IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION
`
`CONRAD JOHNS and ELIZABETH JOHNS
`
`ASB-FBT-CV-23-6120092-S
`__________________________________________
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Defendants
`__________________________________________)
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`
`ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al.
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT
` OF FAIRFIELD
`
`AT BRIDGEPORT
`
`February 2, 2023
`
`ANSWER, SPECIAL DEFENSES, AND CROSS-CLAIM OF
`DEFENDANT EATON CORPORATION,
`AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CUTLER-HAMMER, INC.
`(IMPROPERLY NAMED AS “EATON CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
`SUCCESSOR TO CUTLER HAMMER AND VICKERS PUMP”)
`
`Defendant Eaton Corporation, as successor-in-interest
`
`to Cutler-Hammer,
`
`Inc.
`
`(improperly named as “Eaton Corporation, individually and as successor to Cutler Hammer and
`
`Vickers Pump”) (hereinafter “Eaton” or “Defendant”) hereby responds to Plaintiffs’ Complaint
`
`as follows:
`
`COUNT I
`(Product liability against all defendants)
`
`1.
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and accordingly, leaves
`
`Plaintiff to his proofs.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and accordingly, leaves
`
`Plaintiff to her proofs.
`
`DPR/PAR
`#4736244v1
`
`
`
`CONRAD JOHNS and ELIZABETH JOHNS
`
`ASB-FBT-CV-23-6120092-S
`__________________________________________
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Defendants
`__________________________________________)
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`
`ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al.
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT
` OF FAIRFIELD
`
`AT BRIDGEPORT
`
`February 2, 2023
`
`ANSWER, SPECIAL DEFENSES, AND CROSS-CLAIM OF
`DEFENDANT EATON CORPORATION,
`AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CUTLER-HAMMER, INC.
`(IMPROPERLY NAMED AS “EATON CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
`SUCCESSOR TO CUTLER HAMMER AND VICKERS PUMP”)
`
`Defendant Eaton Corporation, as successor-in-interest
`
`to Cutler-Hammer,
`
`Inc.
`
`(improperly named as “Eaton Corporation, individually and as successor to Cutler Hammer and
`
`Vickers Pump”) (hereinafter “Eaton” or “Defendant”) hereby responds to Plaintiffs’ Complaint
`
`as follows:
`
`COUNT I
`(Product liability against all defendants)
`
`1.
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and accordingly, leaves
`
`Plaintiff to his proofs.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and accordingly, leaves
`
`Plaintiff to her proofs.
`
`DPR/PAR
`#4736244v1
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Except to admit that Defendant has conducted business in the State of
`
`Connecticut, Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint
`
`to the extent they are directed towards it.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, and accordingly, leaves
`
`Plaintiffs to their proofs.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and accordingly, leaves
`
`Plaintiff to his proofs.
`
`6-23. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of these paragraphs that are not directed towards it. Defendant denies the
`
`allegations that are indeed directed towards it. Further, to the extent that these allegations call
`
`for a conclusion of law, no response is required and Defendant refers them to the Court.
`
`COUNT II
`(Recklessness as to all Defendants)
`
`1-23. Defendant repeats and realleges each and every response to Paragraphs 1 through
`
`23 of the Complaint as if more fully set forth herein.
`
`24-28. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of these paragraphs that are not directed towards it. Defendant denies the
`
`allegations that are indeed directed towards it. Further, to the extent that these allegations call
`
`for a conclusion of law, no response is required and Defendant refers them to the Court.
`
`2
`
`
`
`COUNT III
`(As to Plaintiff Elizabeth Johns and all Defendants)
`
`1-28. Defendant repeats and realleges each and every response to Paragraphs 1 through
`
`28 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of these paragraphs that are not directed towards it. Defendant denies the
`
`allegations that are indeed directed towards it. Further, to the extent that these allegations call
`
`for a conclusion of law, no response is required and Defendant refers them to the Court.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant is free of any and all negligence.
`
`SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant neither owes nor owed a legal duty of care to the Plaintiffs.
`
`THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`With respect to the Plaintiffs’ claim of a duty owed, the answering Defendant denies
`
`breaching any duty which it may have owed to the Plaintiffs.
`
`FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`None of the alleged injury or damage was foreseeable at the time of the acts or omissions
`
`complained of in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
`
`FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Any damage or injury that may have been suffered by the Plaintiffs was not proximately
`
`caused by the conduct of the answering Defendant.
`
`SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`No acts or omissions of the answering Defendant proximately caused any damages.
`
`3
`
`
`
`SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The doctrine of strict liability in tort does not apply to the answering Defendant.
`
`EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant never manufactured, sold, or distributed any asbestos-
`
`containing material which caused the Plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos.
`
`NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant had no knowledge or reason to know of any alleged risks
`
`associated with asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products at any time during the periods
`
`complained of.
`
`TENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`At all times material hereto, the state of the medical and industrial art was such that there
`
`was no generally accepted or recognized knowledge of any avoidable, unsafe, inherently
`
`dangerous, or hazardous character or nature of products containing asbestos when used in the
`
`manner and purpose described by the Plaintiff and, therefore, there was no duty for the
`
`answering Defendant to know of any such character or nature or to warn the Plaintiff or others
`
`similarly situated.
`
`ELEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that the answering Defendant conformed to the scientific knowledge and
`
`research data available through the industry and scientific community, the answering Defendant
`
`has fulfilled its obligations, if any, herein and the Plaintiffs’ claims should be barred, in whole or
`
`in part.
`
`4
`
`
`
`TWELFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant complied with the state-of-the-art and is, therefore, immune
`
`from suit.
`
`THIRTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Exposure to asbestos fibers attributable to the answering Defendant is so minimal so as to
`
`be insufficient to establish to a reasonable degree of probability that the products are capable of
`
`causing injury or damages and must be considered speculative as a matter of law.
`
`FOURTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Any asbestos or asbestos-containing products which the answering Defendant may have
`
`supplied were de minimis in light of the total sales by all sources and, therefore, the Plaintiffs fail
`
`to state a claim against the answering Defendant.
`
`FIFTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`At all times relevant to this litigation, the agents, servants and/or employees of the
`
`answering Defendant utilized proper methods in the conduct of their operations, in conformity
`
`with the available knowledge and research of the scientific and industrial communities.
`
`SIXTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Finished asbestos-containing products are not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.
`
`SEVENTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant purchased or obtained a product from a reputable
`
`manufacturer, and any defect therein was latent and not ascertainable by or upon a reasonable
`
`inspection.
`
`5
`
`
`
`EIGHTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Any product which may have been supplied by the answering Defendant was sold
`
`without significant modification, change, or alteration of any kind.
`
`NINETEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because any product allegedly associated with the
`
`answering Defendant was substantially altered after it left the manufacturer’s possession and
`
`control.
`
`TWENTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The incident and injury alleged in the Complaint were caused by the unauthorized,
`
`unintended, and improper use of the product complained of and as a result, there can be no
`
`recovery.
`
`TWENTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant did not make, nor did it breach any warranty to the Plaintiff.
`
`TWENTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that the Plaintiffs allege claims based upon oral warranties or
`
`representations, the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Statute of Frauds.
`
`TWENTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`All implied warranties, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a
`
`particular purpose, were excluded at the time of the sale, if any, of the answering Defendant’s
`
`product.
`
`6
`
`
`
`TWENTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`No implied warranties, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a
`
`particular purpose, became part of the basis of the bargain in the sale, if any, of the answering
`
`Defendant’s product.
`
`TWENTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant is not liable to the Plaintiffs for any damages alleged in the
`
`Complaint because such damages are excluded and not recoverable under express warranty.
`
`TWENTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff did not directly or indirectly purchase any asbestos-containing products or
`
`materials from the answering Defendant and the Plaintiff did not either receive or rely upon any
`
`representation or warranty allegedly made by the answering Defendant.
`
`TWENTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiffs’ claims for alleged beaches of warranties against the answering Defendant
`
`fail for lack of privity of contract, pursuant to § 42a-2-607 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
`
`TWENTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiffs failed to give the answering Defendant notice of alleged breach of warranty
`
`and damage as required by law.
`
`TWENTY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that the causes of action pleaded by the Plaintiffs fail to accord with the
`
`Uniform Commercial Code (as codified at § 42a-1-101 et seq. of the Connecticut General
`
`Statutes), including but not limited to § 2-725 (§ 42a-2-275 of the Connecticut General Statutes)
`
`thereof, the Plaintiffs’ Complaint is time-barred.
`
`7
`
`
`
`THIRTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The action of the Plaintiffs is barred by the Statute of Limitations.
`
`THIRTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Statute of Limitations in this case is not tolled by the discovery rule and the Plaintiffs
`
`are therefore barred from maintaining the within suit.
`
`THIRTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were the result of the sole negligence of the Plaintiffs.
`
`THIRTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff was aware of the facts, circumstances, and conditions existing at the time
`
`and place set forth in the Complaint and voluntarily assumed all risk arising therefrom.
`
`THIRTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff was warned of the risk of exposure to use of asbestos-containing materials.
`
`THIRTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff is barred from any recovery against the answering Defendant by the
`
`doctrine of assumption of the risk.
`
`THIRTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff contributed to his illness, either in whole or in part, by exposure to or the
`
`use of tobacco products and/or other substances, products, medications, or drugs.
`
`THIRTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Damages, if any, which may have been sustained by the Plaintiff, and for which the
`
`answering Defendant may become liable, were the result of the actions of third-parties over
`
`whom the answering Defendant exercised no control and, therefore, the Plaintiff is barred from
`
`any recovery against the answering Defendant.
`
`8
`
`
`
`THIRTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Any damages or injuries which may have been sustained by the Plaintiff were the result
`
`of the sole negligence of the remaining defendants and/or third-party defendants.
`
`THIRTY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Any liability which might otherwise be imposed upon the answering Defendant is subject
`
`to reduction or barred by virtue of the doctrine of comparative negligence, as set forth in § 52-
`
`572o and/or § 52-572h of the Connecticut General Statutes.
`
`FORTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff’s employer and employers of others are primarily, solely, and exclusively
`
`liable for the within claims.
`
`FORTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant cannot be liable to the Plaintiff as alleged in the Complaint by
`
`operation of the doctrines of superseding and/or intervening cause.
`
`FORTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant was under no duty to warn purchasers, those who performed
`
`work, or those under their control who were in a better position to warn; if warning was required,
`
`their failure to do so was a superseding proximate cause of injury.
`
`FORTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff’s employer(s) were sophisticated purchasers and/or users of the products
`
`referred to in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint and upon who devolved all responsibility for such use.
`
`FORTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff, his co-workers, and employees misused, abused, mistreated, and
`
`misapplied the product(s) designated as asbestos materials as alleged in the Complaint and
`
`9
`
`
`
`therefore liability found against the answering Defendant, if any, should be diminished in the
`
`proportion which the misuse, abuse, mistreatment and/or misapplication attributed to the Plaintiff
`
`and/or his co-workers and/or employees bears to the conduct which caused the alleged injuries or
`
`damages.
`
`FORTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Any asbestos-containing product of the answering Defendant that may have been present
`
`at the Plaintiff’s job locations were placed in any such buildings upon specification, approval, or
`
`at the instruction of governmental or legislative agencies or bodies.
`
`FORTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
` If it should be proved at the time of trial that any of the answering Defendant’s
`
`product(s) were furnished to the Plaintiff’s employer(s) and/or to the United States Government,
`
`and that the Plaintiff came into contact with said product(s), which the answering Defendant
`
`specifically denies, then any product(s) processed, manufactured, produced, constructed,
`
`designed, tested, fashioned, packaged, sold, distributed, delivered, supplied, advertised and/or
`
`otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by the answering Defendant which was or may have
`
`been furnished to the Plaintiff’s employer(s) and/or to the United States Government, and with
`
`which the Plaintiff alleges he came or may have come into contact was processed, manufactured,
`
`produced, constructed, designed, tested, fashioned, packaged, sold, distributed, delivered,
`
`supplied, advertised and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce were in strict conformity
`
`to the conditions specified, or to specifications furnished by the Plaintiff’s employer(s) and/or the
`
`United States Government.
`
`10
`
`
`
`FORTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`If, at the time of trial, it is shown that the Plaintiff used products manufactured, supplied,
`
`distributed, or sold by the answering Defendant, said products or a portion thereof were supplied
`
`to, by, or on behalf of the United States Government, or if those products were supplied or sold
`
`by the United States Government, the answering Defendant raises any immunity from suit or
`
`from liability as conferred by the United States Government, and specifically pleads the
`
`government contract and/or government specification defenses.
`
`FORTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`In the event of a finding of any liability in favor of the Plaintiff, or settlement, or judgment
`
`against any defendant, then the answering Defendant should be held liable, if at all, only for the
`
`proportion of damages sustained by the Plaintiff, if any, as is determined by the jury to be the
`
`result of the allocable percentage of fault or negligence on the part of the answering Defendant.
`
`FORTY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`In the event that the Plaintiff recovers a verdict or judgment against the answering
`
`Defendant, then said verdict or judgment must be reduced by those amounts which have been
`
`paid or indemnified or will, with reasonable certainty, be paid or indemnified to any Plaintiff, in
`
`whole or in part, for any past or future claimed economic loss, from any collateral source
`
`including insurance, social security, workers compensation or employees benefit programs.
`
`FIFTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that the Plaintiff’s claims against the answering Defendant were discharged
`
`in bankruptcy, the answering Defendant has no liability.
`
`FIFTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`In the event that the Plaintiff was employed by the answering Defendant, the Plaintiff’s
`
`11
`
`
`
`sole remedy is under the workers’ compensation law and the Plaintiff cannot recover from the
`
`answering Defendant in this action.
`
`FIFTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Upon information and belief, any alleged injuries were caused by a pre-existing or
`
`unrelated medical condition, disease, or illness of the Plaintiff.
`
`FIFTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that the Plaintiff failed
`
`to mitigate damages.
`
`FIFTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
` The answering Defendant reserves the right to amend its answer and to assert additional
`
`crossclaims and/or counterclaims as to any party named herein, who may have, is, or will be
`
`declared bankrupt or otherwise files a petition under the Bankruptcy Code.
`
`FIFTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`No enterprise liability lies against the answering Defendant herein.
`
`FIFTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff-spouse’s loss of consortium claim(s) is/are barred as a matter of law
`
`because the alleged asbestos exposure by the Plaintiff predates the date of the Plaintiff’s and the
`
`Plaintiff-spouse’s marriage.
`
`FIFTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted to the
`
`extent that the Plaintiff is unable to identify the manufacturer(s) of the substance allegedly
`
`12
`
`
`
`causing injury, and relief granted would deprive the answering Defendant of its right to
`
`substantive and procedural due process of law and equal protection under the law pursuant to the
`
`Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
`
`FIFTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted to the
`
`extent that the Plaintiff is unable to identify the manufacturer(s) of the substance allegedly
`
`causing injury in that, if relief were granted, it would constitute a taking of private property for
`
`public use, without just compensation. Such a taking would contravene the answering
`
`Defendant’s constitutional rights as preserved for it by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
`
`Constitution of the United States.
`
`FIFTY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`These actions and the causes pleaded by the Plaintiff herein are barred by virtue of
`
`Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.
`
`SIXTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks exemplary or punitive damages, those claims are
`
`barred because such damages are not recoverable or warranted in this action.
`
`SIXTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks exemplary or punitive damages, their demand for
`
`punitive damages is barred by the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
`
`United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut.
`
`SIXTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks exemplary or punitive damages, the Plaintiffs’
`
`demand is barred by the proscription of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
`
`13
`
`
`
`as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Constitution of the State of
`
`Connecticut.
`
`SIXTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks exemplary or punitive damages, the Plaintiffs’
`
`demand is barred by the “double jeopardy” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
`
`Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
`
`SIXTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages is barred by the “ex post facto” clause of the
`
`United States Constitution.
`
`SIXTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant did not act with recklessness, malice, or wantonness, and
`
`accordingly, the Plaintiff may not recover herein any exemplary or punitive damages against the
`
`answering Defendant.
`
`SIXTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest,
`
`and costs.
`
`SIXTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent any Plaintiff herein brings suit in a representative capacity, such Plaintiff
`
`has failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate legal capacity to sue.
`
`SIXTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as against the
`
`answering Defendant.
`
`14
`
`
`
`SIXTY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Defendant affirmative pleads and hereby gives notice that the law of a foreign state,
`
`territory or sovereign may apply to the within action.
`
`SEVENTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The court lacks personal jurisdiction over the answering Defendant.
`
`SEVENTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The purported service upon the answering Defendant was not proper, and as a result, this
`
`Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the answering Defendant.
`
`SEVENTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant is an improper party in this litigation.
`
`SEVENTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`This action is barred pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
`
`SEVENTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of laches, waiver, and/or estoppel.
`
`SEVENTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiffs have improperly joined claims of multiple parties and all improperly joined
`
`or misjoined parties and/or claims must be severed and tried separately.
`
`SEVENTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because of the Plaintiffs’ failure to join necessary and
`
`indispensable parties.
`
`SEVENTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Upon information and belief, some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained
`
`because of collateral estoppel.
`
`15
`
`
`
`SEVENTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Upon information and belief, some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained
`
`because of res judicata.
`
`SEVENTY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant reserves the right to move for a severance of the various
`
`allegations in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
`
`EIGHTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Admiralty law may apply to this action.
`
`EIGHTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant’s liability has been extinguished to the extent the Plaintiffs
`
`have executed any releases relieving the answering Defendant from liability.
`
`EIGHTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff’s damages, if any, are attributable to conditions, pre-existing or otherwise,
`
`and said damages are reasonably capable of being apportioned amongst the various conditions
`
`and the damages allegedly caused by the answering Defendant pursuant to the Restatement
`
`(Second) of Torts § 433A, Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572o, and/or any other applicable statute or law.
`
`The Plaintiff’s recovery against the answering Defendant for these other conditions, pre-existing
`
`or otherwise, must be denied.
`
`EIGHTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff's damages, if any, are attributable to causes other than the acts or omissions
`
`of the answering Defendant and are capable of being apportioned amongst the causes pursuant to
`
`the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433A, Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572o, and/or any other
`
`16
`
`
`
`applicable statute or law. Recovery must be denied for injuries not attributable to the answering
`
`Defendant.
`
`EIGHTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant pleads comment k. of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
`
`EIGHTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff used the answering Defendant’s product when he knew or should have
`
`known of its dangerous condition and, therefore, his actions are deemed to be the sole proximate
`
`cause of injury.
`
`EIGHTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiffs’ claims are barred due to failure to provide adequate notice and the
`
`answering Defendant is prejudiced thereby, including but not limited to the loss of useful
`
`evidence.
`
`EIGHTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff’s claims are barred as too remote under any applicable statute of repose,
`
`including but not limited to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a.
`
`EIGHTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`There is no warranty extended by the answering Defendant for asbestos-containing
`
`products because the answering Defendant is not a merchant in goods of the kind.
`
`EIGHTY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff’s claim for breach of warranty upon which relief may be granted is barred
`
`because the Plaintiff was not a person reasonably expected to be affected by the product.
`
`17
`
`
`
`NINETIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff’s unreasonable acts were the proximate cause of his injury and, therefore,
`
`there can be no recovery.
`
`NINETY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of release and accord and satisfaction.
`
`NINETY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Any asbestos containing products supplied by
`
`the answering Defendant were
`
`encapsulated, non-friable and contained only chrysotile asbestos, which does not cause asbestos
`
`related diseases at low doses. Any alleged exposure of the Plaintiff to an asbestos-containing
`
`product supplied by the answering Defendant was not of the type and/or was insufficient to be a
`
`proximate cause to the Plaintiff’s alleged asbestos disease, if any.
`
`NINETY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`At all times and places mentioned in the Complaint, if the Plaintiff and/or other persons
`
`used products sold by the answering Defendant, which allegations the answering Defendant
`
`denies, they did so in an unreasonable manner, not reasonably foreseeable to the answering
`
`Defendant, and for the purpose for which the products were not intended, manufactured, or
`
`designed. The Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any, were directly and proximately caused by
`
`said misuse and abuse, and the Plaintiffs’ recovery herein, if any, is barred or must be diminished
`
`in proportion to the fault attributable to the Plaintiffs and/or such other parties and persons.
`
`NINETY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`If the Plaintiff was injured or harmed, which the answering Defendant denies, the
`
`negligence of the Plaintiff’s employer proximately caused such injuries or harm, and the Plaintiff
`
`received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer. Therefore, if the Plaintiff is
`
`18
`
`
`
`entitled to damages, which the answering Defendant denies, the answering Defendant is entitled
`
`to a setoff in the amount of said workers’ compensation benefits.
`
`NINETY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent that the exclusive remedy falls under either
`
`the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 905, or the
`
`Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-275 et seq.
`
`NINETY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff’s claims are barred based upon the learned intermediary doctrine.
`
`NINETY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`If the Plaintiff is barred from recovery, any action filed by or on behalf of the Plaintiff's
`
`spouse is also barred because it is a derivative action.
`
`NINETY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant is not liable because the asbestos fibers used in its product, if
`
`any, were encapsulated and non-friable.
`
`NINETY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`If the Plaintiff proves that the Plaintiff became exposed to chrysotile asbestos, then that
`
`asbestos did not cause an asbestos-related disease, due to its physical nature, the low dose, and/or
`
`its transition to fosterite.
`
`ONE-HUNDRETH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The injuries alleged were caused in whole or in part by the Plaintiff's violation, or his
`
`servants’ or agents’ violation, of the various statues, ordinances and regulations governing the
`
`conduct of the parties at the time said injuries were sustained.
`
`19
`
`
`
`ONE HUNDRED AND FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`This answering Defendant did not mine, process, manufacture, design, test, fashion,
`
`package, distribute, deliver or sell any products which were the proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s
`
`claimed injuries.
`
`ONE HUNDRED AND SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`If the Plaintiff was injured by exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products,
`
`which the answering Defendant denies, then such injuries were or may have resulted from
`
`exposure to products of one or more other manufacturers not parties to this action, including
`
`Johns-Manville Corporation, Union Asbestos & Rubber Co. a/k/a UNARCO Industries, Inc., and
`
`Amatex Corporation, and other such manufacturers who have filed bankruptcy.
`
`ONE HUNDRED AND THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Any claims asserted in the Complaint alleging fraud should be stricken because they have
`
`not been pled with the requisite particularity.
`
`ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant breached no warranties, either express or implied, in
`
`connection with the sale or distribution of any products which allegedly harmed the Plaintiff.
`
`ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Any claims against the answering Defendant for breach of warranty are barred in whole
`
`or in part by Plaintiffs’ failure to give timely notice to the answering Defendant of the alleged
`
`breach of warranty.
`
`20
`
`
`
`ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`There was no negligence, gross negligence, willful, wanton, or malicious misconduct,
`
`reckless indifference, or reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, or malice (actual, legal, or
`
`otherwise) on the part of the answering Defendant as to the Plaintiff.
`
`ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiff’s claims are governed in whole or in part by The Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. §688.
`
`ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant pleads §5 of the Restatement [Third] of Torts and states that
`
`under the circumstances, it had no duty to warn as a component part manufacturer.
`
`ONE HUNDRED AND NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant is not liable for any component parts which may have been
`
`subsequently incorporated into its products, which were not manufactured, sold, or supplied by
`
`the answering Defendant.
`
`ONE HUNDRED AND TENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant hereby gives notice that it will seek to apply the law of another
`
`state at the time of trial, pursuant to Practice Book section 10-3(b)
`
`ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant incorporates and adopts by reference any and all other and/or
`
`additional defenses, raised or to be raised by any other party, and expressly reserves the right to
`
`amend and supplement its defenses herein to assert additional defenses and to make further
`
`admission upon completion of further investigation and discovery.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant Eaton Corporation, as successor-in-interest to Cutler-
`
`Hammer, Inc. (improperly pled as “Eaton Corporation, individually and as successor to Cutler
`
`21
`
`
`
`Hammer and Vickers Pump”) requests judgment in its favor dismissing the Complaint and for
`
`such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`CROSSCLAIMS
`
`Defendant Eaton Corporation, as successor-in-interest
`
`to Cutler-Hammer,
`
`Inc.
`
`(improperly pled as “Eaton Corporation, individually and as successor to Cutler Hammer and
`
`Vickers Pump”) (“Defendant”), by way of crossclaim against each named co-defendant says:
`
`FIRST COUNT
`
`Without admitting any liability therein, the answering Defendant asserts that should
`
`liability be found against said Defendant, it is entitled to and hereby claims contribution from all
`
`co-defendants.
`
`SECOND COUNT
`
`While the answering Defendant denies that it is negligent or liable in any regard, it is
`
`certain that its negligence or liability, if any, was passive, vicarious and imputed, whereas the
`
`negligence or liability of the co-defendants was active and primary.
`
`THIRD COUNT
`
`While denying any negligence or liability in this action, the answering Defendant says
`
`that if there was any negligence or liability, then the negligence or liability of the answering
`
`Defendant was secondary only and the negligence or liability of the co-defendants herein was
`
`primary.
`
`Accordingly, the co-defendants are obligated by operation of law, contract and otherwise,
`
`to indemnify the answering Defendant and hold the answering Defendant harmless from any and
`
`all claims which are the subject of the Complaint.
`
`22
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, the answering Defendant demands judgment by way of contribution
`
`and indemnity against the co-defendants for any judgment which may be entered in favor of
`
`Plaintiffs against the answe
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
