negligently failed to provide said ecployeu with a roaaonatly aft plaea In which to work, and a< a reault of which laid oeployac wai rendered 1X1 aod dlad aa aforoaald.
WZZ-tEFOJB, tba praBlaai conaiderad plalotiffi atata that they have baan dacoged lB tha am of Fifteen Thou*and Delian ($15,000.00), for which aua together with thalr coata harala they pray Jud^ant againat tha defendant.
Gillette y. urlght 120!j Fullerton fildg. 6t. Louie 1, tiuouri
Co. 1*2272
./ ft ^
Attorney! for Plaintiff!
i
;i
4
nNk V* * t
%*
Grcult Court for die Gty of St, Louis
Gloria D*nn E*wd wt al,
e. Tat Euboroid Coepany
liftttl UM
--
Dtr..JL____
The Stoto erf Irftoaouxl to Orfwvton
SUMMOKS lYirrgiriarlinrf th* EuWrcid Ctnryry
You ore Wtbj oumtamod to Appear More the bare-oaaed oourt nd to die your plittrn to the petition, coyj of whkh to Attached Mrto, oad to uni a 0057 at jrocr pt-t*| upon._____________ ______
Yrltfit k Ooodnan.
722 Chestnut Strwat whc*e addrea to.
-Jrttcreey.J... ter platottS....,
all within SO daye after Mrrin at thto mmmrce open you, ccdustr* erf the da; at unto. If you toll to do
0, judgment by default will b toko a<vtoit you (or the relief (tomanrtori to tbo petition.
>*tod J'pe..21.11954..
1.
THEL1M OTOOLt Cbnht Ctork.
(Seal ol Cbeull Court)
Deputy Qwk.
HU **glo7*# *u art
of tk unity f taklss jnra-
MsUoMiy miiiri to ymant or to nllm U* MoflUco ao
Mffarrd I7 bla, and that aa a raault tbar*cf sail rplo7o*
dlod m afirra--ldt
(b) That tfafandast a*lleBtl7 fallod to prtrrl aal4
ploy** with a r--irrtaMy 0^*
ad a
a r*ult of ahioh Mid aaplojo# ni rvndarvd ill aad dlrd u
afaraaald,
THEttrcn, tbo yn^iu aooaldorod plaintiff* tut* that
tl*y bar* >hr daaagod la tb aua of ?lftoon Th*arnd foliar*
(915*000,00), for otddh mat tocrthar vlth thalr aoatl brla
they pray Judfaaet
tho 4*f*ndaat<
JjJtoJ&rfusuJ'At
Vliiotta /, 'StuT 120j Pullartca
At, tesla 1* tUoaourl e>, UZZTt
3. ,
T&fert&yy a, ^_A,aaa 722 Qjaitant Stroot
At* Loulo 1* llcseuri
Ch. W.W
AtWraryi far Flaloilffa
