Document v12bEgJmV1axBdoM7QaZedbkE

FILE NAME Manville JMA DATE 1969 Nov 21 DOC JMA025 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Meeting Minutes - Asbestos Cement Products Association Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY SPEECH TO BE GIVEN BY HERBERT MORTON BALL TO HEALTH AND SAFETY COUNCIL ASBESTOS CEMENT PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION FIRST ANNUAL MEETING NOVEMBER 21 1969 GENTLEMEN I AM GOING TO DEPART FROM THE CUSTOM OF CONTEMPORARY SPEAKING AND NOT BEGIN MY ADDRESS THIS MORNING WITH A JOKE OR ANECDOTE THE SUBJECT IS TOO SERIOUS WE ARE GOING TO TALK THIS MORNING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS OF COMMON LAW LIABILITY FACING YOUR COMPANIES AS MANUFACTURERS OF PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN ASBESTOS FIBER AS AN INGREDIENT AT THE OUTSET LET IT BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO DISCUSS IN HOUSE PROBLEMS THAT IS THE POSSIBLE HEALTH PROBLEMS OF YOUR OWN EMPLOYEES AS A RESULT OF THEIR INHALATION OF ASBESTOS FIBERS DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR JOB PERFORMANCE IN YOUR VARIOUS MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS THESE PROBLEMS ARE GENERALLY COVERED BY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND LEGALLY SPEAKING PRESENT A DIFFERENT SUBJECT THAN THAT OF THIRD PRODUCT LIABILITY TODAY WE ARE ONLY DISCUSSING YOUR POTENTIAL EXPOSURE UNDER THE COMMON LAW TO ASBESTOSIS CLAIMS BY THIRD PARTIES THAT IS PERSONS WHO ARE NOT YOUR EMPLOYEES INSOFAR AS ASBESTOSIS IS CONCERNED THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY FOUR CLASSES OF POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS : 1 THE FIRST CLASS WOULD ENCOMPASS PEOPLE WHO NORMALLY WORK DAY TO DAY WITH PRODUCTS MADE BY YOU THAT CONTAIN ASBESTOS AND WHO BECAUSE OF THEIR HANDLING SAWING NAILING AND SO FORTH OF THESE PRODUCTS ARE EXPOSED TO THE ASBESTOS FIBERS THAT ARE UNAVOIDABLY LIBERATED PRODUCED JM - 83 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THIS EXPOSURE IF PROPER SAFETY AND HOUSEKEEPING PROCEDURES ARE NOT FOLLOWED IS A MORE OR LESS CONTINUING ONE THE SECOND CLASS OF POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS WOULD BE COMPOSED OF THE CALLED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAINTIFFS THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO LIVED NEAR A PLANT OR MINING OR MILLING FACILITY THAT EMITTED ASBESTOS FIBERS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE ON A MORE OR LESS CONTINUOUS BASIS FOR A LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A CLASS OF PLAINTIFFS APPEARING ON THE SCENE IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE MUST BE RECOGNIZED THE THIRD GROUP OF POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS ARE THOSE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT USE ASBESTOS CEMENT PRODUCTS FROM TIME TO TIME WITHOUT BEING EMPLOYED AS FULL APPLICATORS OR INSTALLERS OF SUCH PRODUCTS AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE A FARMER WHO OCCASIONALLY PURCHASED ASBESTOS CEMENT SHINGLES DIRECTLY FROM A DEALER AND INSTALLED THEM HIMSELF UPON VARIOUS BUILDINGS ON HIS FARM ON THE BASIS OF PRESENT MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY ASBESTOSIS RISK TO SUCH PERSONS THE LAST CATEGORY OF POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS IS BOTH THE LARGEST AND LEAST IT IS THE LARGEST BECAUSE IT IS THE PUBLIC GENERALLY IT COMPRISES ALL PERSONS WHO ARE NOT EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THE MINING MILLING OR FABRICATING PROCESSES AND WHO DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE FIRST THREE | CATEGORIES DESCRIBED HOWEVER IT IS THE LEAST BECAUSE PRODUCED JM - 83 BASED ON OUR PRESENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE DISEASE OF ASBESTOSIS AND ITS CAUSATION WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY ASBESTOSIS RISK TO THE PUBLIC GENERALLY HERE HOWEVER I WANT TO MAKE ONE VERY IMPORTANT POINT WE ARE TODAY SPEAKING ABOUT THE RISKS OF ASBESTOSIS WE ARE NOT SPEAKING ABOUT OTHER DISEASES WHICH SOME MEDICAL MEN ATTRIBUTE TO ASBESTOS INHALATION SUCH AS BRONCHOGENIC CANCER OR MESOTHELIOMA SOME RATHER WILD THEORIES HAVE BEEN EXPOUNDED AS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ASBESTOS AND SUCH DISEASES ONE SUCH THEORY HOLDS THAT THE INHALATION AND RETENTION IN THE BODY OF ONE SINGLE FIBER OF ASBESTOS MAY CAUSE MESOTHELIOMA THIRTY YEARS LATER WE DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS THEORY OBVIOUSLY IF SUCH A THEORY SHOULD HOWEVER ULTIMATELY BE SUBSTANTIATED WE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BALL GAME BOTH IN LEGAL THEORY AND AS A PRACTICAL MATTER FOR TODAY HOWEVER MY REMARKS WILL BE CONFINED TO THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM OF ASBESTOSIS THEREFORE WE WILL ONLY BE CONSIDERING PLAINTIFFS IN THE FIRST =5 THE TWO CATEGORIES DISCUSSED IN ORDER THAT YOU MAY BETTER UNDERSTAND THE LAW TODAY AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ASBESTOSIS PROBLEMS OF REALISTIC CONCERN TO YOUR COMPANIES YOU SHOULD KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT ITS DEVELOPMENT THIRD PARTY CLAIMS NO MATTER IN WHICH OF THE EARLIER DESCRIBED CATEGORIES THE PLAINTIFF BELONGS ARE FOUNDED IN WHAT IS CALLED THE COMMON LAW THE COMMON LAW IS SOMETHING OF AN AMORPHOUS PRODUCED JM - 83 4 CONCEPT ESSENTIALLY AT ANY GIVEN TIME IT REPRESENTS THE CUMULATION AND EVOLUTION OF JUDGE MADE LAW IN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES UP TO THAT TIME THIS IS IN CONTRAST TO STATUTORY LAW STATUTORY LAW IS MADE UP OF THE ENACTMENTS OF LEGISLATURES AND OTHER JUDICIAL GOVERNMENT BODIES THE COMMON LAW IS BASED UPON JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES IT WAS ADOPTED FROM AND HAS GROWN AND DEVELOPED FROM THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW THE SETTLERS BROUGHT IT OVER WITH THEM HOWEVER BEAR IN MIND THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT THAT THE COMMON LAW IS A CONSTANTLY CHANGING COMPOSITE OF CONCEPTS AND RULES BECAUSE IT IS THE RESULT OF EVER EMERGING JUDICIAL DECISIONS AS NEW CASES ARE BROUGHT AND DETERMINED NEW LAW IS MADE AND SOMETIMES OLD LAW IS CHANGED ON OCCASION PRIOR DECISIONS ARE DIRECTLY OVERRULED ALTHOUGH GENERALLY THE CHANGE IS A MORE GRADUAL AND SUBTLE ONE TODAY THE COMMON LAW RECOGNIZES TWO PRINCIPAL CONCEPTS WHICH ARE OF FUNDAMENTAL HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE IN TERMS OF THE PROBLEM HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION THESE ARE 1. THE CONCEPT OF WARRANTIES BOTH EXPRESS AND IMPLIED AND 2. THE CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE A THIRD CONCEPT THAT OF STRICT LIABILITY OF A MANUFACTURER IS EMERGING LET US CONSIDER THE FIRST TWO THE CONCEPT OF WARRANTIES IS AN ASPECT OF THE LAW OF CONTRACT THE CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE IS AN ASPECT OF THAT BRANCH OF THE LAW KNOWN AS TORT UNTIL 1916 BOTH PRODUCED JM - 83 Ke OF THESE APPROACHES WARRANTIES AND NEGLIGENCE WERE GENERALLY LIMITED BY WHAT WAS KNOWN AS THE REQUIREMENT OF PRIVITY WHICH REQUIREMENT ENCOMPASSED BOTH HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL RELATION- SHIPS THE VERTICAL CONCEPT WAS THAT A PURCHASER COULD ONLY SUE THE PARTY WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE PURCHASER STOOD IN RELATIONSHIP OF IMMEDIATE PRIVITY IN OTHER WORDS THE PURCHASER COULD ONLY SUE THE PARTY FROM WHOM HE DIRECTLY BOUGHT THE HORIZONTAL CONCEPT WAS THAT ONLY THE PURCHASER AND NOT OTHERS SUCH AS MEMBERS OF THE PURCHASER'S FAMILY OTHER CONTEMPLATED USERS OR UNFORESEEN BYSTANDERS COULD SUE IN 1916 THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ELIMINATED THE PRIVITY CONCEPT INSOFAR AS THE LAW OF NEW YORK WAS CONCERNED WITH RESPECT TO THE VERTICAL RELATIONSHIP IN THE LANDMARK CASE OF MACPHERSON vs. BUICK THE COURT THERE RULED THAT A PURCHASER OF AN AUTOMOBILE COULD SUE THE MANUFACTURER THEREOF IN TORT FOR NEGLIGENCE IN ITS MANUFACTURE EVEN THOUGH THE PURCHASER WAS NOT IN PRIVITY WITH THE MANUFACTURER BECAUSE HE BOUGHT THE AUTOMOBILE FROM A DEALER THIS WAS ONLY THE BEGINNING SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES HAVE GENERALLY ELIMINATED THE HORIZONTAL PRIVITY REQUIREMENTS SO THAT ANYONE EVEN A BYSTANDER NOT A CONTEMPLATED USER OF THE PRODUCT CAN NOW SUE THE MANUFACTURER FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE MANUFACTURER'S NEGLIGENCE IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE PRODUCT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE CONCEPT OF PRODUCTION HERE INCLUDES THE PACKAGING AND THE FAILURE TO WARN OF HAZARDS WHICH PRODUCED JM - 83 ee) WERE KNOWN OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO THE MANUFACTURER THE LAW THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES TODAY IS ON THE VERGE OR MAY BE ON THE VERGE OF GOING EVEN FURTHER IT IS APPROACHING THE IDEA OF IMPOSING STRICT MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY WITHOUT REGARD TO NEGLIGENCE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL PARTIES WHO COULD REASONABLY BE CONTEMPLATED BY THE MANUFACTURER AS POTENTIAL END USERS OF ITS PRODUCTS THERE IS EVEN SOME ADVOCATION OF EXTENDING THIS APPROACH TO COVER UNFORESEEN VICTIMS > PERSONS NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE MANUFACTURER THIS IDEA OF STRICT LIABILITY IS THE THIRD CONCEPT THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER LET ME EXPLAIN BRIEFLY HOW THE CONTRACT THEORY OF LIABILITY WORKS EVERY STATE IN THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN LOUISIANA HAS ADOPTED THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE AS ITS TITLE INDICATES THIS STATUTORY ENACTMENT GOVERNS COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS AMONG OTHER THINGS IT PROVIDES THAT WHENEVER A MERCHANT WHICH WOULD INCLUDE MANUFACTURERS SUCH AS YOURSELVES SELLS ITS PRODUCTS THE LAW WILL IMPLY SO IN THAT SUCH A THE ABSENCE MERCHANT HAS MADE CERTAIN WARRANTIES OF EXPRESS CER NEGATION THIS IS ONE SUCH WARRANTY THAT THE LAW READS INTO THE AGREEMENT OF SALE IS THE WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY MERCHANTABILITY IN THIS &20"3 CONTEXT MEAN,S (0UD Hm,AY DEFECTIVENESS OF THE oy PRODUCT IN OTHER WORDS THE LAW SAYS THAT WHEN YOU SELL YOUR PRODUCTS YOU ARE DEEMED AS A MATTER OF CONTRACT LAW TO WARRANT THAT THEY ARE NOT DEFECTIVE DEFECTIVE MEANS SAFE AND UNHARMFUL AMONG OTHER THINGS PRODUCED JM - 83 Na YOU WILL REMEMBER THAT I MENTIONED THE CONCEPT OF PRIVITY WITH RESPECT TO THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE AND INDICATED THAT IT HAS VIRTUALLY DISAPPEARED A SIMILAR TREND IS EVIDENCING ITSELF WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCEPT OF PRIVITY IN THE REALM OF CONTRACT LAW THIS IS SIGNIFICANT IN TERMS OF THE QUESTION TO WHOM IS THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY DEEMED GIVEN DOES THE LAW IMPOSE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONFORMING WITH THAT WARRANTY ON THE MANUFACTURER ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIS IMMEDIATE PURCHASER OR DOES THE LAW EXTEND SUCH RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT OTHER PERSONS PERSONS WHO ARE NOT IN PRIVITY OF CONTRACT WITH THE MANUFACTURER SUCH AS THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PURCHASER OR OF THAT PURCHASER'S CUSTOMEWHRO IN PRODUCTS IN SHORT PERSONS WHO FACT FALL WORK WITH AND INSTALL THE WITHIN THE FIRST CATEGORY THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER IT WOULD APPEAR THAT JUST AS THE REQUIREMENT OF VERTICAL PRIVITY WAS ELIMINATED IN TORT IN MACPHERSON vs. BUICK THE REQUIREMENT OF VERTICAL PRIVITY OF CONTRACT IS SIMILARLY HEADED FOR OBLIVION IT WAS ELIMINATED UNDER THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA IN A VERY RECENT CASE THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THAT CASE WAS OF COURSE SPEAKING ONLY FOR PENNSYLVANIA BUT PENNSYLVANIA LIKE NEW YORK IS A LEADING STATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL LAW AND THE COURTS OF LESS INDUSTRIALIZED STATES GENERALLY FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THEIR MORE ADVANCED SISTER STATES THUS THE COURTS CAN ACHIEVE THE SAME RESULT AS THEY DO UNDER THE THEORY OF STRICT LIABILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER BY COUPLING A PRODUCED JM - 83 8 BROAD VIEW OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY WITH THE DOCTRINE THAT THE PROTECTION OF THE WARRANTY EXTENDS TO PERSONS NOT IN PRIVITY OF CONTRACT WITH THE MANUFACTURER PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THE WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY CAN BE BREACHED WITHOUT ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE MANUFACTURER I WOULD NOW LIKE TO TELL YOU ABOUT A CONCRETE CASE WHICH ILLUSTRATES THE USE OF THESE CONCEPTS BY A PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY YOU WILL REMEMBER THE FOUR CATEGORIES OF POSSIBLE PLAINTIFFS THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER THE FIRST OF THESE WAS THE CONTINUOUS WORK- ING DAY TO WORKING DAY USER OF THE PRODUCT LET US SWITCH OUR ATTENTION FOR A MOMENT FROM ASBESTOS CEMENT PRODUCTS TO ANOTHER PRODUCT LINE WHICH CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBER WHICH CAN BE LIBERATED AS A RESULT OF ITS USE OR APPLICATION SHANT a, INDUSTRIAL INSULATION TO OUR KNOWLEDGE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS SIX DIFFERENT INDUSTRIAL INSULATION APPLICATORS HAVE BROUGHT THIRD PARTY COMMON LAW ACTIONS AGAINST THE MANUFACTURERS OF INDUSTRIAL INSULATION PRODUCTS THE CASES ARE ALL VERY SIMILAR I SHOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU A TYPICAL ONE BEFORE ANYONE HERE JUMPS OUT OF HIS SEAT LET ME SAY THAT WE FULLY RECOGNIZE THAT THE RISK TO WORKING DAY TO WORKING DAY USERS OF ASBESTOS CEMENT PRODUCTS MAY NOT AT ALL APPROACH THE RISK THAT WE HAVE NOW COME TO UNDERSTAND EXISTS WITH RESPECT TO INSULATION APPLICATORS THE QUESTION IS ONE OF DEGREE WE DO NOT YET KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE IN THIS AREA WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANYBODY ELSE YET REALLY KNOWS I AM PRODUCED JM - 83 MERELY DISCUSSING THIS CASE AS AN ILLUSTRATION BECAUSE THE LEGAL LIF PRINCIPALS WILL BE THE SAME MR POTTER AN INDUSTRIAL INSULATION APPLICATOR HAS SUED TEN INDUSTRIAL INSULATION MANUFACTURERS FOR 500,000 GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES PLUS 500,000 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES MR POTTER WAS AN INSULATION WORKER FROM 1940 TO 1967. HIS COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT 1 DEFENDANTS KNEW OR IN THE EXERCISE OF ORDINARY OR REASONABLE CARE OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN THAT THE PRODUCTS THAT THEY MANUFACTURED WERE DANGEROUS TO HIS HEALTH 7 CLAIMS THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THIS DEFENDANTS THIS TAKE ANY REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS NEGLIGENTLY . OR EXERCISE FAILED TO REASONABLE CARE TO WARN PLAINTIFF OF THE DANGER AND HARM TO WHICH HE WAS EXPOSED WHILE HANDLING THE DEFENDANTS PRODUCTS 2 DEFENDANTS FAILED TO WARN PLAINTIFF AND I AM NOW QUOTING AS TO WHAT WOULD BE REASONABLY SAFE AND SUFFICIENT WEARING APPAREL AND PROPER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AND APPLIANCES IF IN TRUTH THERE WERE ANY TO PROTECT HIM FROM BEING POISONED AND DISABLED 3 DEFENDANTS FAILED TO PLACE ANY WARNINGS ON THE CONTAINERS OF THE INSULATION AND 4 DEFENDANTS KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT KNOW THE DANGEROUS CHARACTERISTICS OF THEIR PRODUCTS PRODUCED JM - 83 20 ALL OF THESE ALLEGATIONS SOUND IN NEGLIGENCE THEN PLAINTIFF GOES ON AND CLAIMS IN CONTRACT THAT DEFENDANTS BREACHED THEIR WARRANTIES TO HIM PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT 1 DEFENDANTS KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT SUITABLE FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED ; 2 THAT THE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE TESTED THEIR PRODUCTS ; AND 3. THAT THE PRODUCTS WERE WARRANTED WARRANTED EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY TO BE MERCHANTABLE PLAINTIFF THEN GOES ON TO ALLEGE YET ANOTHER THEORY OF RECOVERY THAT OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR FREELY TRANSLATED RES IPSA LOGUITUR MEANS THE THING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF IT IS AN ASPECT OF AN ALLEGATION OF NEGLIGENCE WHEREBY THE PLAINTIFF ALLEGES HIS HARM OR DAMAGES AND THEN STATES THAT SINCE THE MANUFACTURE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE PRODUCTS WAS EXCLUSIVELY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE DEFENDANTS THE PLAINTIFF NEED ONLY SHOW THAT HE HAS BEEN INJURED AS A RESULT OF HIS USE OF THE PRODUCTS AND IT IS UP TO DEFENDANTS TO EXPLAIN AWAY THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IN SHORT THIS CONCEPT SHIFTS THE BURDEN OF PROOF FROM PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANTS IN ASKING FOR 500,000 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE CONSCIOUSLY INDIFFERENT AND HAD UTTER DISREGARD FOR HIS WELFARE AND THEREFORE THEY SHOULD IN EFFECT BE PUNISHED BY THE AWARDING OF SUCH EXEMPLARY DAMAGES PRODUCED JM - 83 THIS IS THE TYPE OF COMPLAINT THAT YOU CAN EXPECT IF IT TURNS OUT THAT PEOPLE WHO NORMALLY WORK WITH ASBESTOS CEMENT PRODUCTS CAN CONTRACT ASBESTOSIS AS A RESULT OF WORKING WITH SUCH PRODUCTS WHAT SPECIFICALLY CAN YOU DO TO MINIMIZE THESE RISKS TO BEGIN WITH A WARNING SHOULD BE PLACED UPON THE PACKAGING OF ALL PRODUCTS THAT ARE PRESENTLY SUSPECT THE WARNING SHOULD STATE THAT THERE MAY BE A HEALTH HAZARD AND THAT PROPER PRECAUTIONARY PROCEDURES SUCH AS THE WEARING OF RESPIRATORS SHOULD BE FOLLOWED THE WARNING SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE DANGERS INHERENT IN THE DAY TO DAY HANDLING INSTALLING AND APPLYING OF THE PRODUCTS THEY SHOULD NEGATE ANY IMPLICATION THAT THE PRODUCTS IN THEMSELVES ONCE INSTALLED ARE DANGEROUS IN THIS REGARD CAREFULLY WORDED PAMPHLETS SHOULD BE PREPARED WHICH DESCRIBE THE SAFEST OPERATING AND HOUSEKEEPING PROCEDURES KNOWN THESE PAMPHLETS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO CONTRACTORS I.E. EMPLOYERS AND TO THE UNIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION TO WORKERS ADMITTEDLY THIS CAN CREATE CERTAIN PRACTICAL PROBLEMS BUT IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE LONG TERM PROTECTION TO BE REALIZED IS WORTH THE SHORT TERM COST THE ABOVE TWO SUGGESTIONS RELATE TO PEOPLE IN THE FIRST CATEGORY OF POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS WITH RESPECT TO THE SECONDATIT POTENTIAL CATEGORY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAINTIFFS THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO DEVISE CONTROL METHODS THAT WILL STOP YOUR FACILITIES FROM EMITTING ASBESTOS DUST AND FIBERS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE IF IN FACT THEY DO 50 PRODUCED JM - 83 ( SIMULTANEOUSLY ADEQUATE MONIES SHOULD BE ADVANCED FOR THE FUNDING OF APPROPRIATE RESEARCH TO DETERMINE a b WHAT THE TRUE RISKS ARE AND THE BEST MEANS OF ELIMINATING OR MINIMIZING THESE RISKS WE MUST ALL RECOGNIZE THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO REMAIN IN BUSINESS THERE IS NO EASY WAY OUT LEGALLY OR OTHERWISE A FULLY COORDINATED AND CONCERTED MAXIMUM EFFORT ON THE PART OF ALL IS NECESSARY I AND MY STAFF STAND READY TO AID THIS COUNCIL TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE PRODUCED JM - 83