Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "75729062",
    "label": "Copies of Court Documents, August 26, 1935",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729062"
}

{
    "id": "75729062",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729062",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Copies of Court Documents, August 26, 1935",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729062",
    "collections": [
        "Safety Light Collection",
        "Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003254_Page_1.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003254_Page_1.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003254_Page_1.jpg",
    "imageCount": 7,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729062",
    "naId": 75729062,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 7,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003254.pdf",
    "mediaId": "b42e235afc6adb8d",
    "ocrText": "11470\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nDISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY.\nANITA J. BURRICELLI,\n:\nPlaintiff, :\n-VS-\n:\nIN K U ITY\nUNITED STATES RADIUM\n:\nCORPORATION, a corporation\nof the State of Delaware,\n:\nCOMPLAINT.\nDefendant, :\n\"\nThe plaintiff, ANITA J. BURRICELLI, residing at 34 Tompkins Street,\nWest Orange, New Jersey, says that:--\nFIRST COUNT.\n1. The plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the Municipality of\nWest Orange, Essey County, New Jersey.\n2. The defendant is a corporation of the State of Delaware.\n3. The amount in controversy herein exceeds the sum of $3,000 ex-\nclusive of interest and costs.\n4. Prior to and during the year 1917, the defendant was engaged in\nthe manufacture and sale of various commodities and particularly in the pro--\nduction of luminous dials for watches and clocks.\n5. The defendant maintained a plant or factory in the Municipality\nof Orange, New Jersey, where it carried on the work aforesaid and where it em-\nployed persons to render luminous dials of time pieces by the application\nof radio active substances.\n6. The plaintiff herein heretofore instituted suit in this court at\nlaw against the defendant for damages resulting from the conduct of the\ndefendant toward the plaintiff, Anita J. Burricelli, 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 Schedule A.\n7. The defendant filed an answer to the complaint setting up, in\nseveral separate defenses, that the respective causes of action of the plain-\ntiff are barred by the statute of limitations of the State of New Jersey,\nand the plaintiff alleges that as to the counts of negligence and nuisance\nset forth in the complaint at law, the effect of the statute and its con-\nstruction by the courts, is to create a bar to the causes of action alleged\nby the plaintiff in the action of law.\n8. Prior to the employment by the defendant of the plaintiff and\nduring the period of such employment, the defendant had knowlege, actual and\nimputed, of the dangerous and injurious effect of the substances mentioned\nabove to the human body and human tissues. The defendant knew the said facts\nboth from actual experience in the use of said substances and from scientific\nexperimentation carried on by it, and by others to its knowlege, and from\nother scientific knowledge available and known to it.\n9. 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\ninform the plaintiff of all unusual risks attending her employment which were\nnot obvious to or discoverable by the plaintiff, and to use due care under\nthe circumstances which existed to supply the plaintiff with safe and adequate\nmethods, tools and appliances for carrying on her work, and the independent\nobligations of defendant to plaintiff, the defendant fraudulently concealed\nfrom the plaintiff facts known to it and of which it was charged with know-\nledge respecting the dangerous and injurious nature of the substances above\nmentioned as hereinabove stated, and concealed in the same manner that un-\nusual risks attended the employment of the plaintiff, not discoverable by or\nobvious to the plaintiff in the usual discharge of her duties, and affirma-\ntively represented to the plaintiff that no damage or injury would be\nhazarded or suffered by her by reason of her employment in the establishment\nof the defendant, or by reason of her use of the substances above mentioned\nin the course of her employment, and instructed and induced her to so use\nthe aforesaid substances so as to cause them to be ingested in her body.\n10. The plaintiff had no knowlege or notice of the dangerous and\ninjurious nature of the aforesaid substances as mentioned hereinabove and\nthose facts were not generally known at the time. The nature of the sub-\nstances ingested into the body of the plaintiff is such that the fact and\neffect of such ingestion are not manifested or made known to the individual\nuntil many years thereafter, and in fact the plaintiff had no knowledge or\nnotice of the true facts respecting the ingestion into and injury to her\nbody by these substances and the effects thereof until the early part of 1935.\nRelying upon the representations above stated and mislead 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 in-\ntended to mislead the plaintiff and to conceal from her the true facts known\nto the defendant and with which the defendant was charged with knowledge, re-\nspecting her employment to apply the substances above stated to the products\nmanufactured by the defendant.\n11. The plaintiff charges in addition that the defendant was under\na duty to disclose the facts hereinabove mentioned and to use due care as\nhereinabove mentioned in paragraph nine, which it failed to perform and\nthat in addition, it, by its conduct, took an undue and uneonscientious ad-\nvantage of theplaintiff by and independent of the failure to perform those\nduties, and further, concealed facts from the plaintiff to induce her to\ntake up and continue her employment, and concealed from her knowledge that\na cause of action would, or might arise in favor of the plaintiff against\nthe defendant, and so mislead her as to cause her not to institute legal\nproceedings based upon said cause of action until many years after the\ncessation of her employment.\n12. The natural and proximate result of the conduct of the defend-\nant was to mislead the plaintiff and to conceal from her the fact that a\ncause of action arose or might arise in her favor and against the defendant\nbecause of the latter's breaches of duty as foresaid, until 1935.\n13. The plaintiff charges that under the circumstances it would\nbe inequitable and unjust to permit the defendant to set up in answer and\na\ndefense to the action of the plaintiff now pending in the United States\nDistrict Court for the District of New Jersey, that the action is barred by\nthe statute of limitations of this State, the defendant being chargeable with\nboth actual and constructive fraud as hereinabove charged.\n14. The plaintiff further charges that by reason of its conduct,\nas hereinabove described, the defendant has barred and estopped itself from\nthe right to so plead.\n15. The plaintiff fears that unless the defendant is enjoined\nand restrained from setting up the defenses hereinabove mentioned in the\naction nowpending in the United States District Court for the District of\nNew Jersey, that the said court will sustain one or more of said defenses\nand thereby theplaintiff will be denied all right of recovery of damages.\n16. The plaintiff also fears that unless in the interim and\npending the hearing of this cause and the determination of whether the\ndefendant should be permanently enjoined from setting up the defenses\nhereinabove mentioned in the action now pending in the United States\nDistrict Court for the District of New Jersey, the defendant be enjoined\nand restrained from making any application to said court to dismiss the\nplaintiff's action as being barred by the statute of limitations or for want\nof prosecution, the plaintiff's rights will be impeded or destroyed.\nPLAINTIFF is without adequate remedy in the courts of law and\ntherefore prays:--\n1. That the defendant answer this bill of complaint without oath\nand eachstatement 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\nof action is barred by the statute of limitations, and that the defendant\nis debarred and estopped from doing SO.\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\nof limitations.\n4. That the defendant be directed to withdraw from its answer filed\n1832\nin the action pending in the United States District Court for the District\nof New Jersey all matters therein set up wherein it is alleged that the ac-\ntion is barred by the statute of limitations as to the counts aforesaid.\n5. That pending the hearing of this cause the defendant be en-\njoined and restrained from taking any proceedings in the action pending\nin the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey to dis-\nmiss or non-suit the same, until the determination of thecause made by\nthis bill, and that the defendant be likewise enjoined and restrained from\nproceeding in said court and in said cause to secure a determination of\nthe issues raised by the matters set forth in its answer relating to\nthe barring of the claim of the plaintiff by the statute of limitations.\n6. That plaintiff may have such other and further relief as\nmay be equitable and just.\n7. That a writ of subpoena may issue, commanding said defendant\nto answer this bill of complaint and to abide by such decree as this\ncourt may make in the premises.\nMilton M. Unger, (signed)\nSolicitor For and of Counsel with\nPlaintiff\nEQUITY 5275\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nDISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY\nANITA J. BURRICELLI,\nPlaintiff,\n-VS-\nUNITED STATES RADIUM\nCORPORATION, a corporation\nServed on\nof the State of Delaware,\nAlfred F. McCabe,\nAss't Secy.\nDefendant,\nIN EQUITY\nat 3:50 P.M. 8/26/35\nCOMPLAINT\nMILTON M. UNGER,\nAttorney for Plaintiff,\n11 Commerce St., Newark, N.J.\nFILED\nAUG. 22, 1935.\nAt 10:30 O'clock A.M.\nGEORGE T. CRANMER, Clerk"
}