Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "75727970",
    "label": "Copies of Court Documents, June 5, 1934",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75727970"
}

{
    "id": "75727970",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75727970",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Copies of Court Documents, June 5, 1934",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75727970",
    "collections": [
        "Safety Light Collection",
        "Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002914_Page_1.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002914_Page_1.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002914_Page_1.jpg",
    "imageCount": 8,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75727970",
    "naId": 75727970,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 8,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002914.pdf",
    "mediaId": "00b9a956cdce591f",
    "ocrText": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nDISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY\nCATHERINE CONNOLLY and\n:\nTHOMAS CONNOLLY, her\nhusband,\n:\nPlaintiffs,\n:\nIN EQUITY\nVS.\n:\nCOMPLAINT\nUNITED STATES RADIUM\n:\nCORPORATION (formerly\nRadium Luminous Material\n:\nCorp.), a corporation of\nthe State of Delaware,\n:\nDefendant,\n:\nThe plaintiff, Catherine Connolly, residing in the City\nof Newark, County of Bssex and State of New Jersey, complaining of the\ndefendent above-named, says that:\nFIRST COUNT\n1. The plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the City of Newark,\nCounty of Essex and State of New Jersey.\n2. The defendant is a corporation of the State of Delaware.\n3. The amount in controversy herein exceeds the sum of Three\nThousand Dollars exclusive of interest and costs.\n4. At the times hereinafter mentioned, the defendent was engaged\nin the business, among other things, of manufacturing and distributing radium\nand radium products and manufacturing and distributing radium and other\nluminous materials.\n5. The defendant maintained a plant or factory in the municipality\nof Orange, New Jersey, as well as in the City of Newark, New Jersey, where it\ncarried on the work aforesaid and where it employed persons to render\nluminous dials of time pieces by the application of radio active substances.\n6. The plaintiff herein heretofore instituted suit in this court\nat law against the defendant for damages resulting from the conduct of the\ndefendant toward the plaintiff, Catherine Connolly, while the latter was em-\nployed by the defendant to paint the dials of time pieces as aforesaid. A\ncopy of the complaint is annexed hereto, made part hereof and marked\nSchedule A.\n7.\nThe defendant filed an answer to the complaint setting up in\nseveral separate defenses that the respective causes of action of the\nplaintiff are barred by the statute of limitations of the State of New Jersey,\nand the plaintiff alleges that as to the counts of negligence set forth in the\ncomplaint at law, the effect of the statute and its construction by the courts,\nis to create a bar to the causes of action alleged by the plaintiff in the\naction at law upon the counts aforesaid.\n8. The materials used in making said luminous paint and the im-\nplements employed in mixing and applying said paint were furnished by the\ndefendant and the plaintiff was instructed in the manner in which said\nmaterials were to be mixed and the said paint applied by the agents and\nservants of the defendant.\n9. Prior to the employment by the defendant of the plaintiff and\nduring the period of such employment, the defendant had knowledge, actual and\nimputed, that the materials furnished to the plaintiff in the performance of\nher duties, as aforesaid, contained substances which were dangerous, poisonous\nand deleterious to the body and health of the plaintiff, and knew or should\nhave known that the method and manner in which the defendant instructed the\nplaintiff to use and apply said materials and paint were so devised as to ex-\npose the plaintiff to the dangerous, poisonous and deleterious properties of\nthe ingredients of the said materials. The defendant knew the said facts, both\nfrom actual experience in the use of the said substances and from scientific\nexperimentation carried on by it, and by others to its knowledge, and from\nother scientific knowledge available and known to it.\n10. Notwithstanding the fact that the relationship of master and\nservant existed between the defendant and the plaintiff for the period stated\nin the complaint above mentioned, and that the defendant was obliged to inform\nthe plaintiff of all unusual risks attending her employment which were not\nobvious to or discoverable by the plaintiff, and the independent obligations of\ndefendant to plaintiff, the defendant fraudulently concealed from the plaintiff\nfacts known to it and of which it was charged with knowledge respecting the\ndangerous and injurious nature of the substances above mentioned as hereinabove\nstated, and concealed in the same manner that unusual risks attended the em-\nployment of the plaintiff, not discoverable by or obvious to the plaintiff in\nthe usual discharge of her duties, and affirmatively represented to the\nplaintiff that no damage or injury would be hazarded or suffered by her by\nreason of her employment in the establishment of the defendant, or by reason\nof her use of the substances above mentioned in the course of her employment,\nand instructed and induced her to so use the aforesaid substances as to cause\nthem to be impregnated in her body.\n11. The plaintiff had no knowledge or notice of the dangerous and\ninjurious nature of the aforesaid substances as mentioned above and those\nfacts were not generally known at the time. The nature of the substances im-\npregnated into the body of the plaintiff is such that the fact and effect of\nsuch impregnation are not manifested or made known to the individual until\nmany years thereafter, and in fact the plaintiff had no knowledge or notice of\nthe true facts respecting the impregnation into her body of these substances\nand the effects thereof until August, 1931, when the effect of the said sub-\nstances first became known and made its presence known to the plaintiff.\nRelying upon the representations above stated and misled by the concealment\nabove mentioned, the plaintiff took up and carried on her employment for the\nperiod stated. The action of the plaintiff in doing so was the result of\nfraudulent representation, conscious, wilful concealment, and conduct intended\nto mislead the plaintiff and to conceal from her the true facts known to the\ndefendant and with which the defendant was charged with knowledge, respecting\nher employment to apply the substances above stated to the products manufactured\nby the defendant.\n12. The plaintiff charges that the defendant was under a duty to\ndisclose the facts above mentioned which it failed to perform and that in\naddition, it, by its conduct, took an undue and unconscientious advantage of\nthe plaintiff by and independent of the failure to perform that duty, and\nfurther, fraudulently represented and concealed facts from the plaintiff to in-\nduce her to take up and continue her employment, and to conceal from her know-\nledge that a cause of action would arise in favor of the plaintiff against the\ndefendant and to 50 mislead her as to cause her not to institute legal proceed-\nings based upon said cause of action until many years after the cessation of\nher employment.\n13. The natural and proximate result of the conduct of the\ndefendant was to mislead the plaintiff and to conceal from her the fact that\na cause of action arose or might arise in her favor and against the defendant\nbecause of the latter's breaches of duty as aforesaid, until August, 1931.\n14. The plaintiff charges that under the circumstances it would be\ninequitable and unjust to permit the defendant to set up in answer and defense\nto the action of the plaintiff now pending in the United States District Court\nfor the District of New Jersey, that the action is barred by the statute of\nlimitations of this State.\n15. The plaintiff further charges that by reason of its fraudulent\nconduct, the defendant has barred and estopped itself from the right to so\nplead.\n16. The plaintiff fears that unless the defendant is enjoined and\nrestrained from setting up the defenses hereinabove mentioned in the action\nnow pending in the United States Disctict Court for the District of New Jersey,\nthat the said court will sustain one or more of said defenses and thereby the\nplaintiff will be denied all right of recovery of damages.\n17. The plaintiff also fears that unless in the interim and pending\nthe hearing of this cause and the determination of whether the defendant\nshould be permanently enjoined from setting up the defenses hereinabove men-\ntioned in the action now pending in the United States District Court for the\nDistrict of New Jersey, the defendant be enjoined and restrained from making\nany application to said court to dismiss the plaintiff's action as being\nbarred by the statute of limitations or for want of prosecution, the plaintiff's\nrights will be impeded or destroyed.\n18. The plaintiff charges that she is entitled to the relief herein-\nbelow prayed for by 8. determination in this court of the issues of fraud and\nestoppel which may be raised upon the allegations of fraud and estoppel\nhereinabove set forth, and that the final hearing in this cause should be\nconfined to a consideration and determination of the facts relevant, pertinent\nand admissable in connection with said issues.\nPLAINTIFF is without adequate remedy in the courts of law\nand therefore prays:-\n1. That the defendant answer this bill of complaint without oath\nand each statement herein made.\n2. That it be decreed that it would be and is a fraud upon the part\nof the defendant to set up and plead in defense of the action pending in the\nUnited States District Court for the District of New Jersey that the cause of\naction is barred by the statute of limitations, and that the defendant is de-\nbarred and estopped from doing so, as to the counts aforesaid.\n3. That the defendant be permanently enjoined from setting up in\ndefense of the action pending in the United States District Court for the\nDistrict of New Jersey that the cause of action is barred by the statute of\nlimitations as to the counts aforesaid.\n4. That the defendant be directed to withdraw from its answer filed\nin the action pending in the United States District Court for the District of\nNew Jersey all matters therein set up wherein it is alleged that the action is\nbarred by the statute of limitations as to the counts aforesaid.\n5. That pending the hearing of this cause the defendant be enjoined\nand restrained from taking any proceedings in the action pending in the United\nStates District Court for the District of New Jersey to dismiss or non-suit the\nsame, until the determination of the cause made by this bill, and that the\ndefendant be likewise enjoined and restrained from proceeding in said court and\nin said cause to secure a determination of the issues raised by the matters set\nforth in its answer relating to the barring of the claim of the plaintiff by the\nstatute of limitations, as to the counts aforesaid.\n6. That plaintiff may have such other and further relief as may be\nequitable and just.\n7. That a writ of subpoena may issue commanding said defendant to\nanswer this bill of complaint and to abide by such decree as this court may\nmake in the premises.\nThe plaintiff, Thomas Connolly, residing in the City of\nNewark, aforementioned, says that:\nSECOND COUNT\n1. The plaintiff repeats the allegations of the first count.\n2. The plaintiff is the husband of Catherine Connolly, who is the\nplaintiff in the first count, and has been such since the year 1932, since\nwhich date the plaintiff and his said wife cohabited as hushand wife.\n3. By reason of the premises, the plaintiff was obliged to pay for\nand incur obligations for medical and hospital treatment in an effort to cure\nand relieve the injuries of his wife, as alleged in the action at law, and\nplaintiff was likewise obliged to expend large sums of money for the per-\nformance of household services ordinarily performed by his wife and which she\nwas rendered incapable of performing by reason of her aforesaid injuries, and\nthe plaintiff was deprived of the comfort, aid and affection of his wife for\na long period of time by reason of the aforesaid injuries; and plaintiff will\nin the future suffer damages of the nature hereinabove set forth and also by\nreason of the fact that his said wife has been and is, and will continue to\nbe unable to conceive and bear children, for all of which damages the plaintiff\nseeks to recover against the defendant in the action now pending at law.\n4. The plaintiff repeats for himself the allegations of paragraph\n7 of the first count.\n5. The plaintiff repeats for himself the allegations of paragraphs\n1, 2 and 3 of the first count.\n6. The plaintiff alleges that by reason of the premises, he is en-\ntitled to the same relief as is prayed for in the first count, for the same\nreasons as are stated in the first count.\nPlaintiff is without adequate remedy in the courts of law\nand therefore prayst-\n1. The plaintiff repeats for himself the prayers of the first count.\nAttorneys of Plaintiffs.\nOf Counsel.\nEQUITY\n4882\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nDISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY\nCATHERINE CONNOLLY et al\nPlaintiffs\nvs.\nUNITED STATES RADIUM\nCORPORATION, etc.\nJune 13, '34\nDefendant\nServed on\nIN EQUITY\nAlfred F. McCabe\nCOMPLAINT\nAsst. Secy\nSchneider & Schneider\nat 12:15 P.M.\nAttorneys of Plaintiffs\nLefcourt Bldg., Newark, N.J.\nFILED\nJun-5-1984\nAt 4 o'clock P.M.\nGeorge T. Cranmer, Clerk."
}