Document rxoOo6arbbezp80m8Yq6vKOgr
FILE NAME: Wagner (WAG) DATE: 1998 Apr 28 DOC#: WAG039
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Deposition of RC Bueler with Barry Castleman Notes
t / ? S 3 ~ />^^
'Z
9 2 :
?9s
? ^ y 3&#^ ^ '/-V't&-p\^^z
af
Uc
%^Crx2 Z'
7
NO. 94-007165
S T E P H E N F. BLOCK, JR.
AND RITA
BLOCK,
Plaintiffs,
VS .
MAREMONT ET AL,
CORPORATION, Defendants.
) IN THE
) )
) ) HARRIS ) )
) ) 215 TH
DISTRICT COURT OF COUNTY, T E X A S JUDICIAL DISTRICT
VIDEO DEPOSITION OF R I C H A R D C. B U E L E R
April 28, 1998
( 713) 868-1901
Decades In Quality Reporting
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters & Records Service
1
NO. 94-007165
2
S T E P H E N P. BLOCK, JR.
) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
AND RITA BLOCK,
)
3
Plaint!f s,
)
4
VS .
) ) HARRIS COUNTY, T E X A S
)
5
MAREMONT CORPORATION,
)
ET AL, 6
Defendants.
) ) 215TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
7
8
VIDEO DEPOSITION OF
9
R I C H A R D C. B U E L E R
10
11
taken on the 28th day of April, 1998, b e g i n n i n g at
12
10:03 a.m. in the offices of Royston, R a y z o r ,
13
Vickery & Williams, 2350 Chase Tower, 600 T r a v i s ,
14
Houston, Harris County, Texas, before Judy Conley,
15
a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State
16
of Texas, p u r s u a n t to The Texas Rules of Civil
17
Procedure.
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
COPY
2
1
APPEARANCES
2
3
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
4
MR. R U S S E L L L. COOK, JR.
MS. LYNN BRADSHAW
5
COOK BUTLER & DOYLE, L.L.P.
4 Houston Center
6
1221 Lamar, Suite 1300
Houston, Texas 77010
7
8
FOR THE DEFENDANT BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE:
9
MR. G E O R G E T. S H I P L E Y
BAKER & BOTTS, L.L.P.
10
One Shell Plaza
910 Louisiana
11
Houston, Texas 77002
12
FOR THE DEFENDANT CHRYSLER CORPORATION:
13
MS. KATIE ANDERSON
14
STRASBURGER & PRICE, L.L.P.
901 Main Street, Suite 4300
15
Dallas, Texas 75202
16
FOR THE DEFENDANTS CARLISLE AND MOTION
17
CONTROLS :
18
MS. G W E N D. JONES
MEHAFFY & WEBER
19
One Allen Center
500 Dallas, Suite 1200
2 0
Houston, Texas 77002
2 1
FOR THE DEFENDANT PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION:
22
MR. LOU I S H. K N A B E S C H U H , JR.
23
JENKINS, GROVE & MARTIN, L.L.P.
2615 Calder, Suite 500
24
Beaumont, Texas 77702
25
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
3
1
FOR THE DEFENDANT MORTON INTERNATIONAL,
INC . :
2
MS. KATHRYN HERMES
3
DeHAY & ELLISTON
3500 NationsBank Plaza
4
901 Main Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
5
6
FOR THE DEFENDANTS ALLIED SIGNAL, INC.
AND GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION:
7
MS. DAWN MARIE WRIGHT
8
THOMPSON & KNIGHT
3300 First City Center
9
1700 Pacific Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75201
10
11
FOR THE DEFENDANT FORD:
12
MR. B E R N A R D O S. G A R Z A
CALLIER & GARZA
13
3138 Chevron Tower
1301 McKinney
14
Houston, Texas 77010
15
FOR THE DEFENDANT COOPER INDUSTRIES,
16
INC . :
17
MR. J E F F R E Y J. P U T N A M
ROYSTON, RAYZOR, VICKERY &
18
WILLIAMS, L.L.P.
2200 Chase Tower
19
600 Travis
Houston, Texas 77002
2 0 ALSO PRESENT:
21 MR. J E F F R E Y E. H I G G I N S
22
MR. MIKE GOLDSTONE (PARTIAL
APPEARANCE)
23
MR. CHARLES SNOW, VIDEOGRAPHER
24
25
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
1
INDEX
2
E X A M I N A T I O N BY:
3
Mr . Cook
4
Mr . Shipley
5
Mr . Putnam
6
7
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY
8
Mr. Cook
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
4
PAGE 6
123 129
134
5
1
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
EXHIBIT NO.
PAGE
3
1
Plaintiffs' Amended Notice
6
of Intention To Take Oral
4
Deposition by Stenographic
Means and Videotape
5
2
Defendant Cooper Industries,
6
6
Inc's O b j e c t i o n s to Plaintiffs'
Amended Notice of Intention To
7
Take Oral Dep os it io n of Richard
B u e 1 er
8
3
M a r c h 7, 1934 W a g n e r E l e c t r i c
94
9
Corporation Document
10
4
F o r t y - N i n t h Repo r t of the State
97
Department of Health
11
5
Public Health Reports
106
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
6
1
(Whereupon instruments were marked
2
for i de nt ification as Bueler Exhibit
3
No. 1 and Bueler Exhibit No. 2 and
4
are attached hereto.)
5
6
7
MR. COOK: By the Rules, please.
8
MR. PUTNAM: Reserve objections
9
except as to form and responsiveness until the time
10
of trial?
11
MR . COOK: I think that's the Rules
12
MR . P U T N A M : W e l l , I just want to
13
make sure.
14
MR. COOK: Okay.
15
16
17
R I C H A R D C. B U E L E R
18
was called as a w i t n e s s by the P l a i n t i f f s and,
19
having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
2 0
21
EXAMINATION
22
23
By Mr. Cook:
24
25
Q.
Please state your full name for the
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
7
1
record, sir.
2
A.
M y n a m e is R i c h a r d C. B u e l e r
3
B-u-e-l-e- r .
4
Q.
Mr. Bueler, how are you employed?
5
A .
I'm currently retired.
6
Q.
How were you employed?
7
A .
I was employed by Wagner.
8
Q.
How?
9
A .
As an engineer and engineering
10
supervisory positions.
11
Q.
What was the highest position that you
12
held with Wagner?
13
A.
Director of brake engineering.
14
Q.
And when did you hold those positions?
15
That position. I'm sorry.
16
A.
From a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1988 to '91.
17
Q.
All right. A n d w h a t did y o u do p r i o r to
18
that time?
19
A.
Prior to that I was an e n g i n e e r i n g
2 O
manager.
21
Q.
Okay. Prior to that?
22
A.
Prior to that I was also an e n g i n e e r i n g
23
manager.
24
Q.
How many years did you work for Wagner,
25
Mr. Bueler?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
8
1
A .
I worked for Wagner beginning in 1953.
2
S o , 40.
3
Q.
And retired in '93? '96?
4
A.
R e t i r e d in '93. So, it's 40 years,
5
yeah .
6
Q.
Okay.
7
A .
I'm not t r y i n g to be --
8
Q.
No. D o n ' t -- d o n ' t w o r r y a b o u t it.
9
It's
10
A .
-- o b f u s c a t e here.
11
Q.
No. I just -- I just n e e d to just sort
12
of get a general idea.
13
Was all your work during that time
14
in brake engineering?
15
A.
Yes, sir. Either brake e ngineering or
16
training for brake engineering.
17
Q.
All right. And can you give me a little
18
bit of history about Wagner, the company? Were
19
the y -- are they a b r a k e -- well, let's s t a r t in
2 0
1953 when you went to work for them. Were they
21
manufacturing brakes in 1953?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q
Were they m a n u f a c t u r i n g b r akes p r ior to
24
1953 ?
25
A .
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
9
1
Q.
Tell me w h o the y sol d to w h e n y o u --
2
let's -- in 1953 w h e n y o u came.
3
A.
Bear in mind in 1953 I was a new
4
employee, but I know that we sold brakes to
5
Studebaker at that time.
6
Q.
All right. And how did that work just
7
g e n e r a l l y ? You w o u l d p r o v i d e o r i g i n a l e q u i p m e n t to
8
Studebaker vehicles?
9
A.
That's what we were doing at that time,
10
yes .
11
Q.
All right. Now, in the 40 years that
12
you worked there did they provide brakes to any
13
other companies that manufactured automobiles?
14
A.
Y e s , we d i d .
15
MR. PUTNAM: I'm going to object.
16
It calls for a narrative. I think m a y b e if you
17
b r e a k it down into years, it w o u l d be easier I
18
think.
19
MR. COOK: My -- now, m y q u e s t i o n
2 0
was in the 40 year time p e r i o d did you ever provide
21
b r akes to any other a u t o m o b i l e m a n u f a c t u r e r s . I
22
t h i n k his r e s p o n s e is -- is a c c u r a t e in that
23
regard, and I'll b r e a k it d o w n w h e n we -- w h e n we
24
get to t h a t .
25
MS. ANDERSON: And can we just have
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
10
1
an o b j e c t i o n that -- an o b j e c t i o n by one d e f e n d a n t
2
is good for all defendants present?
3
MR. COOK: No. We're not agreeable
4
to t h a t .
5
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) The -- tell me w h a t -- who
6
those companies were, and then we'll get to what
7
time periods in just a second. What other
8
companies ?
9
A.
We sold orig i n a l e q u i p m e n t b r a k e s to
10
A m e r ic an Motors and to Ford and to General Motors,
11
International Harvester, Dodge. That's all that
12
comes to m i n d right now. There m a y be some others.
13
Q.
All right. If you think of s o m e thing
14
later on --
15
A.
Surely.
16
Q.
-- let me know.
17
A .
Surely.
18
Q.
Can you give me a time frame, we can go
19
through each one of them or h o w e v e r it's easiest
20
for you to do, some time frames w h e n yo u m i g h t have
21
sold to those manufacturers? Let's start wi th G M .
22
A.
With GM some time in the late fifties,
2 3
in and out of the sixties, and into the seventies
24
is m y recolle c t i o n .
25
Q.
All right. And were those for original
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
11
1
e q u i p m e n t or w e r e they r e p l a c e m e n t b r a k e s ? H o w --
2
w h a t -- w h a t type of b r a k e s w e r e they?
3
A.
Those were original equipment brakes.
4
Q.
Did you also sell to GM or any of the GM
5
subsidiaries replacement brakes?
6
A.
Not to my knowledge.
7
Q.
All right. D i d -- at an y time did
8
W a g n e r -- w as W a g n e r in the b u s i n e s s of
9
manufacturing brakes that were used other than by
10
original equipment manufacturers?
11
A.
We were not in the p o s i t i o n of
12
m a n u f a c t u r i n g brakes, no.
13
Q.
Okay. What was it about my q u e s t i o n
14
that -- I c o u l d tell that there w as -- y o u h a d some
15
problem with the way I worded my question.
16
A.
Well, I'm not exactly sure what you're
17
shooting for.
18
Q.
Okay. I'm t r y i n g to fi n d out -- let me
19
just be real clear what I'm shooting for. I'm
2 0
trying to find out what you m a n u f a c t u r e d , you be ing
21
Wagner, and who you sold it to. A n d if you
22
m a n u f a c t u r e d component parts of brakes or something
2 3
like that, I would be interested in what that was
24
and wh o it was sold to. So, I n e e d to ask y o u
2 5
q u e s t i o n s about that. So, I u n d e r s t a n d that over
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
12
1
the years you sold brakes to original equipment
2
manufacturers.
3
A.
That is correct.
4
Q.
All right. And did you ever sell
5
co m p o n e n t parts to anyone?
6
A.
Y es.
7
Q.
Who did you sell those to?
8
A.
Component parts were sold fundamentally
9
to distributors. W a r e h o u s e distributors.
10
Q.
W h a t w e r e those p a r t s e n v i s i o n e d -- h o w
11
were those parts envisioned to be used?
12
A.
The parts were e nv isioned to replace
13
worn parts on vehicles in the field.
14
Q.
Okay. Now, when we talk about
15
distributors, what kind of d i s t r i b u t o r s ?
16
A u t o m o b i l e p a r t d i s t r i b u t o r s or --
17
A.
T h e y w e r e -- the t e r m i n o l o g y that I
18
always had them r e f erred to was w a r e h o u s e
19
distributors. These were companies that I would
2 0
say were relatively large as far as buying parts
21
from many different people, and then they
22
d i s t r i b u t e d them to retail centers or to jobbers or
23
to mechanics. Anyone who might be fixing an
24
automobile.
25
Q.
All right. And did any of these brakes
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
13
1
that we've talked about, either the component parts
2
or the original eq u i p m e n t brak e s that w ere sold to
3
manufacturers, did any of these contain asbestos?
4
A.
They contained brake linings that
5
contained asbestos, yes.
6
Q.
All right. Is that the only p l ace that
7
there was asbestos in any of these products that
8
we've been talking about in the brake linings?
9
A.
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
10
Q.
All right, sir. Now, have you ever
11
given your deposition before in all these years
12
w o rk in g for Wagner, Mr. Bueler?
13
A .
Yes, I have.
14
Q.
On how many occasions?
15
A.
I could think of two occasions relative
16
to b r a k e -- b r a k e s of this nature.
17
Q.
Well, how about total?
18
A.
Total? Four or five.
19
Q.
All right. A n d w h e n -- an d d i d any of
2 0
those depositions involve cases in which there were
21
allegations about asbestos?
22
A . Yes.
23
Q.
All of them?
24
A . No .
2 5
Q.
How many of them?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
14
1
A.
Two of them.
2
Q.
All right. A n d w h a t w e r e -- w h a t did
3
the o t h e r cases -- and I d o n ' t w a n t to k n o w any
4
details, but just generally what did the other
5
cases involve?
6
A.
To the best of my recollection
7
allegations of illnesses from some sort of exposure
8
a l l e g e d to come from asbestos.
9
MR. PUTNAM: No.
10
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) No. I'm tal k i n g about
11
the - -
12
MR. PUTNAM: The cases that didn't
13
involve asbestos.
14
THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry.
15
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) That didn't involve
16
asbestos.
17
A.
I 'm -- I'm sorry. I m i s s e d -- d i d n ' t
18
listen p r o p e r l y to the question. The cases that
19
did not involve asbestos you're asking about?
2 0
Q.
Yes, sir. I'm asking about those.
21
A.
They were other product liability cases.
22
Q.
All right. D i d they -- and g e n e r a l l y
23
what did they deal with? The performance of the
24
b r a k e s as o p p o s e d to e x p o s u r e or --
25
A.
They r e l a t e d to the p e r f o r m a n c e of the
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
15
1
brakes.
2
Q . All right.
3
A.
Complements.
4
Q.
A n d -- an d can y o u just in a time frame
5
when did these four or five depositions occur?
6
A.
One of them occurred in '91. One of
7
them o c c u r r e d in '93. One of them o c c u r r e d I
8
b e l i e v e in '90. A n o t h e r one o c c u r r e d m a y b e in '88
9
or '89. I'm fuzzy on that. That's approximate
10
dates.
11
Q.
Have you testified in any trials, Mr.
12
Bueler?
13
A.
N o . I have n o t .
14
Q.
Now, two of these cases involved
15
exposure to asbestos. Is that right?
16
A.
That is correct.
17
Q.
And I think you've brought with you
18
today a couple of depositions. Are these the
19
depositions from those cases?
2 0
MR. PUTNAM: They are.
21
MR. COOK: Okay.
22
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Mr. Bueler, is asb e s t o s a
23
poi son?
24
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Calls for
25
speculation. Mr. Bueler's not here to give expert
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
16
1
testimony. He's here to testify on the facts.
2
MS. ANDERSON: Join the objection.
3
MS. WRIGHT: Join the objection.
4
MR. SHIPLEY: Join.
5
MR. GARZA: I join in that
6
obj ec t i o n .
7
MS. HERMES: Join.
8
THE WITNESS: I don't know the
9
d e f i n i t i o n of a poison to be honest.
10
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) So that w e ' r e -- w e ' r e
11
accurate in that regard, I've brought with me a
12
Webst er 's dictionary. I'm going to ask you to look
13
up the d ef ini ti on of p o i s o n .
14
A .
O k a y . I'll be happy to do that .
15
Q.
I thou ght it said W e b s t e r 's . Okay.
16
Wha t ever kind of d i c t i o n a r y it is. It m a y not
17
W eb s t er 's. I t h o u g h t it was W e b s t e r 's
18
MR. PUTNAM: Don't read it out loud.
19
THE WITNESS: Okay.
2 0
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Let me k n o w w h e n you' v e
21
h a d a c h a n c e to read it.
22
A.
All right.
23
Q.
K e e p -- I've got -- if y o u can get b a c k
24
to it again.
25
A.
Okay. Okay. W h e r e am I? Okay.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
17
1
Q.
Please read the first definition for
2
poison contained in the dictionary.
3
A.
"Any substance that causes injury,
4
illness or death, especially by chemical means."
5
Q.
All right. Is a s b e s t o s a p o i s o n --
6
MR. PUTNAM: I'm going to r e n e w the
7
objection.
8
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) -- u s i n g that d e f i n i t i o n ?
9
MR. PUTNAM: I'm g o ing to r e n e w the
10
obj ec t i o n .
11
MS. ANDERSON: Same objection.
12
MR. PUTNAM: Mr. B u e l e r is not here
13
to give ex p e r t testimony. This is a W e b s t e r ' s
14
dictionary. It has no sc i e n t i f i c basis, no
15
applic at io n of OSHA standards, N IOSH standards,
16
and, therefore, I'd ask Mr. Bueler not to answer
17
that question because he's not here for that
18
purpo se .
19
MS. ANDERSON: Join the objection.
2 0
MR. COOK: A n y b o d y else w a n t to --
21
MS. WRIGHT: Join the objection.
22
MR. COOK: A n y b o d y else want to join
23
in that objection?
24
MS. ANDERSON: Yes.
25
MR. COOK: Okay. Who all?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
18
1
MR . GARZA : I join that o b jec t i o n .
2
MS . WRIGHT : I join the o b je c t i o n .
3
MS . HERMES : I jo i n .
4
MR . COOK : Mr. B u e l e r is a w i t n e s s
5
He is involved in the manufacture. That's a
6
p er f e c t l y proper question, and I'm going to adjourn
7
the deposition and take it before the judge.
8
MR. PUTNAM: I t h i n k -- go ahead.
9
A s k -- if he kno w s the a n s w e r to that q u e s t i o n
10
b a s e d on his k n o w l e d g e w i t h the c o m p a n y --
11
MR. COOK: Well, you're the one who
12
i n s t r u c t e d him not to ans w e r it. Th a t ' s w h y I
13
stopped.
14
MR. PUTNAM: I d o n ' t w a n t h i m --
15
y o u 're givi ng h i m a d i c t i o n a r y and tel 1 ing h i m is
16
it a - i s i t a po ison based upon a diet ionary that
17
y o u 're givi ng h i m .
18
MR . COOK: If you've got another
19
diet i o n a r y , we 're happy to do that.
2 0
MR . PUTNAM: No. I d o n 't have to
21
g i v e h,im a die tion a r y .
22
MR . COOK: Okay.
23
MR . PUTNAM: You can ask h i m if
24
Q
(By Mr. Cook) U n d e r -- u n d e r the
2 5
defini tion in the d i c t i o n a r y is asb estos a p o i s o n ?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
19
1
MS ANDERSON: Objection.
2
Argumentative
3
MR PUTNAM: Same objection
I f you
4
know.
5
THE WITNESS: I do not know.
6
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) As you sit here today
7
h a v i n g w o r k e d in brakes for W a g n e r for 40 years do
8
you k now w h e t h e r asbestos is i n j u r i o u s to the human
9
body?
10
A.
I do not know that.
11
Q.
Who at your c o m pany in the 40 years that
12
you w o r k e d there w o u l d know the answer to that
13
question?
14
A.
I d o n 't k n o w .
15
Q.
Now, people at your company worked with
16
asbes tos, did they not?
17
A .
T h e y w o r k e d w i t h b r a k e lin i n g, yes.
18
Q.
Which contained asbestos.
19
A .
Yes .
20
Q.
What health p recautions did they take at
21
your company in reg a r d to asbestos, if any?
22
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Calls for
23
speculation and it's ambiguous.
24
THE WITNESS: I don't remember any
25
precautions particularly that were taken.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
2 0
1
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Okay. In r e g a r d to
2
asbestos, what form was it in w h e n it a r r i v e d at
3
your company?
4
A.
Any asbestos that we p u rc ha se d was in
5
the form of brake linings.
6
Q.
Who did you purchase the brake linings
7
from?
8
A.
V a r i o u s v e n d o r s w h o p r o v i d e d it.
9
Q.
Can you give me some names?
10
A.
Yes.I can think of A m e r ic an Brake
11
Block, I can think of Bendix, Carlisle, Nuturn,
12
Certified perhaps, Krasny. That's all I can think
13
of at the moment. There may be others.
14
Q.
Now, did you ever modify the brake
15
linings in any way after you received them from
16
these suppliers?
17
A.
By modify, what do you mean by modify?
18
Q.
Well, we can either look in the
19
d i c t i o n a r y or I'll try to come up w i t h --
2 0
A.
No.
I w o u l d -- yeah. I w o u l d just --
21
Q.
-- a d e f i n i t i o n for m o d i f y .
22
A.
I w o u l d -- no. I wa s just t r y i n g --
23
Q.
Change them in any way.
24
A.
We a t t ached the brake linings to metal
2 5
shoes.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
21
1
Q.
All right.
2
A.
And subsequently in many cases we
3
surfaced the lining.
4
Q.
All right. How did you attach the brake
5
linings to the shoes?
6
A.
Generally one of two basic methods. We
7
e i t h e r g l u e d th e m on, so to speak, a d h e s i v e
8
technique or riveted and a similar technique nuts
9
and bolts in certain cases.
10
Q.
Okay. Did you have to drill a hole in
11
the brake linings first when you riveted them?
12
A.
In some cases Wagner did. In some cases
13
the supplier did.
14
Q.
All right. When Wagner did, what
15
precautions, if any, were used to m a k e sure that
16
asbestos was not released into the environment when
17
the drilling process occurred?
18
A.
I don't recall any precautions being
19
taken for that.
2 0
Q.
Were you aware that asbestos might be
21
harmful to the human body at that point in time?
22
A.
I certainly wasn't.
23
Q.
When, if ever, did yo u first b e c o m e
24
aware that asbestos might be harmful to the human
25
body?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
22
1
A.
Some time in the middle seventies.
2
Q.
After that point in time were there ever
3
m o d i f i c a t i o n s made to any of the b r ake linings at
4
Wagner?
5
A.
Similar as I already discussed.
6
Q.
Once you became aware in the mid
7
seventies that asbestos may be harmful to the human
8
body, did you take any p recautions at that point in
9
time to make sure that asbestos was not released
10
into the environment when the drilling was going
11
on?
12
A.
At that point in time I don't believe we
13
were doing any drilling.
14
Q.
Okay. That's the reason I asked a
15
m i n u t e ago as to w h e t h e r you w ere still d o ing it in
16
the same manner. You think it had stopped by that
17
point in time?
18
A.
No, no. I -- I t h i n k we, W a g n e r , I do
19
not believe Wagner was doing any drilling at that
2 0
point in t i m e .
21
Q.
I see what you're saying. You think
22
that the suppliers may have been doing that.
23
A.
Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
24
Q.
Okay. What about the other modification
25
that you told me about? Some type of was it
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
23
1
shaving or sanding or something?
2
A.
Grinding the surface.
3
Q.
All right. A n d w h a t w as -- so that I
4
understand, what was the purpose of grinding the
5
surface?
6
A.
The p u r p o s e of g r i n d i n g the surface was
7
to get a dimensional control on the arc that was
8
produced on the brake shoes.
9
Q.
All right. They would not always come
10
to you that exactly met your specifications, and
11
you w an t e d them to meet some type of specifications
12
b e fore sale to the a u t o m o b i l e m a n u f a c t u r e r s and
13
others.
14
MR. PUTNAM: Objection.
15
Argumentative.
15
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Is that right?
17
MR. PUTNAM: Same objection. I
18
think he's a n s w e r e d that they w e r e t r y i n g to get it
19 to f i t .
20
THE WITNESS: We were trying to make
21
a --
22
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) T h a t ' s a b e t t e r --
23
A.
-- c o n t r o l l e d radius.
24
Q.
T h a t ' s a b e t t e r -- t h a t ' s a b e t t e r
25
q u e s t i o n . You were trying to get it to fit?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
24
1
A.
Trying to get a c o n t r o l l e d radius.
2
Q.
And why was it n e c e s s a r y to get a
3
controlled radius?
4
A.
To have proper p er fo rm an ce of the brakes
5
themselves.
6
Q.
D i d y o u m a k e t h e m to -- w h e n y o u w e r e
7
making these brakes, did the manufacturers have any
8
s p e c i f i c a t i o n s that you had to meet?
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
An d is that why you were doing this
11
sanding or shaving or w h a t e v e r it is?
12
A.
Yes.
13
MS. ANDERSON: Objection.
14
Overbroad.
15
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Tell me how that pro c e s s
16
works so that I'll understand. H o w did this
17
p r o c e s s of m a k i n g it fit work? W hat did you
18
p hy s i c a l l y do to those brake linings?
19
A.
After thebrake linings
w e r e a t t a c h e d to
2 0
the metal shoe, that assembly of shoe and lining
21
was placed in a fixture and passed across a
22
grinding wheel in a manner that produced a radius.
23
Q.
All right. Was there any human
24
i n t e r v e n t i o n in this p r o c e s s ? Wa s -- y o u know,
25
sometimes mechanically things are placed on
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
25
1
grinding wheels and other times human beings place
2
them on g r i n d i n g wheels as o p p o s e d to some type of
3
m a c h i n e d o ing it. H o w did it w o r k for you guys?
4
A.
Typically they were loaded on to a
5
fixture by a man.
6
Q.
All right. And then what would happen
7
next ?
8
A.
They would be ground, and then they
9
would be unloaded.
10
Q.
All right. What precautions were used
11
in the grinding process to make sure that asbestos
12
was not released into the atmosphere?
13
A.
T h e r e -- I can thi n k of n o n e that was
14
done to make sure that as b e s t o s was not r e l e a s e d
15
into the atmosphere.
16
Q.
How long did this grinding procedure go
17
on? For instance, was it going on still w he n you
18
retired?
19
A.
Yes.
2 0
Q.
Do you know whether it's still going on
2 1
today?
22
A.
I don't know that for a fact, no, sir.
23
Q.
All right. W h o -- w h o s h o u l d I ask that
24
question? Who would know that today?
25
A.
Perhaps some current employees.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
26
1
Q.
Well, who took your place?
2
A.
Actually no one took my place.
3
Q.
Who took over your job responsibilities?
4
A.
Actually no one took over my job
5
responsibilities.
6
Q.
Nobody does that job any more?
7
A.
That is e s s e n t i a l l y correct.
8
Q.
Well, w h o -- w h o -- w h o the r e wa s d o i n g
9
a job similar to what you were doing?
10
A.
The -- a m a n c a l l e d A l e x A a r o n was d o i n g
11
a job s i m i l a r .
12
Q.
Has Mr. Aaron now retired?
13
A.
Yes, he is.
14
Q.
All right. Where does he live?
15
A .
He lives in the St. Louis area.
16
Q
All right. And I didn't ask you where
17
you live, Mr. Bueler. Where do you live?
18
A.
I live in the St. Louis area also.
19
Q.
All right. Do y o u -- do y o u k n o w Mr.
20
Aaron personally?
21
A .
Yes, I d o .
22
Q-
Do you socialize with Mr. Aaron?
23
A .
Not in the sense of running around with
24
him, n o .
25
Q.
Wh o -- w ho took o v e r Mr. A a r o n ' s job?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
27
1
A.
I don't know the answer to that
2
question.
3
Q.
I need to ask Mr. Aaron?
4
A . Yes.
5
Q.
All right. Now, who was your supervisor
6
when you left?
7
A.
When I left, a man named Bill A y m o n d .
8
A - y - m - o - n - d I b e l i e v e is h o w y o u s p e l l e d his name.
9
Q.
Is he still your s u p e r v i s o r or still
10
s u p e rvisor out there to the best of y our knowledge?
11
A.
To the best of my knowledge he's still
12
an employee. Beyond that I have no knowledge.
13
Q.
All right. Were the people that were
14
doing the grinding exposed to any dust as a result
15
of the g r i n d i n g of these b r ake linings?
16
MR. PUTNAM: Object to the question.
17
Assumes facts not in evidence. I think he
18
testified that the parts were put on the machine,
19
they were ground, and then removed off of the
2 0
machine. So, the m a c h i n e was d o i n g the grinding.
2 1
MR. COOK: So, w h a t is y o u r form
22
obj ection?
2 3
MR. PUTNAM: I've a l r e a d y s t a t e d it.
24
It a s s u m e s facts not in e v i d e n c e an d als o -- also
2 5
add that it m i s s t a t e s his p r i o r testimony.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
28
1
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Okay. Go ahead and
2
answer.
3
A.
Would you restate the question?
4
Q.
Were the workers that were around the
5
grinding machine ever exposed to any dust in this
6
process that you've described?
7
A.
There probably was some dust exposure.
8
Q.
What pre c a u t i o n s , if any, w e r e the
9
workers supposed to use that were around this dust?
10
A.
The machines, the grinding machines,
11
were typically equipped with vacuum equipment. A
12
hood on the wheel that sucked the dust, the
13
grindings into a vacuum system for later disposal.
14
That was a general technique used to remove
15
anything like that from a process of that nature.
16
Q.
But still w h a t e v e r is a r o u n d a g r i n d i n g
17
area it doesn't get all the dust. Is that correct?
18
MR. PUTNAM: Objection.
19
Argumentative. Assumes facts not in evidence.
2 0
THE WITNESS: I don't know whether
21
it got all of the dust or not.
22
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Well, a m i n u t e ago you
23
said that they probably were exposed to some dust.
24
How would that occur?
25
A.
I was at that point thinking that
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
2 9
1
perhaps it didn't get all of the dust. I don't
2
know w he ther it did or not.
3
Q.
D i d the -- w e r e the m e n r e q u i r e d to w e a r
4
any type of respiratory protection?
5
A.
Not in the earlier years.
6
Q.
How about in the later years?
7
A.
I recall them having in some cases some
8
sort of respirator on their face when they were
9
doing some work.
10
Q.
Around the grinding machine?
11
A.
Yes, sir. I recall that in some
12
instances.
13
Q.
Were you curious as to why they might be
14
wearing a respirator around the grinding machine?
15
A.
Not at that point in time, no.
16
Q . Why not ?
17
A.
Because that was after the warnings and
18
the EPA and so forth had put out i nf o r m a t i o n that
19
asbestos was potentially a dangerous situation.
2 0
Q.
So, you thought that p r o b a b l y the re a s o n
21
they were wearing those respirators around the
22
g r inding machine was because of asbestos?
23
MR. PUTNAM: Objection.
24
A r g u m e n t a t i v e . M i s c h a r a c t e r i z e s his t e s t i m o n y as
25
we 11 .
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
3 0
1
THE WITNESS: I thought it was an
2
a ttempt to comply w i t h the law or the r e g ulations
3
that were in effect at that time.
4
Q.
(By M r . Cook) All r i g h t . A n d w h e n
5
y o u 're talking about the 1aw and the r e g u l a t i o n s ,
6
y o u 're talking about the law and regulations that
7
apply to asbestos?
8
A .
Relat ive from -- y e s . Yes .
9
Q.
Do you know -- did you know any o f
10
tha t worked on the gr inders ?
11
A.
I don 't know what you mean by know
12
Q.
Know their names.
13
A .
No . No. No.
14
Q.
Over the years when -- were those
15
grinder? there or similar type grinding machines
16
there the entire 40 years that you w o r k e d for this
17
company?
18
A.
To the best of my recollection, yes,
19
sir.
2 0
Q.
Did you ever know the names of any of
21
the individuals that worked around those machines?
22
A.
Not that I can recall.
23
Q.
Did you work around those machines?
24
A.
Not in any continuing way, no, sir.
25
Q.
What would be your connection with those
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
31
1
grinding machines?
2
A.
My connection with the grinding machines
3
would be purely from an engineering viewpoint.
4
Hey, we n e e d c e r t a i n radius. H o w are we g o i n g to
5
get it. I m i g h t go look and see the t e c h n i q u e s
6
that they're using to get the radius.
7
Q.
As an e n g i n e e r d e s i g n i n g s y s t e m s -- is
8
that what you did? Design systems?
9
A.
Basically, yes.
10
Q.
As an e n g i n e e r d e s i g n i n g systems, di d --
11
w ere you c o n c e r n e d w i t h d e s i g n i n g the systems so
12
that they w ould protect the health of the workers
13
that were working in the systems?
14
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Vague and
15
ambiguous as to systems and designing.
16
MS. ANDERSON: I join the objection.
17
THE WITNESS: When I was designing
18
systems or components thereof, I was concerned with
19
making systems and components that would do the
2 0
p roper job in the field of stopping vehicles to the
21
best of my capability.
22
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. W e r e you
23
concerned that the people that were on the
24
manufacturing line using these systems or assembly
2 5
line, h o w e v e r y o u w a n t to c h a r a c t e r i z e it, m i g h t be
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
32
1
exposed to some health risk from the materials
2
involved in the procedure or process?
3
MR. PUTNAM: O bj ection as to vague
4
and ambiguous and as to procedure and process.
5
THE WITNESS: I think like most
6
human beings I was concerned with people. Like I'm
7
concerned with you when you walk out of here that
8
you don't cross the street and get run over or
9
something of that nature, but it was not a
10
perceived problem for the materials that I was
11
i n v o l v e d w i t h at the time that it w o u l d require a
12
great deal of forethought on my part.
13
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. At some point
14
in time it did beco m e a p e r c e i v e d p r o b l e m in the
15
seventies. Is that correct?
16
A.
Relative to asbestos, yes, sir.
17
Q . Right.
18
At that point in time were you
19
i n v o l v e d at all w i t h the g r i n d e r s in any way? In
2 0
d esigning systems that used the grinders, in
21
choosing the grinders or whatever?
22
A.
No. Not at all.
23
Q.
Did the system basicallyremain
24
unchanged for all those years or were there changes
2 5
in the system?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
33
1
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Vague and
2
a m b iguous as to system.
3
THE WITNESS: Are you r e f e r r i n g to
4
the vacuum system involved grinding the shoes? I'm
5
not sure w h a t y o u ' r e r e f e r r i n g to.
6
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Tel l me -- well, let's
7
start with that. The vac uu m system involved in
8
grinding shoes, when was that put into place?
9
A.
It was there when I went there. The
10
general system.
11
Q.
All right. And were you ever involved
12
in m o d i f i c a t i o n of that v ac uu mi ng system?
13
A . No .
14
Q.
Did it stay the same from w h e n you went
15
there until you left in 1993?
16
A . I d o n 't k n o w .
17
Q.
Who would be responsible for that system
18
in the hierarchy there at Wagner?
19
A.
Would have been the plant engineering
2 0
individuals.
21
Q.
Now, an engineer doing the type of work
22
you were doing, you were involved in meeting
23
specifications and designing things so that brakes
24
w o r k e d I think is sort of how you said. Is that
2 5
right ?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
34
1
A.
That is correct.
2
Q.
Who did you rely on to provide you
3
i n f o r m a t i o n that if there was a h a z a r d o u s m a t e r i a l
4
involved in your process that you were designing,
5
w h a t e v e r it might be, who did you rely on to
6
provide you with information so that you w o u ld know
7
if there was some h a z a r d o u s m a t e r i a l that your
8
process that you were designing had to deal with?
9
A.
I can't say I relied on anyone.
10
Q.
Well, did you do any personal
11
i n v es t i g a t i o n to determine w h e th e r the m a t e r i a l s
12
that would be involved in the processes that you
13
were designing machines, whatever, were not
14
hazardous to pe ople's health?
15
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Vague and
16
a m b iguous as to processes.
17
THE WITNESS: We manufactured parts.
18
Basically metallic parts. The metals that we used
19
wer e g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e d to be n o n h a z a r d o u s as a
2 0
material in the sense that I believe you're
21
talking. So, there was no p a r t i c u l a r r e a s o n to be
22
of concern of that.
23
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) My question, Mr. Bueler,
24
is ho w did you know those m e tals were b e l i e v e d to
25
be nonhazardous?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
35
1
A.
The m e t a l s I'm s p e a k i n g of, a l u m i n u m and
2
steel basically, are materials commonly used in the
3
environment for years and years and years; and
4
there was never any indication that I p e rc ei ve d or
5
received from anyone that they themselves were a
6
problem.
7
Q.
Was there somebody at your company that
8
would know about materials? Somebody whose
9
expertise was industrial hygiene, for example, or
10
toxicology?
11
A .
No .
12
Q
Is there now?
13
A .
Not to my knowledge.
14
Q.
Can you give me some idea of the volume
15
of b r a k e s and b r a k e l i n i n g s that -- s t r i k e that.
16
Can you give me some idea of the
17
volu m e of your sales? And b r e a k them d own h o w e v e r
18
you want them.
19
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Vague and
2 0
ambiguous as to sales. We're talking about sales
21
of what?
22
MR. COOK: Well, I asked h im to
23
b r e a k it down h o w e v e r he w a nts it. I'm not sure
24
exactly how they sell.
25
MR. PUTNAM: Same o b j e c t i o n . I 'm
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
36
1
not sure of what you're asking.
2
MR. COOK: Okay.
3
MR. PUTNAM: You w e r e a s k i n g h i m to
4
break down sales of what?
5
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Did you sell b r a k e s to
6
original equipment manufacturers?
7
A.
We sold brakes to original equipment
8
manufacturers.
9
Q . How many?
10
A.
I do not know the answer to that
11
question.
12
Q .
Is - -
13
A.
Seriously.
14
Q.
Is it h u n d r e d s oft h o u s a n d s ?
15
A.
Over what period of time?
16
Q.
This 40 year p e r i o d of time.
17
A.
I would think certainly several thousand
18
a year. So, m u l t i p l y that by 40 and y o u can come
19
up with a number; but I have no idea as to the
2 0
numerical quantity.
21
Q.
To the best of your k n o w l e d g e is W a g n e r
22
still selling asbestos -containing products today?
23
A.
As far as I know, but I have not spoken
24
w i t h anyone in that end of the b usiness in recent
25
months.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
37
1
Q.
Who is the CEO of Wagner?
2
A.
I d o n 't b e l i e v e there is a CEO of
3
Wagner.
4
Q.
W h o 's the boss?
5
A .
I d o n 't know the ans w e r to that
6
question.
7
Q.
Can you tell me the name of any one
8
boss? Anybody in upper management.
9
A.
At Wagner, no, I cannot.
10
Q.
How about Cooper?
11
A.
I b e l i e v e the head of C o o p e r is a man
12
named Mr. Riley I believe.
13
Q.
Now, how does this work? Cooper
14
I n d u s t r i e s b o u g h t W a g n e r ? Is that right?
15
A.
I would be on very thin ice to answer
16
that question because I think there's some very
17
ticky little legalities of who bought what and that
18
sort of thing. So, I --
19
MR. PUTNAM: A n s w e r the q u e s t i o n if
2 0
you know. If you don't know, say you don't know.
21
THE WITNESS: I don't know that.
22
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Mr. Bueler, who was head
23
of engine er in g in 1953 when you got there?
24
A.
A m a n -- a m a n n a m e d W a l t Free m a n .
25
Q.
All right. How long did he remain head
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
3 8
1
of engineering?
2
A.
He was in charge of brake engineering
3
until about 1956 or '57 is my r e c o llection.
4
Q.
Who took his place?
5
A.
A man named Mr. Wallace.
6
Q.
Okay. And how long was he head of brake
7
engineering?
8
A.
U n t i l a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1967, 8, 9.
9
Somewhere in that area of time.
10
Q.
So, for a l m o s t a d e c a d e ?
11
A . Yes.
12
Q.
Okay. Who took over after him?
13
A.
A man named Jack Kourik.
14
Q.
Can you spell that one for me?
15
A.
K-o-u-r-i-k.
16
Q.
And how long was he head of brake
17
engineering?
18
A.
Prom the time of Mr. W a l l a c e ' s end of
19
tenure until about 1988 is my r e c o llection.
2 0
Q.
Okay. And then who took over from him?
21
A.
Then I got that particular position.
22
Q.
Okay. Can you give me sort of a v i e w of
23
was brake engineering, did it fall into any
24
particular department at Wagner? Who did you
25
report to?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
39
1
A.
When?
2
Q.
At -- at the end.
I'm t a l k i n g a b o u t --
3
A . Oh.
4
Q.
-- w h e n y o u w e r e h e a d of b r a k e
5
engineering.
6
A.
At the end I reported to this man I
7
mentioned, Bill Aymond.
8
Q.
All right. And what was his title?
9
A.
I believe he was a Vice P r e s i d e n t of
10
operations. I'm not sure of that exact title.
11
Q.
Were there any other engineering groups
12
that also r e p ort e d to him?
13
A.
Not to my knowledge.
14
Q.
Was brake engineering the only
15
engineering that was going on at Wagner or was
16
the r e -- w e r e there o t h e r a r e a s w h e r e t h e r e was
17
engineering going on?
18
A.
There were other areas.
19
Q.
What were those other areas?
2 0
MR. PUTNAM: Ar e we t a l k i n g a b o u t --
21
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) At the time y o u -- in
22
1993. Until I switch I'll tell you, but just right
23
at the end for rig h t n o w w h e n y o u -- w h e n yo u
24
retired.
25
MR. PUTNAM: Okay.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
40
1
THE WITNESS: Talking about Brake.
2
Wagner Brake.
3
MR. COOK: Right.
4
THE WITNESS: There was no other
5
e n g i n e e r i n g . I r e t r a c t m y --
6
MR. COOK: Okay.
7
THE W I T N E S S : -- m y e a r l i e r answer.
8
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Now, was W a g n e r Brake part
9
of a larger Wagner?
10
A.
Organizationally I cannot answer that
11
que sti o n .
12
Q.
Whether you're accurate or not, was
13
there another Wagner entity name that you're aware
14
of ?
15
A . Yes.
16
Q.
What was that name?
17
A.
Wagner Lighting.
18
Q.
Okay. But I take it that Wagner
19
Lighting had nothing to do with the brake
20
manufacture or assembly.
2 1
A.
I can agree with that characterization.
22
Q.
All right. Now, was there a marketing
23
group at Wagner?
24
A.
Yes, there was.
25
Q.
Was there a Vice President of marketing?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
41
1
Still talking about the 1993 time period.
2
A.
Did you ask me was there a Vice
3
President?
4
Q.
Yes .
5
A .
Not that I recall, but I'm not certain.
6
Q.
Who were you selling brakes to in the
7
p eriod of time when you were head of brake
8
engineering?
9
A.
Nobody.
10
Q.
Okay. So, fr o m 1988 -- am I r i g h t on
11
the time when you became
12
A .
Yes.
13
Q.
-- head --
14
A .
Yes.
15
Q.
- - unt i 1 19 9 3
16
A .
Yes.
17
Q.
-- yo u did not sell b r a k e s to an y of the
18
original equipment manufacturers.
19
A .
That is correct.
2 0
Q.
Okay .
21
A .
I think that is an a b s o l u t e l y a c c u r a t e
22
statement.
23
Q.
All right. W e r e y o u -- w e r e y o u still
24
man ufa cturing these brake linings at that point in
2 5
time and replacement parts?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
42
1
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Assumes
2
facts not in evidence. He's never testified he
3
manufactured brake linings.
4
THE WITNESS: We never did
5
m a n u f a ct ur e brake linings was going to be my
6
answer.
7
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. You
8
m a n u f a c t u r e d brake linings attached to brake shoes.
9
MR. PUTNAM: Objection.
10
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
11
MR. PUTNAM: Same objection.
12
THE WITNESS: We did not manufacture
13
brake linings.
14
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Tell me -- tell me w h a t
15
distinction you're drawing.
16
A.
We purchased brake linings that we
17
attached to brake shoes.
18
Q.
Okay. What did you call the finished
19
attached product?
2 0
A.
A shoe and lining assembly.
21
Q.
Is it true then that you m a n u f a c t u r e d a
22
shoe and lining assembly?
23
A.
In the p e r i o d from '88 to '93?
24
Q .
Yes.
2 5
A.
The answer is yes.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
43
1
Q.
All right. And did you also manufacture
2
a shoe and l i n i n g a s s e m b l y in the p e r i o d 1953 to
3
1993 ?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
Who did you sell the shoe and lining
6
a ssembly to during the period 1988 to 1993?
7
A.
Shoe and lining assemblies were
8
t y p i c a l l y sold to w a r e h o u s e distributors.
9
Q.
Any that you can remember in this time
10
pe ri od 1988 to 1993?
11
A.
I do not know the names of the warehouse
12
d i s t r i b u t o r s if that's the question.
13
Q.
Do you know the name of any of them?
14
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Asked and
15
answered. He said he doesn't know.
16
THE WITNESS: I can't recall any
17
names, no. I'm sorry.
18
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) How w o u l d I go about
19
finding out the names of those w ar eh ou se
20
distributors?
21
A.
I don't know how you'd go about doing
22
that .
23
Q.
H a v e no clue as to h o w I m i g h t -- w h o I
24
m i g h t talk to abo u t w ho y o u w e r e s e l l i n g -- wh o
25
these warehouse distributors were.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
44
1
A.
I'll speculate what I w o u l d do if I were
2
you .
3
Q .
That's gr e a t .
4
MR. PUTNAM: No.
5
THE WITNESS: No. Okay.
6
MR. PUTNAM: Y o u ' r e not g o i n g to
7
speculate or guess.
8
THE WITNESS: Okay.
9
MR. PUTNAM: If you don't know, you
10
don't know.
11
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) What w o u l d yo u do if you
12
were me --
13
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Vague.
14
Ambiguous.
15
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) -- to find out that
16
information?
17
MR. PUTNAM: Same objection.
18
THE WITNESS: Does the objection
19
mean I'm not to answer or what does it mean?
20
MR. PUTNAM: No. Rich, if you know
21
the a n s w e r to his s p e c i f i c question, a n s w e r it. If
22
y o u d o n ' t k n o w --
23
THE WITNESS: And your question was?
24
Q.
(By Mr . Cook) What w o u l d you do i f you
25
me to try to find out the names of who you
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
45
1
were selling these shoe and lining assemblies to in
2
the 1988, 1993 time period?
3
MR. PUTNAM: Objection.
4
Argumentative. It's not a question based upon his
5
personal knowledge. He does not have to speculate
6
about what he w o u l d do if he was you.
7
THE WITNESS: I will not speculate.
8
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Okay. Did you k now at one
9
time who y ou w e r e s e l l i n g to w h e n y ou w e r e head of
10
engineering for brake linings?
11
A.
I never knew --
12
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. That
13
misstates his prior testimony. He's never
14
testified that he was in charge of brake linings.
15
The regular brake linings.
16
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Let me be m o r e accurate.
17
Your lawyer's correct. Did you know when you were
18
in charge of engineering, brake engineering, in the
19
time period of 1988 to 1993 who you were selling
2 0
to?
21
A.
I had p robably heard the names of some
22
companies.
23
Q.
And you've forgotten them since that
24
time .
25
A.
Yes, that's correct.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
46
1
Q.
What warnings or information did you
2
provide with your shoe and lining assemblies for
3
the end user?
4
A.
There were papers put in the boxes after
5
this became a known or alleged problem that
6
indicated precautions that should be taken in the
7
field when utilizing the units.
8
Q.
When did that occur?
9
A.
Some time in the middle of the seventies
10
a f t e r the -- O S H A i n d i c a t e d there wa s an a l l e g e d
11
p r o b l e m with the asbestos relative to mechanics.
12
Q.
As you sit here today do you believe
13
that there is a p r o b l e m that a s b e s t o s pos e s for
14
mechanic s?
15
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Calls for
16
speculation.
17
MS. ANDERSON: Calls for a medical
18
opinion.
19
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Vague and
2 0
ambiguous, too.
21
THE W I T N E S S : I -- I d o n ' t k n o w w h a t
22
I believe on that subject.
23
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. W h a t -- ha v e
24
you ever attempted to find out any information
25
about that subject?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
47
1
A.
In the sense of actively looking for
2
information beyond what was normally published by
3
the OSHA and the EPA? No, sir.
4
Q.
I take it by what you said, and correct
5
me if I'm wrong, that yo u then kept up w i t h what
6
was published by OSHA and the EPA.
7
A.
A t t e m p t e d to keep up w i t h that, yes.
8
Q.
How did you do that, sir?
9
A.
We -- the -- we r e c e i v e d d o c u m e n t s from
10
p e o p l e who w o u l d be i n v o l v e d in that sort of thing.
11
Like I remember the FMSI would send out documents
12
occasionally which would indicate what was going
13
on.
14
Q.
W h o -- tell me abo u t wh o the FMS --
15
A.
Friction Material Standards Institute.
16
I think that's what that stands for.
17
Q.
All right. And did you read the
18
information that was sent by the Friction Materials
19
Institute?
2 0
A.
In the -- in the sen s e of y o u b e i n g
21
Wagner, yes.
22
Q.
Okay. Well, in the sense of you being
23
you, you Mr. Bueler, did you read those materials?
24
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Let me get
2 5
my objection. Objection. Vague and a m b i guous as
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
48
1
to those materials. Are you t alking about a
2
specific document or are you just talking in
3
general terms?
4
He's a s k i n g you, Rich, if you read
5
every single piece of paper from F riction Material
6
Standards Institute.
7
THE WITNESS: I'm confident I did
8
not read every piece of paper from FMSI.
9
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Well, how did you decide
10
w h i c h p i e c e s of p a p e r y o u ' d r e a d f r o m -- f r o m the
11
Friction Materials whatever the institute is? How
12
did you decide? In other words, what I want to
13
k n o w is h o w w e r e -- was it s o m e h o w sent to yo u
14
d i r e c t l y by them? Was it -- d id the c o m p a n y pass
15
it around? Ho w did that work?
16
A.
It would be sent to someone in the
17
company and then passed around.
18
Q.
All right. Who w ould that be sent to?
19
A.
Typically the recipient of that
2 0
information in the time period that I think we're
21
talking about would have been Mr. Kourik.
22
Q.
All right. And what time period are we
23
talking about?
24
MR. PUTNAM: I thought we were still
25
talking when he was director of brake engineering.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
49
1
MR. COOK: I t h o ught so, too.
2
THE WITNESS: Oh. Oh. Okay.
3
MR. COOK: That's what I want to
4
figure out.
5
THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, obviously
6
Mr. Kourik wasn't there; and I was confused about
7
the time that was -- w e ' r e t a l k i n g about. S i t t i n g
8
here right now I can't remember any particular
9
items that we got from '88 to '93 from FMSI on that
10
subj ec t .
11
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. Go b a c k to
12
w h e n Mr. K o u r i k is there b e c a u s e you seem to
13
r e m e m b e r some m a t e r i a l s that came at that time. Is
14
that correct?
15
A.
In general, yes.
16
Q.
All right. A n d they w o u l d have come to
17
Mr. Kourik? Can you give us some idea what time
18
frame he was there for ten years or more I think
19
you said?
2 0
A.
Yes. Tho s e d o c u m e n t s w o u l d h a v e come to
21
him some time in the period where this was an
22
active new subject in the middle seventies.
23
Q.
Were you interested in this active new
24
subj ect?
25
A.
You speaking of me?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
50
1
Q.
You personally, sir.
2
A.
I was certainly interested, yes.
3
Q.
Okay. What was your job title at that
4
time ?
5
A.
Manager systems engineering I think.
6
Q.
And why were you interested in this new
7
subject as mana ger of systems engineering?
8
A.
Because as part of the super vi so ry group
9
there tried to keep up on what was g o i n g on.
10
Q.
An d what, if anything, did you learn
11
about asbestos during this middle seventies time
12
period?
13
A.
What I learned it was alleged that
14
asbestos causes certain kinds of illnesses.
15
Q.
Were there any m e e t i n g s about that at
16
Wagner? About the subject of asbestos?
17
MR. PUTNAM: What time period are we
18
referring to?
19
MR. COOK: In this mid seventies.
2 0
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) From now on until I switch
21
again we're talking about this mid seventies time
22
p eriod that you've described as when this
23
information was coming out.
24
A.
Okay. Yes. I would say there were some
25
meeting or meetings, yes.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
51
1
Q.
All right. Can you tell me was there
2
one meet in g or were there a number of meetings?
3
A.
T h e r e was -- there was one. W h e t h e r
4
there were more, I cannot say.
5
Q.
Tell me -- bu t yo u r e m e m b e r one.
6
A .
I remember one, yes.
7
Q.
All right. And can you give me some
8
type of time frame about that mee t i n g ?
9
A.
The time frame was again in the middle
10
seventies when we got the information about this
11
being a potential hazard.
12
Q.
All right. And who called the meeting,
13
if y o u reca l l ?
14
A.
I don't know precisely who called the
15
meeting.
16
Q.
Wh o -- did yo u a t t e n d the m e e t i n g ?
17
A.
Best of my r ec ol lection I attended a
18
meeting, y e s .
19
Q.
All right. Was Mr. Kourik there?
2 0
A .
Yes. He would have been there.
21
Q.
Who else was there that you can recall?
22
A .
Another Wagner employee, Mr. Tuegel,
23
would have been there.
24
Q.
How do you spell that name?
25
A .
T-u-e-g-e-1.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
52
1
Q.
And where was that meeting held?
2
A.
Somewhere in the engineering office. I
3
cannot precisely state where that was.
4
Q.
The engineering office at Wagner?
5
A.
At Wagner Brake, yes.
6
Q.
In what city?
7
A.
Oh. In St. Louis.
8
Q.
Okay. And some time in the mid
9
seventies.
10
A . Yes, sir.
11
Q.
Were there more than three or four
12
people there or were there a large number of people
13
there?
14
A.
I don't recall being a largemeeting.
15
Q.
Less than ten?
16
A.
Oh, c e r t a i n l y less than ten.
17
Q.
All right. And do you remember what was
18
discussed at that meeting?
19
A.
My r e c o l l e c t i o n we d i s c u s s e d the n e e d to
20
get warnings in boxes and that sort of thing.
21
Q.
All right. What was Mr. Tuegel's job
22
description?
23
A.
He was an engineering manager involved
24
w i t h b r a k e -- b r a k e d e s i g n an d so forth.
25
Q.
Okay. And tell me what was discussed
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
53
1
that -- a n y t h i n g that y o u can r e m e m b e r a b o u t w h a t
2
was discu ss ed in regard to the warnings.
3
A.
Nothing other than the fact my
4
r e c o l l e c t i o n is that there is an a l l e g e d problem.
5
We should take appropriate action to min im iz e any
6
problems that might come from that.
7
Q.
All right. What resources did you draw
8
on in order to make effective warnings?
9
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Vague and
10
ambiguous as to resources and effective warnings.
11
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Do you k n o w w h a t the w o r d
12
effective means?
13
A.
Yes. I know what the word effective
14
means I believe.
15
Q.
Do you know what the word resources
16
means ?
17
A.
In a general sense, yes.
18
Q.
What resources did you d raw on to make
19
effective warnings?
2 0
MR. PUTNAM: Same objection.
21
THE WITNESS: We utilized the
22
information that we got from the OSHA and so forth
23
that was indicated. The kinds of steps that should
24
be taken.
25
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) O SHA gave you some
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
54
1
guidelines about how to go about warning?
2
A.
My r e c o l l e c t i o n is OSHA i n d i c a t e d the
3
n e e d for it, and s o m e h o w that f i l t e r e d t h r o u g h
4
F M S I , and these people all came up w i t h an idea of
5
wording that would be appropriate. Whether this
6
was OSHA's wording or not, I cannot say now.
7
Q.
When you say got filtered through FMSI,
8
can you explain what you mean by that?
9
A.
Filtered was probably the wrong word.
10
It was p r o b a b l y a -- FMSI was a c o l l e c t i o n p o i n t
11
for that kind of stuff. That they had p e o p l e who
12
w e r e a c t i v e t r y i n g to find out w h a t was g o i n g on,
13
and then they would furnish that to others.
14
Q.
Is it fair to say that you, b e i n g you
15
and these other engineers at Wagner, did not come
16
up with the warnings? You adopted something that
17
someone else had done?
18
A.
My best r e c o l l e c t i o n is we a d o p t e d
19
wording that was furnished by OSHA and/or the FMSI.
2 0
Q.
And you don't know w h e t h e r it was OSHA
21
or the F M S I .
22
A.
Not as I sit here I do not know that.
23
Q.
All right. D i d -- di d e v e r y b o d y agr e e
24
at this m e e t i n g right off the bat that some type of
25
warning should be put in these boxes or was there a
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
55
1
discussion about that?
2
A.
My r e c o l l e c t i o n is there w a s n ' t any
3
d i s c u s s i o n abo u t that. So --
4
Q.
Everybody thought it ought to be done?
5
A.
It appeared to be a requirement.
6
Q.
Oh, okay.
7
A.
So, no n e e d --yo u d o n ' t d i s c u s s
8
requirements.
9
Q.
You thought it was a g o v e r n m e n t
10
requirement.
11
A.
Yes. That's my recollection.
12
Q.
Was there any discussion about whether
13
these warnings that you received from whatever
14
entity it was, whether they were effective
15
warnings ?
16
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Vague and
17
ambiguous as to effective warnings.
18
THE WITNESS: There was no
19
discussion about whether they were or were not
20
effective. It was a matter, hey, we need to take
21
steps to get these warnings in the boxes.
22
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. Was there any
2 3
d is cussion at that point in time as to whether or
24
not any of the workers in the man ufa cturing line,
2 5
the grinding area, for instance, might be exposed
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
56
1
to some hazardous material?
2
A.
Not to my r e c o llection.
3
Q.
Do you know when Ford Motor Company quit
4
using asbestos in their brakes?
5
A.
I don't know that they did.
6
Q.
Do you know whether any brake
7
manufacturers have stopped using asbestos in their
8
brakes ?
9
A.
I'm not certain.
10
Q.
Did you ever hear anything to that
11
effect?
12
A.
I heard that manufacturers were
13
a tt empting to get substitute materials.
14
Q.
When did you hear that?
15
A.
Again this was in the mid seventies when
15
it became apparent that because of r e g ulations that
17
w o u l d be a wise thing to do.
18
Q.
In the mid seventies you thought, you
19
being you, Mr. Bueler, that it w ould be a wise
20
thing to do to get su b s t i t u t e for a s b estos?
21
MR. PUTNAM: Objection.
22
Argumentative. It m i s ch ar ac te ri ze s his testimony.
23
THE WITNESS: In the mid seventies I
24
thought it might be wise to do. It e l i m i n a t e s a
2 5
potential legal hassle about warnings and that sort
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
57
1
of thing.
2
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) In the m i d se v e n t i e s did
3
you express your opinion that it might be a wise
4
thing to do to anyone?
5
A.
I don't recall.
6
Q.
Did you look into any substitute
7
materials for asbestos?
8
A.
We tested some substitute materials that
9
were furnished by vendors.
10
Q.
All right. When was that testing done?
11
A.
Again in the middle to late seventies.
12
Q.
Who is res p o n s i b l e for m a k i n g the
13
decision as to w hether any of these substitute
14
materials might actually replace the asbestos?
15
H o w -- h o w was that h a n d l e d ?
16
A.
B r a k e l i n i n g s w e r e q u a l i f i e d to -- by
17
test to d e t ermin e w h e t h e r they w o u l d p e r f o r m the
18
n e c e s s a r y task on a v e h i c l e and if they met those
19
tasks, they could be qualified and say whether they
2 0
were made out of asbestos or not.
21
Q.
All right. Were there any substitute
22
materials that would pass the test?
23
A.
At the time I was the r e --
24
MR. PUTNAM: Well, let's restrict
25
the time period.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
58
1
THE W I T N E S S : F r o m --
2
MR. PUTNAM: No. Wait, Rich.
3
THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm sorry.
4
MR. PUTNAM: What time period are we
5
talking about, Rich? I mean Russ.
6
MR. COOK: Mid seventies.
7
THE WITNESS: Mid seventies I recall
8
no lining that we tested that we thought was
9
acceptable.
10
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) 1980s.
11
A.
Same general answer. I cannot recall
12
any specific thing that we decided was acceptable
13
from a performance viewpoint.
14
Q.
At any point in time was there an
15
acceptable from a performance standpoint substitute
16
f ound?
17
MR. PUTNAM: Are we talking about
18
brake linings?
19
MR. COOK: Yes.
2 O
THE WITNESS: Not to my r ec ol lec ti on
21
for drum brake linings.
22
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) For any of the c o m p o n e n t
23
parts that you were using asbestos or that asbestos
24
was in.
25
A.
Historically disc brake pads did not
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
59
1
always contain asbestos.
2
Q.
Did you assemble disc brake pads?
3
A .
Yes, sir. Shoe and pad assemblies.
4
Q.
And were shoe and pad assemblies another
5
product manufactured by Wagner?
6
A.
Yes, sir.
7
Q.
Who did you sell in the time period that
8
y o u w o r k e d there -- and if it c h a n g e d tell me.
9
A.
Urn-hum.
10
Q.
Who did you sell shoe and pad assemblies
11
to, y o u b e i n g W a g n e r ?
12
A.
To warehouse distributors.
13
Q.
The same warehouse distributors that
14
we've talked about before?
15
A.
G e n e ra l l y as a class, yes. And I think
16
I s h o u l d hav e said it p l a t e and p a d -- and p a d
17
ass emblies
18
Q.
Plate and pad.
19
A.
Plate, yeah. I --
2 0
Q.
All right. So, in y o u r e a r l i e r a n s w e r s
21
I ne e d to substitute plate for shoe rather than
22
going back through them.
23
A .
Yes, sir. When we're talking about
24
d i s c , it's plates, yes, sir.
25
Q.
All right. Now, did you find a
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
61
1
a s b e s t o s . M o s t -- there m a y h a v e b e e n some that
2
had some asbestos in them, but for the most part my
3
r e c o l l e c t i o n is they w e r e a s b e s t o s free.
4
Q.
My que s t i o n is did those pad a s s e mblies
5
ever c o n tain asbestos during this 40 year time
6
period that you worked there?
7
A.
I do not believe Wagner ever made any
8
pad and plate assemblies that contained asbestos,
9
but I'm not certain about that.
10
Q.
All right. I want to go back to the
11
testing of substitutes for asbestos.
12
A.
Um-hum.
13
Q.
Were substitutes for asbestos tested
14
only in regard to the shoe and lining a s s e m b l y
15
produc t?
16
A.
I don't understand your question.
17
Q.
Well, I thi n k that -- I'm g o i n g to try
18
to w r i t e d o w n p r o d u c t s that -- that y o u sold. We
19
know you sold original equipment at some time
2 0
periods, we know that you sold plate and pad
21
assemblies, and I've also written down that you
22
sold shoe and lining assemblies. Is that correct?
23
A.
Those are three correct things, yes,
24
sir .
2 5
Q.
All right. You also said that you were
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
62
1
looking at some substitutes for asbestos at your
2
company at some point in time.
3
A.
Yes. I said that.
4
Q.
All right. Were you searching for
5
substitutes for asbestos that might apply in the
6
shoe and lining assembly product as opposed to the
7
plate and pad assemblies?
8
A.
Generally in the shoe and lining area,
9
yes, sir.
10
Q.
All right. Tell me am I -- I d o n ' t w a n t
11
to be repetitive. Am I correct in u n d e r s t a n d i n g
12
that you first started looking for substitutes for
13
asbestos in that area about the mid seventies?
14
A.
That's best of my recollection, yes,
15
sir .
16
Q.
And you continued on looking at possible
17
substitutes for how many years?
18
A.
Through the seventies, through the rest
19
of the seventies, and into the eighties. 1 guess
2 0
until I left we were looking for that sort of
21
thing.
22
Q.
All right. A n d y o u a l s o s a i d that --
23
well, let me strike that.
24
How did you go about looking for
25
these asbestos substitutes?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
63
1
A.
Our vendors would offer potential
2
s u b s t i t u t e s to us, our lining vendors, and we w o uld
3
then test the materials that they had some data on
4
that indicated it would be w o r t hw hi le to test.
5
Q.
All right. Did you look to see what
6
your competitors were doing?
7
A.
I don't know what you mean by did we
8
look to see what our competitors were doing.
9
Q.
Well, do you know whether your
10
competitors were selling shoe and lining assemblies
11
that did not contain asbestos?
12
A.
I'm going to demur on that b e c a u s e
13
t h e r e ' s some s p e c i f i c s that I --
14
MR. PUTNAM: If you know, answer.
15
THE W I T N E S S : I --
16
MR. PUTNAM: If you don't know,
17
d o n 't answer
18
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
19
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Do you k n o w w h e t h e r there
2 0
w e r e any p r o d u c t s --
21
THE WITNESS: Can I talk to you a
22
minute?
23
MR. PUTNAM: Sure. Take a break for
24
a minute.
25
MR. COOK: Okay.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
64
1
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 11:11. We're off
2
the record.
3
4
5
(Brief r e c e s s .)
6
7
8
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 11:18. We're on
9
the record.
10
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Mr. Bueler, did you have a
11
chance to confer with your attorney?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Do you have an answer to my question?
14
A.
Would you restate the question?
15
MR. COOK: I'm goi n g to get the
16
court r e p o r t e r to read it back to you.
17
18
19
(The court reporter read the
2 0
q u e s t i o n .)
2 1
22
23
MR. COOK: Why don't you read the
24
one before that, too, for him.
25
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
65
1
(The court reporter read the
2
ques t i o n .)
3
4
5
THE WITNESS: And I do not know the
6
answer to that.
7
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) You don't kno w what your
8
competitors were doing?
9
A.
Relative to the question you asked.
10
Q.
Did you know what your competitors were
11
doing relative to any other issues?
12
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Overbroad.
13
Calls for a narrative.
14
MS. ANDERSON: Same objection.
15
THE WITNESS: What issues?
16
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) I think the q u e s t i o n can
17
be answered yes or no, and then I'll follow up on
18
it .
19
MR. PUTNAM: I think he asked you
2 0
what other issues. Right?
21
THE W I T N E S S : I --
22
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) My -- my q u e s t i o n -- my
23
q u e s t i o n is w e r e there an y o t h e r i s s u e s -- a nd y ou
24
don't have to list them. I just want a yes or a no
25
answer. Were there any other issues in which you
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
66
1
were aware what your competitors were doing?
2
A . Yes.
3
Q.
What were those?
4
A.
We would typically knowwhether
they
5
were offering a particular part for a particular
6
application.
7
Q.
Anything else?
8
A.
Not that I can think of offhand.
9
Q.
Now, was Wagner Brake a member of FMSI?
10
A.
I don't know the answer to that.
11
Q.
Am I correct, and I want you to tell me
12
if I'm not correct, that the reason that you
13
decided, you being Wagner, decided to put warnings
14
in these boxes in which these shoe and lining
15
assemblies came was because of legal requirements
16
only?
17
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Asked and
18
answered. I think he testified they put them in
19
there because they got some bulletins.
2 0
THE W I T NESS: A n d I think I said to
21
comply with the requirements.
22
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Did the h e a l t h of the
23
potential consumers or users of brakes play any
24
role w h a t so ev er in the decision to place the
2 5
warnings in the boxes?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
67
1
A.
I d o n 't k n o w .
2
Q.
Was it ever discu ss ed at the meeting?
3
A.
Not to my recollection.
4
Q.
Who would know better than you whether
5
or not the health and safety of the users or
6
consumers of the products that you were
7
manufacturing were a reason for placing the
8
warnings in the shoe and lining assembly boxes?
9
MR. PUTNAM: I'm going to object. I
10
think he's already testified that they'd received
11
documents from OSHA and from FMSI detailing
12
p otential hazards to these people. That's why the
13
instructions were included.
14
MR. COOK: Counsel, if you coach the
15
witness, I'll stop the deposition. You're entitled
16
to mak e obj e c t i o n s as to form and I'm h a p p y to let
17
y o u m a k e them, bu t I 'm not --
18
MR. PUTNAM: Okay.
19
MR. COOK: -- g o i n g to let y o u c o a c h
2 0
the w i t n e s s .
21
MR. PUTNAM: M y o b j e c t i o n to f o r m is
22
a s k e d and a n s w e r e d and that ' s w h a t --
23
MR. COOK: That's fine.
24
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Can you r e s p o n d to my
2 5
question?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
68
1
A.
Would you repeat it?
2
MR. COOK: I'm going to ask the
3
court reporter to read it back.
4
5
6
(The court reporter read the
7
q u e s t i o n .)
8
9
10
THE WITNESS: I don't know who would
11
know better.
12
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) As head of b r a k e
13
e ngineering from 1988 to 1993 did you think it was
14
important to provide consumers and users of your
15
product information so that your product could be
16
safely used by those consumers or users?
17
A.
As a general answer, yes.
18
Q.
What did you do personally in your
19
p o s i t i o n as h e a d of b r a k e e n g i n e e r i n g from 1988 to
20
1993 to make sure the consumers or users of your
21
p r o d u c t s w e r e k n o w l e d g e a b l e a b o u t the s a f e t y -- the
22
safe and appropriate use of those products?
23
A.
We attempted to assure that the warnings
24
were put in the boxes.
25
Q.
Anything else?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
69
1
A.
We tested our c o m p onents to make sure
2
that they would function as desired.
3
Q.
Anything else?
4
A.
Not that I can recall.
5
Q.
Did you ever make any effort to
6
determine whether or not the warnings were actually
7
g e t t i n g to the c o n s u m e r s or users?
8
A.
I have no knowledge.
9
Q.
I'm a s k i n g yo u w h a t y o u d i d as -- d u r i n g
10
your p e r i o d of time as head of b r ake e n g i n e e r i n g at
11
Wagner.
12
A.
I made no effort to find out w h e t h e r the
13
w a r n i n g s were getting to the consumers.
14
Q.
During your years as head of brake
15
e n g i n e e r i n g at W a g n e r did y o u m a k e any e f f o r t to
16
d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r or not a s b e s t o s was h a r m f u l to
17
the users or consumers?
18
A.
I made no such efforts.
19
Q.
Did anyone else at the company make such
20
efforts of which you're aware?
21
A.
I don't know.
22
Q.
W h e n w e r e yo u -- y o u ' v e tol d me this
23
b e f o r e and we can look at the dates, but if y o u can
24
remember when these depositions were generally
25
taken. I think you've told me you've given me
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
7 0
1
these two depositions in other asbestos cases.
2
A.
Um-hum.
3
Q.
Do you remember when generally they were
4
taken?
5
A.
One was in '91 and one was in '93 as I
6
remember.
7
Q.
All right. In 1991 you were still
8
working for the company.
9
A.
That is correct.
10
Q
As head of brake engineering.
11
A .
Yes .
12
Q.
And apparently at that point in time
13
your company had been sued by someone who was
14
c l a i m i n g a h e alth p r o b l e m in regard to asbestos
15
from exposure to brakes. Is that y our
16
understanding?
17
A .
That's my understanding.
18
Q.
How long were you deposed on that
19
occasion?
2 0
A.
It wa s one -- it did no t take m o r e than
21
one da y is my r e c o l l e c t i o n .
22
Q.
All right. After that experience did
23
you go back and try to determine w h et he r or not
24
there indeed might be a problem with asbestos from
25
brakes sold by your company?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
71
1
A.
I did not do that.
2
Q.
Why?
3
A.
It was beyond my kin.
4
Q.
All right. Did you seek help from
5
someone that had sufficient knowledge to help with
6
that matter?
7
A.
N o . I did n o t .
8
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. He says he
9
di d n 't do i t .
10
THE WITNESS: I did not.
11
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. Now, in 1993
12
the second time you were called to give a
13
d ep osition in an asbestos case. Is that correct?
14
A.
That is correct.
15
Q.
And how long did that deposition take?
16
A.
That was in the nature of a day as I
17
recall.
18
Q.
Were you still head of brake engineering
19
or had you retired at that point in time?
2 0
A.
I was not head of brake e ngineering at
21
tha t ti m e .
22
Q.
Had you retired?
23
A.
I was not retired. I was on special
24
assignment.
25
Q.
All right. When you gave this
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
72
1
deposition on special assignment in 1993, after the
2
dep os it io n did you make an effort to determine
3
whether or not the asbestos in the products which
4
your company sold might be having ill effects on
5
the health of consumers or users?
6
A.
No, sir.
I did not.
7
Q.
Why not?
8
MR. PUTNAM: He's already answered.
9
MR. COOK: No. He a nswered in
10
r e gard to the 1991. I want to k n o w about the 1993.
11
THE WITNESS: Again it was beyo nd my
12
kin .
13
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. Now, tell me
14
about this special assignment. Did you retire and
15
then come back on special assignment or did you
16
just stop being head of brake engine er in g and get
17
some special assignment?
18
A.
I stopped being head of brake
19
engineering.
2 0
Q.
And what was the date of that in 1993
21
the -- m o n t h or s o m e t h i n g like that.
22
A.
I stopped being head of brake
23
e n g i n e e r i n g in I b e l i e v e F e b r u a r y of '91.
24
Q.
Okay. And then you went on special
2 5
assignment ?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
73
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
W h a t -- w h a t wa s y o u r s p e c i a l
3
assignment?
4
A.
To consult onmatters technical relative
5
to the b r a k e s .
6
Q.
Did that include consulting on
7
asbestos-related matters?
8
A . Y e s , it d i d .
9
Q.
How much time did you spend consulting
10
on a s bestos-related matters?
11
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Vague and
12
ambiguous as to a s b e s t o s -related matters.
13
Go ahead.
14
THE WITNESS: I can't answer that in
15
quantity of time.
16
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Was it m o r e than a mo n t h ?
17
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. He said he
18
c a n 't answer.
19
THE WITNESS: F r o m '91 to '93 I
2 0
responded at different times to questions.
21
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. And w h e n you
22
say r e s p o n d e d to questions, what do you mean?
23
A.
I mean if s o m e b o d y w o u l d ask me about
24
the kind of questions you might be asking, when did
2 5
we do warnings and that sort of thing, I would
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
74
1
answer those questions.
2
Q.
Who asked you those questions?
3
A.
Typically those questions were asked by
4
our legal people.
5
Q.
Did
6
MR. PUTNAM: And I'm going to
7
i n s t r u c t you not to discuss any d i s c u s s i o n s wit h
8
your legal counsel during that time period.
9
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) I don't want you to tell
10
me a n y t h i n g they said, but I do want to kno w who
11
they were. What legal people did you discuss this
12
with? But don't tell me what you discussed.
13
Just
14
A .
With a man named David Medina.
15
Q.
All right. Is Mr. M e d i n a an i n - h o u s e
16
lawyer? Do you know what that means?
17
A.
Yes. He was at the time.
18
Q.
All right. Who else?
19
A.
B a s i ca l l y him. If there w ere anyone
20
else, I don't recall specifically.
21
Q.
After you stopped being head of brake
22
engineering and went on special assignment, did you
23
office near Mr. Medina?
24
A.
No .
25
Q.
Did you meet with Mr. Medina on more
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
75
1
than ten occasions?
2
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. We're not
3
going into attorney-client matters in ongoing
4
1itiga ti o n .
5
MR. COOK: The p r i v i l e g e is for
6
a t t o r n e y -c 1 ient c o m m u n i c a t i o n s . I h a v e a right to
7
ask him how many times he met with his lawyer and
8
who the lawyer was. That's all I'm asking.
9
MR. PUTNAM: And I'm instructing him
10
not to answer.
11
MR. COOK: You're instructing the
12
w i t n e s s not to a n s w e r h o w m a n y --
13
MR. PUTNAM: You're asking him about
14
meetings that he had with legal counsel, Russ.
15
That's what you're asking him about.
16
MR. COOK: A n d w h a t -- a nd w h a t
17
privilege are you asserting?
18
MR. PUTNAM: I'm asserting the
19
a t t o r n e y -c 1 ient privilege. If you intend on going
2 0
into the meetings that he had with legal counsel,
21
he's not answering questions about that.
22
MR. COOK: Ar e y o u -- let me -- let
23
me phrase --
24
MR. PUTNAM: H e ' s a n s w e r e d --
25
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Let me p h r a s e the q u e s t i o n
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
76
1
again. Did you meet more than ten times with Mr.
2
Medina ?
3
A .
No .
4
Q.
All right. At your m eetings with Mr.
5
Medina was there anyone ever present other than you
6
and Mr. Medina?
7
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. I'm not
8
he's not going into these meetings that he had with
9
legal counsel, Russ.
10
MR. COOK: Are you i nstructing him
11
not to answer that?
12
MR. PUTNAM: I'm instructing him not
13
to answer about m e e t i n g s that he had w i t h legal
14
counsel.
15
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Are you not g o i n g to
16
answer my question, Mr. Bueler?
17
A.
I'm going to follow my a t t o r n e y ' s
18
advi ce .
19
Q.
Were there any non-lawyers ever present
20
at any of the meetings with Mr. Medina and you?
2 1
MR. PUTNAM: And I'm going to
22
continue with the same objection to the extent that
23
those people may be entitled to assert the rights
24
of a t t o r n e y -c 1 ient privilege, investigative
25
privilege, and work product privilege.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
77
1
MR. COOK: They may well be.
2
MR. PUTNAM: T h o s e are n ot --
3
MR. COOK: I'm not going to ask him
4
about what they said at the meetings. I'm just
5
asking who they are. I'm entitled to know who they
6
are .
7
MR. PUTNAM: No. You're not
8
entitled to know everybody at the meetings.
9
MR. COOK: I think I am. So, we
1 0
h a v e a -- we hav e a -- we hav e a d i f f e r e n c e in
11
o p i n i o n about that. So, you can i n s t r u c t h i m not
12
to answer it or not.
13
MR. PUTNAM: Well, I instruct him
14
not to answer anything about the mee ti ng s that they
15
had with legal counsel.
16
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Are you r e f u s i n g to answer
17
that question?
18
A.
I'm following the advice of counsel.
19
Q.
Were there any meetings between you and
2 0
Mr. M e d i n a w h e r e it w as a t t e n d e d -- w h e r e tho s e
21
meetings were attended by someone that was not a
22
lawyer or did not work for Wagner?
23
MR. PUTNAM: I'm g o i n g to o b j e c t to
24
the question as compound, and I'm also asserting
25
the privilege.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
7 8
1
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Are you r e f u s i n g to answer
2
that question, sir?
3
MR. PUTNAM: I'm instructing him not
4
to answer that question. I also have the
5
obj e c t i o n .
6
THE WITNESS: I'm following the
7
advice of counsel.
8
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. Well, I need
9
to cure the -- the c o m p o u n d p a r t of the q u e s t i o n .
10
Were you ever at any meetings with Mr. Medina and
11
someone from outside Wagner that was not an
12
attorney?
13
MR. PUTNAM: And I'm i nstructing him
14
not to answer on the p r e v io us ly asserted
15
privileges.
16
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Are you r e f u s i n g to
17
answer?
18
A .
And I'm refusing to answer for the same
19
reason.
2 0
Q
Now, sir, other than the lawyer for
2 1
Wagner, did you talk with any other people a t
22
Wagner when you were on special assignment about
23
a s h e s to s?
24
MR. PUTNAM: A n d I -- w i t h Mr.
2 5
Medina.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
7 9
1
MR. COOK: No. I'm finished with
2
that
3
MR. PUTNAM: Rephrase the question.
4
R e p h r a s e it. Let me hear it.
5
MR. COOK: W h y d o n't we just r e ad it
6
back .
7
MR. PUTNAM: Right.
8
9
10
(The court reporter read the
11
q u e s t i o n .)
12
13
14
MR. PUTNAM: O b j e c t i o n form of
15
the -- o b j e c t i o n . Vague, a m b i g u o u s , o v e r b r o a d , and
16
calls for a narrative, and it's not limited in time
17
or s c o p e .
18
THE W I T N E S S : I d o n ' t b e l i e v e so.
19
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. Now, at any
2 0
point in time on special assignment regarding
21
asbestos did you look into the matter of whether
22
the users or consumers of Wagner products were at
23
risk from the asbestos contained in those products?
24
MR. PUTNAM: I'm g o i n g to o b j e c t as
25
argumentative. You stated that he was on special
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
80
1
assignment for asbestos. I believe that
2
mischaracterizes his testimony.
3
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) You can go a h ead and
4
answer.
5
A.
I did not d e t e r m i n e -- m a k e an y e f f o r t s
6
to d e t e r m i n e .
7
Q.
All right. A n d I am c o r r e c t that one of
8
the things that related to your special as s i g n m e n t
9
was asbestos matters.
10
A.
That is correct.
11
Q.
B e c a u s e y o u r l a w y e r obje c t e d , I n e e d to
12
ask this -- this q u e s t i o n again. In r e g a r d to
13
t h o s e a s b e s t o s m a t t e r s that -- w h i c h y o u d e a l t w i t h
14
on your special assignment, did you ever make any
15
i n q u i r y as to w h e t h e r or not the p r o d u c t s that were
16
manufactured and sold by Wagner that contained
17
asbestos might be harmful to the h e a l t h and w e l fare
18
of the consumers and users of those products?
19
A.
No .
2 0
Q.
Do you know anybody at Wagner that ever
21
made that inquiry?
22
A .
I d on 't k n o w .
23
Q.
Do you believe as you sit here today
24
that that inquiry should have been made some time
2 5
between 1975 and the present?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
81
1
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Calls for
2
speculation.
3
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
4
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Let me be spe c i f i c about
5
what I'm asking. Do you believe as you sit here
6
today that someone at Wagner should have made an
7
a t t empt to d e t e rm i n e d u r i n g the y e ars 1975 to the
8
pr e s e n t as to wh e t h e r or not the asbestos that was
9
contained in the products that they were selling
10
m i ght be harmful to the users or c o n s u m e r s of those
11
product s?
12
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Asked and
13
answered. He's testified he does not know.
14
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
15
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) You don't have an opi n i o n
16
one way or the other.
17
A.
No .
18
Q.
Do you know whether anyone atWagner
19
that worked in or around the grinding machines ever
20
had any asbestos -related problems?
21
A.
I have no knowledge.
22
Q.
Yes or no y o u h a v e nok n o w l e d g e or --
23
A.
I have no knowledge whether anybody had
24
any problems.
25
Q.
Okay. As you sit here today do you
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
82
1
believe that someone should have determined whether
2
or not any of those men or w omen that were w or ki ng
3
around the grinders had any problems with asbestos
4
as an engineer?
5
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Compound,
6
vague, and ambiguous, and calls for speculation.
7
THE WITNESS: And I don't know.
8
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) W h e n you w ere in
9
engineering school and you were designing machines,
10
were you taught that one of the things that you're
11
s u p p o s e d to c o n s i d e r in d e s i g n i n g tho s e m a c h i n e s is
12
the safety of the workers that will be using those
13
machines ?
14
A.
No .
15
Q.
No one ever taught you that.
16
A .
No .
17
Q.
Do you agree that that should be a
18
consideration, the safety of the people that are
19
working around the machines?
2 0
MR. PUTNAM: Objection.
21
Argumentative. He's never testified that he
22
designed the machines, Russ.
23
THE WITNESS: I have never designed
24
machines.
2 5
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) W h e t h e r y o u ' v e d e s i g n e d
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
84
1
the plant worked properly from a machinery
2
viewpoint and that sort of thing.
3
Q.
And, so, they w o u l d be the ones in
4
d e s i g n i n g the m a c h i n e s that -- if the y d e s i g n e d
5
them or whoever designed them would be the ones
6
that w o u l d need to be c o n c e r n e d w i t h the safety of
7
anyone.
8
A.
That is correct.
9
Q.
Okay. Can you give me some names in
10
that department?
11
A.
I remember a Mr. Whitely.
12
Q.
And what was his job title?
13
A.
He was like plant engineer I think was
14
his n a m e .
15
Q.
Who is Mr. W e i s k o p f ?
16
A.
Mr. Weiskopf was a man whose job was in
17
the pe r s o n n e l de p a r t m e n t as safety m a n of some
18
sort .
19
Q.
All right. W ould he be responsible in
2 0
any way for the safety of the workers that might be
21
working around these grinding machines?
22
A.
He w o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e to try to
23
preclude problems from developing, yes.
24
Q.
Such as a sbestos p r o b l e m s ?
2 5
A.
Perhaps.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
83
1
the m a c h i n e s or not, do y o u -- is it g e n e r a l l y
2
accepted from an engineering principle that the
3
design of machines or systems should be done in a
4
manner taking into consideration the safety of the
5
workers that are using those systems and machines?
6
A.
The overall safety should be considered.
7
Q.
Who should consider it?
8
A.
Whoever has potential I suppose.
9
Q.
Who w o u l d have p o t e n t i a l in r e g a r d to
1 0
the machines, the grinding machines and the system
11
of w h ic h they were a part at Wagner?
12
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Vague and
13
ambiguous. Do you have a time period?
14
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) D u r i n g the 40 yea r s you
15
worked there who would have had potential?
16
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Vague and
17
ambiguous as to potential.
18
THE WITNESS: I suppose our plant
19
engineering group.
2 0
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. How did your
21
job relate to the plant engineering group?
22
A.
Very m arginally, if at all.
23
Q.
Explain what the plant engineering group
24
was .
2 5
A.
Plant engi n e e r i n g ' s job was to see that
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
85
1
Q.
Does he still work for the company?
2
A.
No. He does not.
3
Q.
When did he leave?
4
A . I d o n 't k n o w .
5
Q.
Was it before or after you left?
6
A.
I b e l ieve it was b e fore I left.
7
Q.
Who took his place?
8
A.
I don't believe anyone took his place.
9
Q.
Who is Mr. Luna?
10
A.
Mr. Lu n a is a -- was a e m p l o y e e of the
11
personnel department.
12
Q.
Okay. Did those men have any say in
13
regard to whe t h er or not warn i n g s went out in the
14
boxes about asbestos?
15
A .
Not in a general s e n s e , n o .
16
Q.
How about in a specific sense?
17
A .
No . Not even in a specific sense.
18
Q.
Anybody -- other than when you had this
19
meeting that you've told me about about putting the
2 0
inserts in the boxes, was there anyone there from
21
safety or any of these other groups that y o u've
22
told me about?
23
A.
Not to my r e c ollection.
24
Q.
All right. How was it that you
25
i m p l e m e n t e d the d e c i s i o n to put in some type of
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
86
1
warning?
2
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Asked and
3
answered.
4
THE WITNESS: I think as I stated
5
before, there was indications that there was a
6
r eg ulatory need to put a warn in g in the box.
7
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) I guess m a y b e I'm not
8
m a k i n g m y q u e s t i o n clear. H o w -- h o w d i d that
9
actually get implemented? Did somebody then start
10
putting them in the boxes with some order written?
11
How did that happen?
12
A.
Yeah. Somebody started p u tt in g it in
13
the box, yes, I mean, to not be f a c e t i o u s a b o u t it.
14
Q.
Well, but who was in charge of that?
15
That's that I'm trying to get at.
16
A.
The e n g ineering dep a r t m e n t w o u l d say,
17
hey, put this in the box as a general matter.
18
Q.
And who w ould you say it to?
19
A.
We w o u l d say it to our p r o d u c t i o n
20
people.
21
Q.
All right. And who was the h ead of
22
production?
23
A.
When?
24
Q.
In the time that this wa s -- 1975, m i d
25
'70 time period.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
87
1
A.
I b e l i e v e a Mr. D u d l e y was in charge of
2
production at that time.
3
Q.
Have you ever seen the skull and
4
crossbone warning on poisons?
5
A .
Yes, I h a v e .
6
Q.
How long can you remember seeing that?
7
A .
Oh, I c a n 't tell you w h e n I first saw
8
that.
9
Q.
Do you remember seeing it as a child?
10
A.
C e r t a i n l y as a y o ung man I suspect, but
11
I don't know that.
12
MR. PUTNAM: Ar e y o u t a l k i n g --
13
object. I'm going to object as vague and
14
ambiguous. Are you talking about skull and
15
crossbones only for chemicals or for land mines or
16
what are we talking about?
17
MR. COOK: I think the question was
18
clear.
19
MR. PUTNAM: The question was not
2 0
clear. That's why I'm objecting as vague and
21
a m b i g u o u s . W h a t are y o u a s k i n g -- w h a t are y o u
22
asking him? The first time he saw a skull and
23
crossbones ?
24
MR. COOK: Yes.
25
MR. PUTNAM: Period.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
88
1
MR. COOK: Period.
2
THE WITNESS: Probably some time
3
when I was a young man I guess.
4
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. W h e n was the
5
first time that you saw them in regard to poisons?
6
A .
Probably in that same time frame.
7
Q.
Did you know what the skull and
8
crossbones meant?
9
A.
It implied danger, yes.
10
Q.
Did it c o m m u n i c a t e to you that some
11
further i n v e s t i g a t i o n was n e e d e d in r e g a r d to using
12
or dealing with whatever you saw the skull and
13
crossbones on?
14
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Calls for
15
speculation.
16
THE WITNESS: Not necessarily.
17
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) W hat did the i m p l i c a t i o n
18
of danger m ean to you?
19
A .
Use caution.
20
Q.
All right. D i d y o u do -- ever do any
21
remanufac turing at Wagner?
22
A.
Can you define remanufacturing for me?
23
Q.
Were shoes that were used typically
24
returned from the field?
25
A .
Yes .
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
89
1
Q.
All right. And then what did you do at
2
W a g n e r w ith those shoes, if anything?
3
A.
We would remove the worn lining, clean
4
the shoes, and add new lining.
5
Q.
Okay. What did you do with the worn
6
lining?
7
A.
That was b u n d l e d up and d i s p o s e d of.
8
Q.
How?
9
A.
In conformance toOSHA requirements.
10
Q.
Before there was an OSHA?
11
A.
I do not know.
12
Q.
I'm reading an answer from Page 132 of
13
y o u r e a r l i e r d e p o s i t i o n . S t a r t i n g at Li n e 11
14
y o u r -- y o u r a n s w e r was, "Meaning, for insta n c e , if
15
you took your a u t o mobile to have the brakes
16
repaired, they would remove the brake shoes that no
17
longer had sufficient lining on them. They would
18
remove those shoes, and they would replace them
19
w it h another set of shoes that had new lining
20
atta c h e d to them. The shoes that they removed from
21
your automobile would then be returned to Wagner,
22
and we would remove the lining and would clean
23
those shoes, attaching new lining and putting them
24
in another box and sell them to the person who has
25
a car like yours."
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
90
1
Do you recall that answer?
2
A . Yes.
3
Q.
Is that correct?
4
A.
Generally that'scorrect,
yes.
5
Q.
Did y'all actually sell to the general
6
p u b l i c then on these re --
7
A.
We sold to the w ar ehouse distributors.
8
Q.
Okay. T h a t ' s -- that wa s m y q u e s t i o n .
9
A.
D i d I m i s s -- m a y b e I m i s s t a t e d
10
s o m e t h i n g there. Our p r o d u c t s were sold to
11
warehouse distributors.
12
Q.
Is it true that youw e r e selling
13
thousands monthly of brake linings and brake shoes,
14
your finished product?
15
A.
I think I testified to that as a general
16
guesst im at e at the time, yes.
17
Q.
Okay. Thousands monthly during the
18
1980s?
19
A.
Probably.
2 0
Q.
Thousands monthly during the 1970s?
2 1
A.
Probably.
22
Q.
Thousands monthly during the 1960s?
23
A.
I'm less sure of t h a t .
24
Q.
Thousands monthly during the 1950s?
25
A .
Less sure of that
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
91
1
Q.
Do you remember whether you ever sold
2
m o r e than -- or m a n u f a c t u r e d and s o l d m o r e than
3
10,000 monthly?
4
A.
I have no knowledge of the specific
5
number.
6
Q.
Did you ever discuss asbestos with
7
representatives for any other entity other than the
8
Wagner people? I'm not talking about the lawyers
9
either.
10
A.
Would you rephrase the question? I
11
d o n ' t -- I'm not sure I u n d e r s t a n d w h a t y o u ' r e
12
asking.
13
Q.
I'm asking whether there were any
14
discussions that you had with other companies or
15
other in d i v i d u a l s other than lawyers o u t s i d e of
16
Wagner that concerned asbestos.
17
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. That's
18
overbroad and calls for a narrative.
19
THE WITNESS: What do you mean by
20
that concerns asbestos?
21
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) That concerns asbestos in
22
any way.
23
A.
We discussed brake linings with vendors.
24
Q.
And did you discuss asbestos contained
25
in brake linings with vendors?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
92
1
A.
We discussed brake linings with vendors
2
s pe ci fically when they may have been trying to get
3
r e p l a c e m e n t s for asbe s t o s . So, in that sense yo u
4
might say that.
5
Q.
Wh o w e r e the -- w h o w e r e t h e s e v e n d o r s ?
6
A.
I remember Abex as being one who was
7
a t t em p t i n g to do that. I b elieve B endix was trying
8
to do that, but I'm not certain about that. That's
9
all that comes to m ind off the top of my head.
10
Q.
D i d -- di d W a g n e r p u r c h a s e A b e x ?
11
A.
No.
12
Q.
What is the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n Abex
13
and Wagner, if you know?
14
A.
I do not know.
15
Q.
Did Cooper purchase Abex?
16
A.
I do not know that.
17
Q.
What do you know about the current
18
status of Abex, if an y t h i n g ?
19
A.
I don't know anything about the current
20
status.
21
Q . All right.
22
A.
I don't even k n o w if they're still in
23
business to be quite frank.
24
Q.
But they were someone from whom your
25
company bought brake linings.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
93
1
A.
That is correct.
2
Q.
And those brake linings contained
3
asbes tos.
4
A.
To the best of my k n o w l e d g e that is
5
true .
6
MR. PUTNAM: Russ, are we at a
7
stopping point?
8
MR. COOK: This w ould be great,
9
yeah .
10
MR. PUTNAM: Okay.
11
THE V I D E O G R A P H E R : 11:54. We're off
12
the record.
13
14
15
(Lunch recess.)
16
17
18
(Whereupon the instrument was marked
19
for i dentification as Bueler Exhibit
2 0
No. 3 and is a t t a c h e d hereto.)
21
22
23
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 12:52. We're on
24
the record. Sta r t of Ta p e 2.
25
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Mr. Bueler, I h a n d e d you
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
94
1
at the break an exhibit that's b e e n m a r k e d as
2
D e p o s i t i o n E x h i b i t N u m b e r 3, B u e l e r E x h i b i t N u m b e r
3
3, an d it's m y u n d e r s t a n d i n g that this was a
4
d o c u m e n t p r o d u c e d by y o u r company. Is that the --
5
the n a m e of y o u r c o m p a n y in the -- at the top of
6
that? You can take that y e l l o w thing off. It
7
d o esn't b e l o n g on there anyway. It's just to mark
8
it so we c o u l d find it.
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Have you had a chance to look at that
11
d o c u m e n t ? If not, take w h a t e v e r time you need.
12
A.
Yes, sir. I read it generally. I may
13
h a v e to r e f e r b a c k for any q u e s t i o n s , but --
14
Q.
I just b a s i c a l l y w a n t to k n o w is -- does
15
that appear to you to be a W es tern Electric
16
Corporation document?
17
A .
No , sir. It appears to me to be a
18
Wagner Electric Corporation.
19
Q.
I 'm sorry. I sai d W e s t e r n and m e a n t
2 0
say W a g n e r . I' m sorry. Do e s it a p p e a r to be a
21
Wagner Electric Corporation document?
22
A.
Yes . It appears that way to me .
23
Q.
Very old one, right?
24
A.
Yes, sir .
2 5
Q.
What 's the date?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
95
1
A.
1934. March 1934.
2
Q.
A n d -- and w h a t is it that g e n e r a l l y
3
this document is a nnouncing?
4
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. The
5
document speaks for itself.
6
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. This d o c u m e n t
7
says, "Please be so kind as to p ub lish in your
8
publication a news item regarding Wagner CoMax
9
brake lining, the newest brake lining on the
10
m a r k e t ."
11
Is that w h a t it says?
12
A.
T h a t 's what it s a y s .
13
Q.
All right. What does that m e a n to you ?
14
A .
It mean s that - -
15
MR . PUTNAM: Obj ection The
16
d o c u m e n t speaks fo r itself.
17
Q.
(By M r . Cook) Wha t does th at m e a n to
18
y o u , sir ?
19
MR . PUTNAM: Same obje ction.
2 0
THE! WITNESS: Wha t it m e ans to me
21
it's an announcement.
22
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All. right. And what does
23
it appear to be announcing?
24
A.
Wagner CoMax brake lining.
25
Q.
W hat is W a g n e r CoMax b r ake lining?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
96
1
A.
It was a trade named lining that
2
apparently was announced in 1934.
3
Q.
Are they still making Wagner CoMax
4
today?
5
A.
Not to my knowledge.
6
Q.
But it was made at some p o i n t in time
7
while you were there?
8
A.
At some point to time wh en I was there
9
they were selling lining labeled as Wagner CoMax.
10
Q.
Did that lining contain asbestos?
11
A.
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
12
Q.
All right, sir. And am I correct in
13
u n d e r s t a n d i n g from e a r l i e r t e s t i m o n y that as far as
14
you know nobody at the Wagner Electric Corpora ti on
15
was aware that asbestos might be potentially
16
harmful until the mid seventies?
17
A.
That's what I've testified, yes, sir.
18
MR. COOK: Could you m a r k this as
19
the next exhibit.
20
21
22
(Whereupon the instrument was marked
23
for i de nt ification as Bueler Exhibit
24
No. 4 and is a t t a c h e d hereto.)
25
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
fc^rcde .
ir aO o J. ?d ft a d ^ftftg thi S3.
st I}
iaJeft Sr W a Sfte*-
Co m ax
*n O w l edsre was ade a t s
ome Point la tme
point to time w h e n
1 was there ing 1ining labeled
as Wagner CoMax. lin9 c o n tain a s b estos? T the beet of my knowledge, yee.
All right, sir. A n d am I correct in
rom e a r l i e r t e s t i m o n y that as far as you know nobody at the Wagner Electric Corporation
was aware that asbestos might be potentially
harmful until the mid seventies?
A.
That's what I've testified, yes, sxr.
MR. COOK: Could you mark this
the next exhibit.
,h , instrument was marked
(,,hereupon
,t
U n i f i c a t i o n as B u e r e x for i d e n t u i ('a
nt.nhed hereto.) K o . 4 and 1 a t t a c h e d
McCracken *
TT
97
1
MR. COOK: I've got an extra one for
2
you. We might go off the record for just a second
3
while we hand out these exhibits.
4
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 12:57. We're off
5
the record.
6
7
8
(Brief recess.)
9
10
11
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 1:06. We're on
12
the record.
13
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Mr. Bueler, w h i l e w e ' r e --
14
w e ' v e bee n off the record have you had a chance to
15
read D e p o s i t i o n E x h i b i t N u m b e r 4?
16
A .
Yes, s i r .
17
Q.
Have you also had a chance to confer
18
with your attorney?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Now, sir, is it true that in 1934 the
21
State of Connecticut was reporting a possible
22
health hazard involving asbestos dust from brake
23
grinding machines?
24
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Calls for
2 5
speculation.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
98
1
P r i o r -- let me pu t this on the
2
record. This is the first time this d o c u m e n t has
3
been produced, Russ, in this entire case that's
4
bee n p e n d i n g for over three years. So, I don't
5
u nd e r s t a n d why new documents are b eing pro du ce d at
6
this late date in time.
7
Secondly, Mr. Bueler has testified
8
that this is the first time he's ever seen this
9
document. You're asking him to speculate about
10
what the State of Connecticut did and their
11
activities, and he's not here on behalf of the
12
State of Connecticut.
13
MS. ANDE R S O N : Join the o b j e c t i o n as
14
well as assumes facts not in evidence.
15
MR. PUTNAM: Same objection.
16
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) You can respond, sir.
17
MR. PUTNAM: Rich, if you know, have
18
personal knowledge about this, you can talk about
19
it .
2 0
THE WITNESS: This is the first I've
21
seen this document. I have no knowledge beyond
22
this.
23
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Did you read the document?
24
A.
Yes, sir.
2 5
Q.
A s s u m i n g that this is inde e d a State of
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
99
1
C o n n e c t i c u t document p u b l i s h e d in 1934, is it true
2
that this document indicates a potential health
3
hazard regarding asbestos dust from brake grinding
4
machines?
5
MR. PUTNAM: Object to the extent
6
the document speaks for itself.
7
MS. ANDERSON: Join the objection.
8
MS. WRIGHT: Join the objection.
9
THE WITNESS: It appears to indicate
10
that .
11
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) If this inde e d is a 1934
12
document, it w o u l d be the same y e a r as y our
13
company, Wagner Electric Corporation, was
14
a nn ouncing their new brake linings. Is that right?
15
A.
A c c o r d i n g to our E x h i b i t 3, yes.
16
Q.
All right, sir. Do you have any
17
e x p l a n a t i o n why in the 40 year time p e r i o d b e t w ee n
18
1934 an d 19 -- in the 1970s that y o u r c o r p o r a t i o n
19
did not become aware of this potential health
20
h a z a r d of asbe s t o s fibers if i n d e e d it was r e p o r t e d
2 1
in 1934 as this Document 4 seems to indicate?
22
A.
I can't speculate on why that happened.
23
Q.
At the conclusion of this d ep osition do
24
y o u i n t e n d to m a k e any type of i n v e s t i g a t i o n as to
2 5
w h y this 40 y e ars m i g h t have gone by?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
100
1
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Don't
2
answer that. That's an improper question. Object
3
to the form. You're ask i n g h i m w hat he's going to
4
do after the deposition. If y o u w a n t to ask him
5
about what he knows as of today when he's sitting
6
here, that's fine.
7
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Are you on special
8
assignment for this deposition for Wagner?
9
A.
I'm a consultant forWagner.
10
Q.
All right, sir. Will y ou r e p o r t b a c k to
11
a n y o n e as a -- a f t e r this d e p o s i t i o n o t h e r than the
12
attorney?
13
A.
No.
14
Q.
You will not have any contact with
15
anybody at Wagner?
16
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. He's
17
a nswered the question. He said no.
18
You've already answered the
19
ques tion.
20
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) You will not have any
21
contact with anyone at Wagner following this
22
deposition?
23
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Asked and
24
answered.
25
MR. COOK: Are you instructing him
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
101
1
not to answer?
2
MR. PUTNAM: No. H e ' s -- y o u a s k e d
3
him the question once and he said no.
4
MR. COOK: Well, I've asked him the
5
question worded a little differently.
6
MR. PUTNAM: No. You've asked the
7
same question.
8
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Well, let me r e w o r d the
9
question. Do you expect to have continued contacts
10
with Wagner in the future?
11
MR. PUTNAM: Object. This is
12
i r r e l e v a n t , Russ --
13
MR. COOK: Well, then you can
14
make --
15
MR. PUTNAM: -- as to --
16
MR. COOK: You can make the
17
objections, but I don't see why you won 't let
18
him --
19
MR. PUTNAM: I wi 11
20
MR. COOK:
- answer the q u e s t i o n .
21
MR. PUTNAM: I wi 11 - - I will obj ect
22
to the questions, the form. because i t calls for
23
speculation.
24
MR. COOK: Okay.
25
MR. PUTNAM: Y o u ' r e a s k i n g h i m to
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
102
1
predict the future.
2
MR. COOK: Okay. If that's the
3
o b j e c t i o n y o u w a n t to make, y o u ' r e e n t i t l e d to. He
4
still gets to answer the question.
5
THE WITNESS: And the question again
6
is?
7
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Do you a n t i c i p a t e hav i n g
8
any contacts with people at Wagner in the future?
9
MR. PUTNAM: Same objection.
10
THE WITNESS: I can't answer that
11
question.
12
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. If
13
fortuitously you have contact with people from
14
Wa gn er in the future, do you intend to ask them
15
about wh y it is that 40 yea r s w e n t by b e f o r e they
16
became aware of the potential health hazard with
17
asbestos?
18
MR. PUTNAM: I'm g o i n g to o b j e c t to
19
the extent the question assumes facts not -- that
2 0
are not in evidence.
2 1
THE WITNESS: No.
22
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Are you i n t e r e s t e d on a
23
p e r s o n a l basis as to why 40 years m i g h t have gone
24
by from the date of this document in 1934 until
2 5
the -- u n t i l the s e v e n t i e s b e f o r e W a g n e r b e c a m e
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
103
1
knowledgeable about a potential asbestos hazard?
2
A.
It's certainly an interesting piece of
3
information.
4
Q.
Had anyone ever told you that before
5
that -- s t r i k e that.
6
Had you ever had any information
7
about h ow long it had been that p e o p l e had known
8
about the dangers of asbestos before I showed you
9
this document?
10
A.
No.
11
MS. ANDERSON: Objection. Assumes
12
facts not in evidence.
13
MR. PUTNAM: Same objection.
14
MR. COOK: W h a t -- w h a t facts d i d it
15
as s u m e that was not in ev i d e n c e ? I n e e d to
16
u n d e r s t a n d that b e c a u s e I w a n t to --
17
MS. ANDERSON: That people knew that
18
asbestos was harmful.
19
THE COU R T REP O R T E R : I n e e d y o u to
2 0
speak up, please.
21
MR. PUTNAM: Oh. She doesn't have a
22
m i c r o p h o n e on.
23
MR. COOK: Would you read back my
24
question again.
25
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
104
1
(The court reporter read the
2
ques t i o n .)
3
4
5
Q.
(By Mr . Cook) An d y o u r a n s w e r was?
6
MS . ANDERSON: No .
7
THE WITNESS : Read it b a c k .
8
MR . COOK: I think it's a proper
9
ques t i o n . S o , go ahead and read i t back one more
10
time to him.
11
THE COURT REPORTER: The question
12
or
13
MR. COOK: The question and let's
14
get his answer for the record.
15
THE COURT REPORTER: Okay.
16
17
18
(The court reporter read the
19
question and answer.)
2 0
21
22
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Is that y o u r answer?
23
A . Yes.
24
Q.
Okay. What periodicals did you
2 5
s u b s c r i b e to at y o u r c o m p a n y ? I mean, d i d y o u --
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
105
1
were there periodicals other than this FMSI that
2
you got about engineering?
3
A.
Yes. We'd get typical journals that
4
w o u l d come in.
5
Q.
Can you tell me some of those journals?
6
A.
The SAE Journal, Design News, Machine
7
Design. I remember there's a magazine called
8
Automotive News and Electronic Design Engineering I
9
think. Those are some that I recall offhand.
10
Q.
Was there an engineering library there
11
that kept those articles?
12
A.
T h e r e was a -- for a sho r t p e r i o d a ro o m
13
that h a d b o o k s and p e r i o d i c a l s that w o u l d -- the
14
current issues, and then they would filter out.
15
Q.
All right. And was that still there
16
when you left?
17
A .
No .
18
Q.
What h a p p e n e d to it?
19
A.
It was taken away.
2 0
Q.
Why, if you know?
21
A.
We no longer ne ed ed as mu ch room. And,
22
so, that was one p l a c e to get rid of r o o m to be on
23
one floor instead of two floors. Things like that.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
MR. COOK: I'm going to have marked
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
106
1
as the next exhibit this Public Health Reports that
2
was atta c h e d . You -- y o u s h o u l d a l r e a d y h a v e it.
3
This was the one that was stuck to the other one.
4
MS. WRIGHT: Is that E x h i b i t N u m b e r
5
6?
6
MR. COOK: It will be Exhibit Number
7
5
8
9
10
(Whereupon the instrument was marked
11
for i dentification as Bueler Exhibit
12
No. 5 and is a t t a c h e d hereto.)
13
14
15
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Let me h a n d you what ' s
16
b e e n m a r k e d as Exh i b i t N u m b e r 5 and ask you to read
17
the heading of that first page.
18
A.
E f f e c t s of the -- oh. It's V o l u m e 50,
19
J a n u a r y 4, 1935, N u m b e r 1, P u b l i c -- P u b l i c H e a l t h
20
Reports, Effects of the inhalation of asbestos dust
21
on the lungs of asbestos workers.
22
Q.
Now, sir, as an engineer that was
23
working with a product that contained asbestos for
24
close to 40 y e ars w o u l d this have b e e n i n f o r m a t i o n
25
you would have been interested in seeing some time
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
107
1
during that 40 year p eriod of time?
2
A.
It's
3
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Calls for
4
speculation.
5
THE WITNESS: It's certainly
6
interesting information.
7
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. Are you
8
surprised at this information?
9
A . Yes.
10
Q.
Why are you surprised?
11
A.
Because of the dates.
12
Q.
You were not aware that the dangers of
13
asbestos were known that far in the past?
14
A.
That is correct.
15
Q.
And that is s u r p r i s i n g to you?
16
A.
It's -- well, it's s u r p r i s i n g to me that
17
it was that far back. It's not surprising that I
18
d i d n ' t k n o w about it. I h a v e n ' t seen d o c u m e n t s
19
from that far back.
20
Q.
All right. I'll ask you the same
21
q u e s t i o n . Do y o u hav e any e x p l a n a t i o n as to w h y if
22
this in d e e d is a true Public H e a l t h R e p o r t b a c k in
23
1935 and given the other document your company did
24
not know about the dangers of asbestos until the
25
seventies?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
108
1
MR. PUTNAM: I'm going to object.
2
It cal l s for s p e c u l a t i o n . It als o d o e s n ' t say --
3
just for the record this exhibit doesn't say where
4
it was a Public H ealth Report for or from from what
5
I can tell. Do you know, Mr. Cook? It's your
6
document.
7
MR. COOK: Well, it says a
8
p r e l i m i n a r y s t u d y by A. J. Lanza, A s s i s t a n t M e d i c a l
9
D i r e c t o r , W i l l i a m J. M c C o n n e l l , A s s i s t a n t M e d i c a l
10
D i r e c t o r , and J. W i l l i a m Fennel, Chemist,
11
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
12
MR. PUTNAM: But do y o u k n o w --
13
MR. COOK: So, I w o u l d assume those
14
are the a u t h o r s .
15
MR. PUTNAM: Do you k n o w w hat it was
15
p ub l i s h e d in and who it was d i s t r i bu te d to?
17
MR. COOK: I know noth in g other than
18
w h a t ' s on the -- the top of it.
19
MR. PUTNAM: So, we d o n ' t h a v e --
2 0
there's no a ut he nticity of this document?
21
MR. COOK: Well, I -- I e x p e c t --
22
MR. PUTNAM: Okay.
23
MR. COOK: -- to be a b l e to p r o v e
24
this document up at the time of trial.
25
MR. PUTNAM: Well, I -- I ' m --
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
109
1
MR. COOK: Sure.
2
MR. PUTNAM: And in all - - i n all
3
fairness to Mr. Bueler you're asking him about a
4
document that's unlabeled for the most part other
5
than a title. So, I'm a s k i n g w h o p u b l i s h e d it and
6
w h o wa s it d i s t r i b u t e d to.
7
MR. COOK: I'm telling you I don't
8
know
9
MR. PUTNAM: Okay. But you expect
10
Mr. Buel e r to know.
11
MR. COOK: I didn't ask Mr. Bueler
12
that question, and I will again ask you not to
13
c o a c h the w i t n e s s --
14
MR. PUTNAM: I'm not. I' m t r y i n g --
15
MR. COOK: -- on the reco r d . The
16
w i t n e s s has --
17
MR. PUTNAM: I'm trying to identify
18
the document.
19
MR. COOK: The w i t n e s s --
2 0
MR. PUTNAM: It's another document
21
that has not been produced until today. That's the
22
only reason.
23
MR. COOK: The w i t n e s s -- the
24
witness has a question before him. Would you read
25
the witness the question?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
110
1
(The court reporter read the
2
q u e s t i o n .)
3
4
5
MR. PUTNAM: A n d m y o b j e c t i o n is it
6
calls for speculation.
7
THE WITNESS: And I have no
8
explanation.
9
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right, sir. Do you
10
know whether your company ever used Metropolitan
11
Life Insurance or M e t ro po li ta n in any way as an
12
i n s u r a n c e -- for i n s u r a n c e ?
13
A.
I have no knowledge of that.
14
Q.
Is it p o s s i b l e to m ake an e f f e c t i v e
15
brake for a passenger car without using asbestos?
16
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Vague and
17
a m b iguous as to effective.
18
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) H o w e v e r you define
19
e f fec t i v e .
2 0
MR. PUTNAM: And brake. Are we
21
talking brake shoes or disc brakes?
22
MR. COOK: The b r a k e -- the e n t i r e
23
brake assembly.
24
MR. PUTNAM: Disc shoes, disc pads
25
or - -
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
111
1
MR. COOK: Everything.
2
MR. PUTNAM: Brake shoes. Both
3
types ?
4
MR. COOK: Everything.
5
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Is it possible, in other
6
w o r d s -- let me r e s t a t e the q u e s t i o n . Is it
7
possible, in other words, to put a Ford or a GM or
8
a Chrysler automobile out on the road without using
9
a s b e s t o s for b r a k e s --
10
MR. PUTNAM: Objection.
11
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) -- and still h a v e
12
effective brakes?
13
MR. PUTNAM: Do you have a time
14
period?
15
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Today.
16
A.
Is it p o s s i b l e today?
17
Q.
Yes.
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
All right. Was it p ossible in 1990?
2 0
A.
It may have b e e n possible.
21
Q.
Was it p o s s i b l e in 1980?
22
MS. ANDERSON: Objection. Calls for
23
speculation.
24
MR. PUTNAM: Same objection.
25
THE WITNESS: I can't answer that
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
112
1
ques tion.
2
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Why not?
3
A.
Because when I answered your first
4
question, I had something in my mind.
5
Q.
What was it?
6
A.
It was that today and in 1990 perhaps
7
they use a lot of disc brakes, and disc brakes have
8
an inherent ability to utilize n on as be st os brake
9
lining due to the nature of the design whereas drum
10
brakes are inherently more difficult to provide an
11
acceptable lining due to the nature of the design.
12
Q.
Okay. Did any automobile manufacturer
13
that you know of use drum type brakes that did not
14
c o ntain asbestos prior to 1990?
15
A.
I don't know of any.
16
Q.
All right.
17
A.
I do not know the answer to that
18
ques tion.
19
Q.
Are disc brakes as effective as drum
2 0
brakes?
21
A .
Yes .
22
Q.
Are disc brakes more expensive than drum
23
brakes?
24
A.
G e n e r al l y my belief is yes.
25
Q.
All right. In regard to coming up with
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
113
1
substitutes, effective substitutes for asbestos in
2
the type of brake linings that you were utilizing
3
and y o u told me v e n d o r s ca m e to y o u --
4
A .
Um-hum.
5
Q.
-- was cost one of the c o n s i d e r a t i o n s in
6
finding a substitute for asbestos?
7
A.
I don't b e l i e v e so.
8
Q.
Have you ever known anyone with an
9
asbestos -related disease?
10
A.
Not to my knowledge.
11
Q.
Did Bendix or Abex ever provide you with
12
any warnings concerning the asbestos in the brake
13
linings that they were provi di ng to you?
14
MR. KNABESCHUH: Object to the form.
15
MR. COOK: What's the objection?
16
MR. K N A B E S C H U H : Wh o is you?
17
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Okay. Let me r e s t a t e the
18
question. Let me do it separately. Did Abe x ever
19
provide you with any type of warnings concerning
2 0
the asbestos in the brake linings which they were
21
supplying to your company, Wagner?
22
A .
Did they supply the i nf or ma ti on to you,
23
meaning Richard Bueler, or you, meaning Wagner?
24
Q.
Wagner.
25
A.
I do not know.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
114
1
Q.
How about you, Mr. Bueler?
2
A.
No . To my - - best of my recollection.
3
Q.
All r i g h t . Same question. Only Bendix
4
Did Bendix ever supply either you, Mr. Bueler, or
5
your company, Wagner, with any warnings or
6
information concerning the asbestos that was in the
7
brake linings they were selling to you?
8
MS. WRIGHT: Objection. Compound.
9
He had two different answers for Abex, and you
10
grouped them both together for the Bendix question.
11
MR. COOK: Okay. Well, I'll -- I'll
12
r e s t a t e it if you'll tell me w h a t the two par t s
13
were .
14
MS. W R I G H T : One of t h e m he h a d --
15
he had answered he didn't know as to Mr. Bueler
16
h i m s e l f . I m e a n -- I' m sorry. As to W a g n e r he
17
d i d n ' t know, and as to Mr. Buel e r he said no.
18
MR. COOK: All right. I'll separate
19
it out.
20
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. Did Bendix
21
p r o v i d e y o u w i t h any i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g -- you
22
being you, Mr. Bueler, with any information
2 3
concerning asbestos in the brake linings they were
24
selling to Wagner?
25
A.
Not to my recollection.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
115
1
Q.
Would you have w e l c om ed as much
2
i nformation as was available on the subject of
3
asbestos?
4
A.
As a general rule I like information.
5
Q.
Just like you were interested in Exhibit
6
4 a n d 5, y o u w o u l d be i n t e r e s t e d in that type of
1
information.
8
A.
Inf o r m a t i o n is important to an engineer.
9
Q.
If you r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n about
10
asbestos in health hazards to the extent that made
11
sense to you, w ould you i n c orporate that in
12
d e c i s i o n s a b o u t w h a t -- h o w y o u w o u l d go abo u t
13
doing your job?
14
A.
To the extent that it m a d e sense to me,
15
yes.
16
Q.
And whether or not something would make
17
sense to you wo uld you describe about how your
18
thought processes go in that regard?
19
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Calls for
2 0
speculation.
21
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Let me r e s t a t e that.
22
A.
All right.
23
Q.
Do engineers such as you use a
24
d i s c i p l i n e d scientific a p p r o a c h to g a t h e r i n g
2 5
information?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
116
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
Tell us h o w y ou w o u l d a p p r o a c h t rying to
3
make a reasoned decision about asbestos or anything
4
else that might be involved in these products.
5
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Vague,
6
ambiguous, calls for a narrative, and calls for
7
speculation.
8
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) You can go a h e a d and
9
answer.
10
A.
The first thing that I do as an engineer
11
is to p r o v i d e a p r o d u c t that will p e r f o r m the
12
required task. In the case of an automobile that
13
it will stop properly. Now, there's a lot of
14
things in p roperly that I'm not going to get into;
15
but to stop p r o p e r l y means more than it's g o i n g to
16
s top just o n c e .
17
Q.
All right.
18
A.
I could go to this b oard for the next
19
five hours, and I don't want to do that. So, I
2 0
w o u l d determine first of all can I make a brake
21
system using w hatever m aterial it is to do the job.
22
Secondly, then I would had I known this
23
information, I
24
Q.
W h a t -- w h a t -- h a d y o u k n o w n --
25
A.
-- any i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t a l l e g e d h a z a r d s
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
117
1
of a s b estos I w o u l d say, well, now, this is an
2
alleged hazard. It may affect certain people who
3
may be in an e n v i r onment that this is a problem.
4
Q.
All right.
5
A.
But I k n o w m y b r a k e s y s t e m is g o i n g to
6
be out in the w o r l d w h ere e v e r y b o d y is there. Not
7
a b u n c h of s p e c i a l i z e d w o r k e r s who are w o r k i n g in a
8
very narrow environment. I would be providing a
9
p r o d u c t to w o r k in a b r o a d e n v i r o n m e n t . And, so, I
10
. do two --
11
Q.
Let me stop you and ask you --
12
A.
Okay.
13
Q.
-- what you mean by you would be
14
providing a product that would be in a broad
15
environment. What do you mean by that?
16
A.
W h er e the general pub l i c is. On the
17
highways, in the city streets, where there are
18
m u l t i t u d e s of people as o p p o s e d to a v e r y small
19
group of people in a rather encl o s e d s i t u a t i o n or
20
something like that.
21
Q.
A n d -- and w h y w o u l d that m a k e a
22
di f ferenc e ?
23
A.
It wo uld make a difference. And I w o ul d
24
do on e o t h e r t h i n g --
25
Q.
Okay.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
118
1
A.
-- than w h a t y o u p r o b a b l y a t t e m p t e d to
2
infer.
3
MR. PUTNAM: Let me go ahead and
4
interpose my objection here as it calls for
5
speculation and calls for a narrative. Do you have
6
a specific question for him?
7
MR. COOK: I t h i n k he ' s -- he's
8
answering how he would go about analyzing this from
9
an engineering standpoint.
10
MR. PUTNAM: A n d I ' m n ot -- and I
11
also object as it's vague and ambiguous. I don't
12
u n d e r s t a n d w h a t he's a n a l y z i n g "this". W h a t is
13
" t h i s "?
14
MR. COOK: H o w he w o u l d --
15
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Well, w h a t do y o u -- w h a t
16
ques tion --
17
MR. PUTNAM: No.
18
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) -- do y o u t h i n k y o u ' r e
19
answering, sir?
20
MR. PUTNAM: No. No. T h a t ' s --
21
y o u 're
22
MR. COOK: Are you going to instruct
23
him --
24
MR. PUTNAM: I'm --
25
MR. COOK: -- not to a n s w e r any
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
119
1
more?
2
MR. PUTNAM: You're the one asking
3
the questions.
4
MR. COOK: Well, we can go back and
5
read the question then.
6
MR. PUTNAM: Read the last question
7
back.
8
9
10
(The court reporter read the
11
q u e s t i o n .)
12
13
14
THE W I T N E S S : I -- d o n ' t m e a n
15
anything to me.
16
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Yo u -- y o u sa i d that this
17
was -- let me -- let me r e s t a t e the q u e s t i o n . You
18
said that the brake a pplication was to a wide area
19
of the g e neral public. Is that corr e c t ?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
And my q u e s t i o n is w h y does that m ake a
22
difference in engineering analysis that it's
23
d i s t r i b u t e d to a wide group of the general public?
24
A.
The g e n e r a l thought in my h e a d is there
2 5
are more potential problems there.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
120
1
Q.
All right, sir.
2
MR. COOK: Why don't you give us a
3
five minute break. We're probably finished, but I
4
want to go through my notes.
5
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 1:30.
6
MR. PUTNAM: Okay.
7
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 1:30. We're off
8
the record.
9
10
11
(Brief r e c e s s .)
12
13
14
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 1:33. We're on
15
the record.
16
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Mr . B u e l e r , one thing that
17
w a s n 't quite clear to me i s you sold your brakes
18
t h r o u g h this -- the s e w a r e h o u s e s . The b r a k e l i n i n g
19
c o m b i n a t i o n s a nd --
2 0
A.
Shoe and lining a s s e m b l i e s we sold to
21
warehouse distributors.
22
Q.
Right.
23
A.
C o m p l e t e b r a k e a s s e m b l i e s we sold to
24
various OEM manufacturers.
25
Q.
In regard to the ones that go through
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
121
1
the w a r e h o u s e d i s t r i b u t o r s , w h o w o u l d the -- w o u l d
2
they then go to r e t a ilers? Is that h o w your
3
product was sold?
4
A.
Yes. B a s i c a l l y that's the w a y it was
5
sold .
6
Q.
If we looked on the boxes that the
7
retailers were selling, would we find the Wagner
8
name ?
9
A.
Yes, you would.
10
Q.
All right. Will we find any warnings
11
about asbestos?
12
A.
In the box you would find such a
13
warning.
14
Q.
How about on the outside of the box?
15
A.
I don't believe we put the warnings on
16
the outside, but I'm not certain about that.
17
Q.
Wh o m a d e that d e c i s i o n as to w h e r e --
18
w h et he r there would be warnings on the outside of
19
boxes or not?
20
A.
I do not know the answer to that.
21
Q.
But it wasn't your group.
22
A.
It certainly was not. And I might also
23
m e n t i o n we -- in our sales m a n u a l s , in our
24
instruction manuals, not sales manuals, instruction
25
manuals we also had the warnings, the manuals where
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
122
1
guys said how am I going to do this. We put the
2
w a r n i n g s there. And, so, t h e r e ' s w h e r e the
3
warnings were in the box and in manuals that you
4
could utilize.
5
Q.
But not on the outside of the box.
6
A.
To the --
7
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Asked and
8
answered. He said he wasn't sure about that.
9
THE WITNESS: To the best of my
10
r ec ollection I just do not know the answer to that.
11
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. Now, sir, do
12
you know whether you put the words organic on any
13
of your boxes?
14
A.
I don't recall one way or the other
15
whether we did then.
16
Q.
What does organic mean to you?
17
A.
If y o u talk a b o u t b r a k e l i n i n g s -- is
18
that what you're referring to?
19
Q.
As it relates to bra k e linings.
2 0
A .
Organic means nonmetallic.
21
Q.
Okay .
22
M R . COOK : I pass the witness
23
MR . S H I P L E Y : O h , I 've got to
24
few q u e s tions if you ' r e not.
25
MR. PUTNAM: I'm g o i n g to go last.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
123
1
EXAMINATION
2
3
By Mr. Shipley:
4
5
Q.
Can you put Exhibit 4 in front of you?
6
MR. PUTNAM: Hang on a second.
7
MR . S H I P L E Y : Let me have a copy of
8
it .
9
MR . PUTNAM: Yeah.
10
MR . S H I P L E Y : I need that one.
11
MS . W R I G H T : C onnecticut.
12
MR . SHIPLEY: E x h i b i t 4,
13
Connecticut
14
MR . PUTNAM: Is this it?
15
MR . SHIPLEY: Yeah.
16
MR . P U T N A M : Make a little note at
17
the b o t t o m t h e r e . Just put Ex 4. T h a t ' s m y copy.
18
So - -
19
Q.
(By Mr . Shipley) Mr. Bueler, are you an
2 0
industrial hygi eni st ?
21
A.
N o , sir.
22
Q.
Toxicologist?
23
A .
N o , sir.
24
Q.
Physician of any kind?
25
A .
N o , sir.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
124
1
Q.
Have you ever seen Exhibit 4 before?
2
A.
No, sir.
3
Q.
It talks about asbestos dust hazard.
4
Does it say what the h azard of asbestos is?
5
A.
I w o u l d have to read it a g ain b e c a u s e I
6
read v ery quickly, and to answ e r your q u e s t i o n I
7
did not study it. I'll have to go t h r o u g h it again
8
if you have something.
9
Q.
Can you find anything in here about
10
where the words cancer or mesothelioma appear?
11
A.
To answer you with absolute certainty I
12
w o u l d have to read it again v e r y thoroughly, but in
13
my initial readings those words did not come to my
14
eyes .
15
Q.
You don't recall seeing those words in
16
there.
17
A.
No, sir.
18
Q.
You don't recall seeing anything in this
19
a r t icle that suggests that cancer or any form of
20
malignancy, including mesothelioma, could be
21
considered a hazard of asbestos, did you?
22
A.
No t -- not w h a t I r e a d in m y -- this
23
document.
24
Q. D i d y o u see on Pa g e 508 at the b o t t o m
25
of -- I'm s o r r y -- 507 w h e r e -- in the p a r a g r a p h
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
125
1
where it says, "However, dust dete rm in at io ns have
2
shown that even the preliminary operations can be
3
conducted without exposing workers to excessive
4
dust concentrations"?
5
A.
Yes, sir.
6
MR. COOK: Object. Optional
7
completeness rule.
8
MR. SHIPLEY: I'm sorry?
9
MR. COOK: Objected on the grounds
10
of the optional c o m p l e t e n e s s rule. I just w ant to
11
make sure that when the time for trial comes, I can
12
read the rest of this.
13
MR. SHIPLEY: Oh, yeah. Sure.
14
Q.
(By Mr. Shipley) Y o u ' v e read that?
15
You've read that when you were reviewing this for
16
Mr. Cook?
17
A.
Yes, but I wouldn't want to be tested on
18
it .
19
Q.
Now, w h a t they ' r e t a l k i n g a b o u t here is
2 0
handling raw asbestos in the manuf ac tur in g stage.
21
Isn't that correct?
22
A.
That's my recollection, yes.
23
Q.
Did Wagner handle raw asbestos in the
24
manufacturing stage or when you got the brake
25
shoes, was the asbestos already in place on the
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
126
1
shoes ?
2
A.
All the brake shoes that we ever sold
3
w e r e f u r n i s h e d as shoes w i t h the l i n i n g --
4
Q.
Right.
5
A.
-- and the a s b e s t o s as a m i x so to
6
speak.
7
Q.
So, you n e v e r h a n d l e d bags of raw
8
asbestos the way it's described in this article.
9
A.
That is correct.
10
Q.
Okay. Did you have dust control in your
11
plant?
12
A . Yes,
sir.
13
Q.
The -- the n e x t a r t i c l e that we l o o k e d
14
at, that A n t h o n y L a n z a a r t i c l e f r o m 1935 --
15
A . Yes,
sir.
16
Q.
-- do yo u hav e that in f r o n t of you,
17
E x h i b i t N u m b e r 5?
18
A . Yes,
sir.
19
Q.
Did you notice in reading that article
2 0
that that deals with exposures to asbestos in the
21
textile mills where they're handling raw asbestos?
22
A.
Actually I did not read this entire
23
document. I only read the headings. So, I cannot
24
answer that.
25
Q.
Do you see anything in there that
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
127
1
d i s c u s s e s that a s b e s t o s m i g h t be a -- a s s o c i a t e d in
2
any way with m a l i gn an cy such as cancer or
3
mesothelioma?
4
MR. COOK: Objection. He said he
5
h a s n ' t r e a d it. If y o u w a n t to let h i m r e a d it,
6
t h a t 's fine.
7
Q.
(By Mr. Shipley) Take a look at it and
8
see if you can find the words cancer, m a l i g n a n c y or
9
mesothelioma anywhere in the article.
10
MR. COOK: W h i l e the w i t n e s s is
11
r e a d i n g this, I'd -- I'd ask you, Mr. Shipley, to
12
identify for the record who you represent in asking
13
these questions.
14
MR. SHIPLEY: Bridgestone Firestone.
15
MR. COOK: All right.
16
THE WITNESS: No, sir. I do not see
17
those words.
18
Q.
(By Mr. Shipley) Will you turn to Page
19
10, p l e a s e ?
20
A.
Yes, sir.
21
Q.
Under conclusions the first conclusion
22
says that, "Prolonged exposure to asbestos dust
23
caused a p ul mon ary fibrosis of a type different
24
from silicosis."
25
Do you see that?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
128
1
A . Y e s , sir.
2
Q.
Is there anything in the c o n clusions
3
about asbestos causing any kind of malignancy,
4
cancer or mesothelioma?
5
A.
No, sir. I do not see those words in
6
the conclusions.
7
Q.
Do you see c o n c l u s i o n N u m b e r 4 w h e r e it
8
says that the asbestosis as observed in this series
9
of cases had not resulted in any m ar k e d disability
10
in any case?
11
A.
Yes. I see that.
12
MR. COOK: Object on the basis of
13
optional completeness.
14
Q.
(By Mr. Shipley) And you see N u mber 6
15
w h ere it says one of the conc l u s i o n s was that it's
16
not p ra ct ic ab le as yet to establish standards for
17
the asbestos dust content of air?
18
A .
Y e s , sir.
19
Q
Okay. A n d this was d a t e d 193 5?
20
A .
Yes .
21
Q.
Is that right?
22
A .
Yes, sir. 1935
23
Q.
Do you have any knowledge of Dr es on in
24
1939 recommending some safe levels for asbestos? A
25
tentative maximum allowable concentration?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
129
1
A.
I have no knowledge.
2
Q.
So, if the U n i t e d States g o v e r n m e n t or
3
state governments promulgated regulations and
4
threshold limit values that they considered to be
5
levels that workers could be exposed to eight hours
6
a day 40 hours a w e e k w i t h o u t the e x p e c t a t i o n of
7
disease, you don'thave anyknowledge of that?
8
A.
I --
9
MR. COOK: Object to the form of the
10
ques tion.
11
Q.
(By Mr. Shipley) Do you have any
12
knowledge of that?
13
A.
I have noknowledge of that.
14
MR. SHIPLEY: Okay. That's all.
15
Thank you.
16
MR. PUTNAM: A n y b o d y got -- a n y b o d y
17
else got questions? I've got a few.
18
MS. HERMES: No.
19
2 0
21
EXAMINATION
22
23
By Mr. Putnam:
24
2 5
Q.
Mr. Bueler, my name's Jeff Putnam. I
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
130
1
know we've met before. I represent Wagner in this
2
case. I have a few questions for you.
3
I want to clear up a few things.
4
You previously testified that Wagner provided
5
a s s e m b l i e s to Ford. Is that right?
6
A.
Yes. Brake assemblies to Ford.
7
Q.
Do you know what time periods?
8
A.
B r a k e a s s e m b l i e s to -- for use in some
9
Ford vehicles would have been in the sixties and
10
some in the seventies I believe.
11
Q.
Do you know what vehicles those were
12
supplied for? What types of vehicles?
13
A.
They were the smaller vehicles. We had
14
some contracts for I believe Falcons, and there
15
might have been some Mavericks or something in
16
there in that period of time. These were complete
17
brake assemblies. These were not service brake
18
parts.
19
Q.
With respect to the linings, how was the
20
lining chosen for those?
21
A.
In the case of the OE manufacturers, the
22
linings that we sup p l i e d were in d i r e c t r e s p o n s e to
23
the s p e c i f i c a t i o n b y the customer. In that case it
24
would have been Ford engineering would have said
25
what lining to use.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
131
1
Q.
Okay. W i t h respect to GM and supplying
2
t h e m w i t h o r i g i n a l e q u i p m e n t a s s e m b l i e s -- is that
3
the right --
4
A.
I think that's an acceptable
5
terminology.
6
Q.
Okay. What time periods did Wagner
7
supply to GM?
8
MS. WRIGHT: Objection. Asked and
9
answered.
10
THE WITNESS: A strong recollection
11
about the sixties, p o s s i b l y down into some of the
12
fifties, and into the seventies.
13
Q.
(By Mr. Putnam) What types of vehicles?
14
A.
These brake assemblies would have been
15
for medium trucks basically.
16
Q.
Okay. Are you aware of passenger
17
vehicles ?
18
A.
At General Motors we never supplied
19
brake assemblies for passenger vehicles on an OE
2 0
basis .
21
Q.
You also mentioned Dodge. Do you know
22
what time period you supplied assemblies, OE
23
assemblies for Dodge?
24
A.
OE assemblies would be furnished in the
2 5
sixties and into the early seventies to Dodge
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
132
1
truck. These again would be medium trucks. Brakes
2
in the n a t u r e of 15, 16 in c h d i a m e t e r .
3
Q.
Okay.
4
MS. ANDERSON: Objection.
5
Nonresponsive.
6
Q.
(By Mr. Putnam) You m e n t i o n e d
7
International Harvester. Do you know what time
8
periods you supplied to International Harvester?
9
A.
Possibly the fifties. Definitely the
10
sixties. Definitely the seventies. Again for
11
trucks of m ed i u m size.
12
Q.
Okay. Studebaker. That predates me,
13
but what time period?
14
A.
That would have been in the fifties, and
15
that would have been for passenger cars.
16
Q.
Okay. American Motors was another name
17
you mentioned. What time periods did you supply
18
original assemblies to?
19
A.
American Motors we would have supplied
2 0
o r i g i n a l a s s e m b l i e s in 19 -- late f i f t i e s into the
21
sixties.
22
Q.
Okay. Do you know what types of
23
vehicles?
24
A.
American Motors made vehicles they
25
called Ramblers which were some of the early
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
133
1
compact vehicles. They made Rambler Americans and
2
other size Ramblers, and they were relatively small
3
passenger cars.
4
Q.
Okay. In each of these instances with
5
OEM assemblies how was the lining chosen? The
6
brake lining chosen?
7
MS. ANDERSON: Objection. Asked and
8
answered.
9
MS. WRIGHT: Join that objection.
1 O
THE WITNESS: The lining in all
11
cases on the OE was chosen by the vehicle
12
manufacturer.
13
Q.
(By Mr. Putnam) Okay. In your prior
14
testimony you also mentioned that there was a dust
15
collection system, things of that nature at the
16
Wagner plant for the people working in the factory.
17
Is that right?
18
A.
That is correct.
19
Q.
Okay. Did there ever come a time where
2 O
any outside companies or persons came in to do air
21
m o ni t o r i n g at the plants?
22
A.
Yes. Monitoring was done in the
23
seventies after the OSHA determinations, EPA
24
determinations were put out to determine whether
25
the air in tho s e are a s -- w h e t h e r the air in tho s e
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
134
1
areas was acceptable according to the OSHA
2
standards.
3
Q.
As far as y o u k n o w was the -- did the
4
air testing results come back as b eing acceptable?
5
A.
In all cases that I've heard about they
6
were acceptable. In no cases did I hear about were
7
they unacceptable.
8
MR. PUTNAM: Pass the witness.
9
10
11
FURTHER EXAMINATION
12
13
By Mr . Cook:
14
15
Q
I just have a few more que stio n s , M r .
16
Buel er
17
Mr . Shipley represe nt ing Bridgestone
18
Fire s t one whi eh I think is r e l a t e d t o a c o m p a n y
19
call ed W o r l d b esto s, h a v e y o u ever h e a r d of
20
Worldbestos?
21
A.
As a matter fact, I have, yes.
22
Q.
How do you know about Worldbestos?
23
A.
W o r l d b e s t o s is a lining supplier. I'm
24
not certain who used them. I'm not certain that we
25
used them.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
135
1
Q.
You think you used them?
2
A.
I say I -- I' m no t c e r t a i n . I don 't
3
know whether we did or not.
4
Q.
In r e g a r d to E x h i b i t N u m b e r 4, Mr .
5
Shipley seemed to indicate and you seemed to agree
6
that this was about raw asbestos. Do you remember
7
that question?
8
A.
I remember that question. I remember
9
that assertion I guess. I don't remember saying
10
a n y t h i n g o t h e r than I s u b s e q u e n t l y w e n t t h r o u g h --
11
or was this the one? Which one did I go through?
12
Q.
This is the one you w e n t through.
13
A.
Okay.
14
MR. PUTNAM: Just answer the
15
question he asked you.
16
THE WITNESS: Okay. Would you reask
17
the question?
18
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Okay. He asked you about
19
and I think your answer was, yes, that this
20
document only related to raw asbestos or something
21
to that effect. Do you remember that question?
22
A.
Yes.
23
MR. SHIPLEY: Objection. Misstates
24
the question.
25
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) T a k e a --
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
13 6
1
MR. PUTNAM: Join the objection.
2
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Take a look at Page 511,
3
and let's just clear this up as to w he t h e r this
4
document only relates to raw asbestos. The top
5
table.
6
A.
Okay. Table Number II? Is that the
7
one ?
8
Q.
R o m a n N u m e r a l N u m b e r II.
9
A.
R o m a n N u m e r a l II, yes.
10
Q.
That table relates to dust e x p osures of
11
operators of grinding machines, does it not?
12
A . Yes, sir.
13
Q.
And if you look down, it's taking
14
samples. Sample N u mber 4 is from an internal brake
15
grinder, and sample Numb e r 5 is from an external
16
brake grinder.
17
A . Yes, sir.
18
Q.
So, these do deal w i t h b r a k e g r i n d i n g
19
issues, do they not?
20
MR. PUTNAM: I 'm -- let me o b j e c t to
21
the extent that the terms internal brake grinder
22
and external brake grinder are not defined in the
23
article. So, it's v a g u e and a m b i g u o u s to that
24
extent.
2 5
MR. KNABESCHUH: Join.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
137
1
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) My -- m y q u e s t i o n was,
2
sir, that this article does deal with things other
3
than raw asbestos.
4
A.
It appears that it does.
5
Q.
Do you know who manufactured the
6
g r i n d i n g m a c h i n e s that you use at y o u r c o m p a n y at
7
Wagner ?
8
A.
No, sir.
9
Q.
Now, in regard to the next document,
1 0
B u e l e r E x h i b i t N u m b e r 5, y o u w e r e a s k e d if y o u saw
11
the word cancer or mesothelioma in this article.
12
A.
That's correct.
13
Q.
Do you know as you sit here today
14
w h e t h e r there are m u l t i p l e hazards to h e a l t h from
15
exposure to asbestos?
16
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Vague and
17
am b i g u o u s as to m u l t i p l e haz a r d s to health.
18
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) More than one.
19
A.
I'm not sure w h a t your q u e s t i o n is.
2 0
Q.
Well, Mr. Shipley, representing
2 1
Bridgestone Firestone and whatever relation they
22
have to Worldbestos, asked you questions about
23
mesothelioma and cancer and whether you saw those
24
ter m s in -- in these a r t i c l e s . W h e t h e r t h o s e terms
2 5
were used in these articles, did you see
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
138
1
indications of health hazards of some sort related
2
to asbestos exposure in these two articles?
3
A.
I w o u l d have to read it a lot more
4
t h o r o u g h l y . I wa s l o o k i n g for the w o r d s that he --
5
Q.
But certainly you saw that in Exhibit
6
Number 4 which you did read.
7
A.
I --
8
MR. PUTNAM: Objection.
9
Argumentative and mischaracterizes testimony.
10
THE WITNESS: What I saw in 4 was
11
some information about grinders. Internal and
12
external grinders.
13
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) And h e a l t h h a z a r d s of
14
asbestos?
15
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Misstates
16
his testimony.
17
THE WITNESS: U n der dust e x p osure of
18
operators of grinding machines I saw that internal
19
and external gri n d e r s are i n d i c a t e d some amount of
20
p articles of material in the air.
21
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. Did you see
22
any indication in Number 4 that there might be some
23
health hazard associated with these asbestos
24
particles in the air?
2 5
A.
I see a paragraph entitled Asbestos Dust
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
139
1
Hazards.
2
Q.
All right, sir.
3
A .
B e y o n d that I -- I'm a f r a i d I c a n ' t do a
4
whole lot . I have to read it thoroughly.
5
Q.
All right. Let me go on and ask you
6
some ques tions about your other testimony in regard
7
to follow ing the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of GM, Chrysler,
8
and the o ther manufacturers.
9
MS. ANDERSON: Objection. Misstates
10
prior tes ti m o n y .
11
MR. COOK: What have I misstated
12
about his prior testimony, counsel?
13
MS. ANDERSON: I made my objection.
14
MR. COOK: Well, I'm e n t i t l e d to
15
k n o w if y ou're g o ing to make an o b j e c t i o n other
16
than a le gal o b j e c t i o n so that I can cur e the --
17
the que s t ion. Is there some -- s o m e t h i n g
18
obj ec tion able so that I can cure it?
19
MS. ANDERSON: I b e l i e v e it
2 0
misstates hi prior testimony --
21
MR . COOK: In what way?
22
MS . A N D E R S O N : -- is m y o b j e c t i o n .
23
MR. COOK: In what way?
24
MS . ANDERSON: That's my objection
25
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Is it -- w a s y o u r p r e v i o u s
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
140
1
testimony true that your company followed
2
specifications for brake linings from these various
3
companies as testified to in response to your
4
attorney's questions?
5
A . Yes.
6
Q.
All right. Would you have welcomed
7
i n f o r m a t i o n from these companies, GM, Ford,
8
Chrysler, Studebaker, whatever, AMC, about the
9
materials that were called for in their
10
specifications or did you care?
11
MS. ANDERSON: Objection.
12
MR. PUTNAM: Objection.
13
MS. ANDERSON: Misst at es prior
14
test imony.
15
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Compound
16
and calls for speculation.
17
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what
18
you're asking.
19
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) D id you care w h a t type of
20
mater ia ls and what type of specifications the
21
automobile manufacturers did independently or were
22
you just concerned with following their directions?
23
MR. PUTNAM: Objection. Compound.
24
THE WITNESS: We were concerned
25
independently.
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
141
1
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) All right. Why?
2
A.
Because we w an t e d to be sure that the
3
brakes would perform properly.
4
Q.
So that no matter what the
5
specifications, you looked at the product that you
6
were making and sending to them i nd ep en de nt ly from
7
a performance standpoint.
8
A.
From a performance standpoint.
9
Q.
All right. Any other standpoint?
10
A.
Not to my knowledge.
11
Q.
Now, did you rely on these original
12
equipment manufa ct ur er s to provide you w arnings
13
about any materials in the specifications that
14
might pose a hazard, a health hazard for your
15
employees ?
16
A.
I can't answer that. I have no
17
r e c o ll ec ti on of whether we relied or not.
18
Q.
Would you have expected the people that
19
wer e g i ving you the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s to advise you
2 0
and alert you as to any potential health hazards
21
associated with the materials that were called for
22
in those specifications?
23
A.
It would have been nice had that
24
knowledge been available.
25
Q.
Why?
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
142
1
A .
Because you w o u l d u t i l i z e it to the best
2
of y o u r a b i l i t y to r e d u c e the h a z a r d if t h ere is a
3
hazard.
4
Q.
And again the more information you have
5
available, the better you can assess the hazard and
6
d e c i d e w h a t to do about it.
7
MR. PUTNAM: Objection.
8
Argumentative.
9
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) Is that correct?
10
MR. PUTNAM: Objection.
11
Argumentative. Calls for speculation.
12
THE WITNESS: Generally the more
13
information you have about something the better
14
decision you can make.
15
Q.
(By Mr. Cook) T h ank you, sir.
16
Now, y o u w e r e a l s o a s k e d a b o u t -- by
17
your attorney about some air sampling studies that
18
were done at your plants.
19
A.
Urn-hum.
20
Q.
Who did those studies?
21
A .
An outside firm.
22
Q.
W h a t is the name of that firm?
23
A .
The name as I recall is G e r g e a l or
24
something to that effect.
2 5
Q.
But you can't give me that e x a c t n a m e as
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
143
1
we sit here today?
2
A.
No. I can't while we're sitting here.
3
Q.
Did you participate in those studies?
4
A . N o , sir.
5
Q.
Do you know what protocols were followed
6
in those studies?
7
A . N o , sir.
8
Q.
Do you know whetherwhatever protocols
9
were called for in those studies were accurately
10
followed by those people performing those studies?
11
A.
I did not witness the studies. I cannot
12
make any determination about that.
13
Q.
So, y o u ' r e not here to v o u c h for the
14
val id it y of those studies.
15
A.
No, sir.
I cannotvouch for the
16
validi ty.
17
MR. COOK: I'll pass the witness.
18
Thank you, sir.
19
MR. PUTNAM: Anybody else?
2 0
MR. COOK: That's all. Thanks.
21
THE V I DEOGRAPHER: 2:02. We're off
22
the record.
23
24
25 R I C H A R D C. B U E L E R
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
144
1
THE STATE OF
:
2
COUNTY OF
3
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me, the
4
u n d e r s i g n e d a u t h o r i t y , t h i s ____________ da y of
5
, 1998.
6
7
Notary Public
State of
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
145
1
IN THE STATE OF TEXAS
2
COUNTY OF HARRIS
:
3
4
I, J u d y Conley, a C e r t i f i e d
5
Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas,
6
do her eb y certify that the facts as stated by me in
7
the caption hereto are true; that the above and
8
f o r e g o i n g a n s w e r s of the w i t n e s s , R I C H A R D C.
9
BUELER, to the interr o g a t o r i e s i n d i c a t e d were made
10
before me by the said witness after first being
11
duly sworn to testify the truth, the w h o l e truth
12
and n o t h i n g but the truth, and same w e r e r e d u c e d to
13
typewriting under my direction; that the above and
14
f o r e g o i n g d e p o s i t i o n as set f o r t h in t y p e w r i t i n g is
15
a full, true and correct transcript of the
16
p r o c e e di ng s had at the time of taking said
17
depo si t i o n .
18
I further certify that I am not, in
19
any capacity, a regular employee of the p arty in
20
w h o s e behalf this d e p o s i t i o n is taken, nor in the
21
r e g u l a r employ of his attorney; and I c e r t i f y that
22
I am not interested in the cause, nor of kin or
23
counsel to either of the parties.
24
25
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
146
1
Given under my hand and seal of
2
office on this the
day of
3
1998 .
4
5
6
No. 2573, Expires 12/31/99
7
733 East 6 1/2 Street
Houston, Texas 77007-1795
8
(713) 868-1901
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
2 5
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
145
1
IN THE STATE OF TEXAS s
2
COUNTY OF HARRIS
:
3
4
I, J u d y Conley, a C e r t i f i e d
5
Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas,
6
do hereby certify that the facts as stated by me in
7
the caption hereto are true; that the above and
8
f o r e g o i n g a n s w e r s of the w i t n e s s , R I C H A R D C.
9
BUELER, to the i n t e r rogatories i n d i cated were made
10
before me by the said witness after first being
11
duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth
12
and n o t h i n g but the truth, and same w e r e r e d u c e d to
13
typewriting under my direction; that the above and
14
f o r e g o i n g d e p o s i t i o n as set f o r t h in t y p e w r i t i n g is
15
a full, true and correct transcript of the
16
proceedings had at the time of taking said
17
deposition.
18
I further certify that I am not, in
19
any capacity, a regular employee of the party in
2 0
w h o s e be h a l f this d e p o s i t i o n is taken, nor in the
2 1
regular employ of his attorney; and I certify that
22
I am not interested in the cause, nor of kin or
23
counsel to either of the parties.
24
25
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas
147
1
NO. 94- 007165
2
S T E P H E N F. BLOCK, JR.
) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
AND RITA
BLOCK, )
3
Plaintiffs,
)
VS .
) HARRIS COUNTY, T E X A S
4
)
MAREMONT CORPORATION, )
5
ET AL,
)
Defendants.
) 215TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
6
7
CERTIFICATE TO THE DEPOSITION OF
R I C H A R D C. B U E L E R
8
9
I, J u d y Conley, a C e r t i f i e d
10
Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas,
11
do hereby certify pursuant to The Texas Rules of
12
Civil Procedure and/or agreement of the parties
13
p r e s e n t to the following:
14
That the deposition of RICHARD
15
C. BUELER, t a k e n on the 2 8 t h da y of April, 1998, is
16
a true record of the testimony given by the
17
witness, after said witness was duly sworn by me.
18
That $_________________is the c h a r g e
19
for the p r ep ar at i on of the completed dep os it io n
20
t r a n s c r i p t and any copies of exhibits, c h a r g e d to
21
R U S S E L L L. COOK, JR., T B A No. _______________________ ,
22
Attorney for PLAINTIFFS.
23
That the deposition transcript was
24
available for examination and signature on the
2 5
________ da y o f __________________________, 1998 by the
McCracken & Norton Court Reporters Houston, Texas