Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "75720382",
    "label": "Letters Received to A. Roeder, December 5, 1925",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75720382"
}

{
    "id": "75720382",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75720382",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Letters Received to A. Roeder, December 5, 1925",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75720382",
    "collections": [
        "Safety Light Collection",
        "Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0000642_Page_1.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0000642_Page_1.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0000642_Page_1.jpg",
    "imageCount": 6,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75720382",
    "naId": 75720382,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 6,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0000642.pdf",
    "mediaId": "c28c05135d6c9fb4",
    "ocrText": "LINDABURY, DEPUE & FAULKS\nFREDERIC J. FAULKS\nJ. EDWARD ASHMEAD\nRECEIVE\nJOSIAH STRYKER\nPRUDENTIAL BUILDING\nJOHN W. BISHOP, JR.\nMULBERRY 1755\nWALTER D. BARKER\n763 BROAD street, newark, N.J.\nJAMES E.M.TAMS\nBURTIS S. HORNER\nDecember 5, 1925.\nUNITED STATES\nA. Roeder, President\nUnited States Radium Corp.,\nМОЛР.\n30 Church Street,\nNew York City, N. Y.\nDear Mr. Roeder:\nSeveral days ago Mr. McGlynn came to see me and\nsaid that Mr. Kalisch had indicated to him that he was\nwilling to settle the case of Margaret Carlough, the case\nof her sister which has not yet been started, and the Kuser\ncase: and this morning I have a letter from Mr. McGlynn\nin which he states that Mr. Kalisch will settle the Carlough\ncase for $10,000, her sister's case for $1,000., and the\nKuser case for $500., or a total of $11,500.\nWhen Mr. McGlynn first mentioned the question of\nsettlement to me, I asked him how much the insurance company\nwould be willing to pay toward the settlement of the Carlough\ncase in order to effect a settlement. He said he had not\ntaken up the matter with the insurance company, but that\nhe had no doubt that it would be willing to make a substantial\ncontribution because the expenses of trial would be very heavy.\nThis is the matter which I desired to discuss with\nyou last evening, and under these circumstances the advisa-\nbility of settling these cases should be given serious con-\nsideration.\nA. R. -2\n12/5/25.\nI understand that you are chiefly concerned with\nthe effect which the pending litigation may have upon the\nsale of the luminous paint manufactured by the company, and\nthat you fear that a settlement of the cases may be regarded\nby the trade as an admission of the claim that the application\nof the paint to watch dials and other articles is attended\nwith great danger to the operator.\nWhile it is true that a settlement of these cases\nmay be so construed by some of your customers, the question\nwhich we should consider is whether the situation of the\ncompany will be improved by a trial of the case.\nThere seems to be no doubt but that the plaintiff\ncan offer considerable proof. which will tend to establish\nthe dangerous character of the luminous paint; and while\nwe will have strong evidence to the contrary, it is probable\nthat the plaintiff's testimony will receive greater publicity\nin the press than the testimony offered on behalf of the\ncompany.\nIf the decision of the case would rest alone upon\nthe question whether the plaintiff's illness was occasioned\nby the use of the paint, I would have little hope of success\nbecause the sympathy of the jury will naturally be with the\nplaintiff and under these circumstances, the jury will be\ninclined to believe the testimony which will be offered by\nthe plaintiff concerning the injurious effects of the paint.\nA. R. -3\n12/5/25.\nIn my judgment your company is not liable, however,\nin this case unless it knew or ought to have known of the\ndangers inherent in the use of the paint and failed to advise\nits employees of such dangers or to take proper precautions\nfor their protection.\nIf, however, we were to defeat the pending actions\non this ground, the decision of the case would have no bearing\nupon the question which is of great importance SO far as your\nfuture sales are concerned: namely, the question of whether\nthe application of the paint is attended with dangers to the\noperator.\nSo that it seems to me that any of your customers\nor prospective customers who familiarize themselves with the\nproceedings of the trial (and these proceedings will be given\nwide publicity) would not De convinced of the harmless character\nof the product merely because you might succeed in defeating\nthe pending cases. It seems to me, therefore, that SC far as\nthe sales of the product are concerned, there is at least as\nmuch danger in proceedingkto trial as there is in a settle-\nment of the cases.\nI assume from the fact&that Mr. Kalisch has suggested\na settlement of the three cases for 11,500. that he would\naccept a lesser sum in settlement: in fact, it might be possible\nto settle all of these cases for from 7500. to 10000. I cannot\nA. R. -4\n12/5/85\nforecast with any accuracy the amount which might be recovered\nin these cases, although it is not improbable that Margaret\nCarlough. if she succeeds, may recover from $20,000. #0 $25,000.,\nand perhaps even more. A recovery of 25,000. would not in my\njudgment, be set aside as excessive. If the other employees\nwere successful in recovering, their recovery would in all\nprobability be considerably in excess of the amount for which\nMr. Kalisch is willing to settle.\nThe question therefore with which you are confronted\nis whether you would prefer to pay from $7500. to $10,000. in\ndischarge of a possible, if not probable, liability of from\n$25,000. to $30,000. Furthermore, it is quite probable that\nthe insurance company will make a substantial contribution\ntoward the amount paid in settlement which might reduce the\namount to be paid by you to not much more than $5,000.\nI cannot escape the conclusion that if you can\ndischarge your possible liability to these employees for from\n$5,000. to $7,500., it would be good business judgment SO to do,\nas both Mr. McGlynn and I agree that if the plaintiff proves\nsufficient facts to warrant the court in submitting the cases\nto the jury, a verdict against you is exceedingly probable.\nWhether in the event of a settlement you will be\nconfronted by other claims on the part of other employees is\na matter which is difficult to determine. Mr. Kalisch says\nA. R. -5\n12/5/25.\nthat he has no other cases and that he believes that no\nothers will be brought. He has further suggested that\nhe would give us a discontinuance, but that the cases\ncould be kept on the list from time to time, and the fact\nthat they had been settled, concealed from the public.\nIt is my judgment, however, that if these cases\nare settled, their public importance is such that the\nfact of settlement will not remain secret. At all events,\nthe danger of future cases being instituted to recover\nfor injuries to other former employees is no greater in\nthe event of settlement than in the event of a verdict\nagainst you.\nI am writing you this letter SO that you may\nhave my views and be able to consider them before our\nconference on Monday evening. Of course, you understand\nthat both Mr. McGlynn and I are entirely willing to\nvigorously contest the cases if you decide to pursue this\ncourse.\nVery photogryper truly yours,"
}