Ask the Scholar
Page 3 of 3
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
Histated by me. possible Strylen statement over - for
as
not published
So far as we have been able to ascertain neither the manufacturers of such
paint nor the person engaged in applying it, nor scientific men familar with
radium had any idea that the hasard was involved in the application of
paint to watch dials, until trouble developed among our employees in (1924).
Some of the plaintiffs witnesses concede that they knew nothing of any such
hasard prior to the time when the trouble developed among our former
employees. No instance has been cited of any such hasard being known by
anyone prior to that time. Under the se circumstances we think that we were
not negligent in using the same method which has generally been employed
by the trade, and had not resulted in injury to anyone so far as was then
known.
These facts will be fully developed in the course of the defense at the
hearing. We think that we should not be asked at this time to go into
detail, as yet, however the public has heard but one side of the case.
We think that judgment should be reserved until the other side as been
presented. It should be Born in mind that the plaintiffs had left our
employ long before they became ill. Opinions may differ as to whether
this illness is attributable to exposure to radium, but even if it is, these
more unfortunate circumstances are due to a hasard which ha above stated
was entirely unknown at the time the risk was incurred.
The Company has not delayed the trial of these cases, it has been ready to
proceed, and has proceeded on every day on which they have been set down
for trial. Neither the Company nor the Court has delayed the trial of
these cases. These cases were set down in regular course for hearing
in the court of Chancery, and in fact were set down for a hearing at an
earlier date than ordinaryly occurs in Chandery cases, which require a
long time for trial. The Company has not asked for delay, and the Court
has expedited the case as much as was possible under all the circumstances.
The usual course was followed in continuing the hearing to September. The
Court set the cases down for the first available date. It should be born
in mind that the plaintiffs admitted that in the summer of 1925 they knew
substantially as much about their alleged cause of action as they knew now,
and yet they delayed the institution of suit for nearly two years after the
time they concede that they had such knowledge. Most of the delay which
has occured, therefore, is to the plaintiffs and the remainder
of the delay is unavoidable. The Company had its witnesses in court
prepared to present its defense at the last hearing. The plaintiffs case
however, was not concluded in time to permit it do do so.
So far as we have been able to ascertain neither the manufacturers of such
paint nor the person engaged in applying it, nor scientific men familar with
radium had any idea that the hazard was involved in the application of
paint to watch dials, until trouble developed among our employees in (1924).
Some of the plaintiffs witnesses concede that they know nothing of any such
hasard prior to the time when the trouble developed among our former
employees. No instance has been cited of any such hazard being known by
anyone prior to that time. Under the se circumstances we think that we were
not negligent in using the same method which has generally been employed
by the trade, and had not resulted in injury to anyone so far as was then
known.
These facts will be fully developed in the course of the defense at the
hearing. To think that we should not be asked at this time to go into
detail, as yet, however the public has heard but one side of the case,
and the think that judgment should be reserved until the other sidelas been
presented. It should be Born in mind that the plaintiffs had left our
employ long before they became ill. Opinions may differ as to whether
this illness is attributable to exposure to radium, but even if it is, these
mose unfortunate circumstances are due to a hazard which he above stated
was entirely unknown at the time the risk was incurred.
The Company has not delayed the trial of these cases, it has been ready to
proceed, and has proceeded on every day on which they have been set down
for trial. Neither the Company nor the Court has delayed the trial of
these cases. These cases were set down in regular course for hearing
in the court of Chancery, and in fact were set down for a hearing at an
earlier date than ordinaryly occurs in Chandery cases, which require a
long time for trial. The Company has not asked for delay, and the Court
has expedited the case as much as was possible under all the circumstances.
The usual course was followed in continuing the hearing to September. The
Court set the cases down for the first available date. It should be born
in mind that the plaintiffs admitted that in the summer of 1925 they know
substantially as much about their alleged cause of action as they know now,
and yet they delayed the institution of suit for nearly two years after the
time they concede that they had such knowledge. Most of the delay which
has occured, therefore, is to the plaintiffs and the remainder
of the delay is unavoidable.
The Company had its witnesses in court
prepared to present its defense at the last hearing. The plaintiffs case
however, was not concluded in time to permit it do do so.
Page data
- Page
- 3
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- 3d7897ac2e963955
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 75731034
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "75731034",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75731034",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Transcript, no date",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75731034",
"collections": [
"Safety Light Collection",
"Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003768_Page_1.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003768_Page_1.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003768_Page_1.jpg",
"imageCount": 3,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "75731034",
"label": "Transcript, no date",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75731034"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "75731034",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75731034",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Transcript, no date",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75731034",
"collections": [
"Safety Light Collection",
"Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003768_Page_1.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003768_Page_1.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003768_Page_1.jpg",
"imageCount": 3,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75731034",
"naId": 75731034,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 3,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003768.pdf",
"mediaId": "3d7897ac2e963955",
"ocrText": "Histated by me. possible Strylen statement over - for\nas\nnot published\nSo far as we have been able to ascertain neither the manufacturers of such\npaint nor the person engaged in applying it, nor scientific men familar with\nradium had any idea that the hasard was involved in the application of\npaint to watch dials, until trouble developed among our employees in (1924).\nSome of the plaintiffs witnesses concede that they knew nothing of any such\nhasard prior to the time when the trouble developed among our former\nemployees. No instance has been cited of any such hasard being known by\nanyone prior to that time. Under the se circumstances we think that we were\nnot negligent in using the same method which has generally been employed\nby the trade, and had not resulted in injury to anyone so far as was then\nknown.\nThese facts will be fully developed in the course of the defense at the\nhearing. We think that we should not be asked at this time to go into\ndetail, as yet, however the public has heard but one side of the case.\nWe think that judgment should be reserved until the other side as been\npresented. It should be Born in mind that the plaintiffs had left our\nemploy long before they became ill. Opinions may differ as to whether\nthis illness is attributable to exposure to radium, but even if it is, these\nmore unfortunate circumstances are due to a hasard which ha above stated\nwas entirely unknown at the time the risk was incurred.\nThe Company has not delayed the trial of these cases, it has been ready to\nproceed, and has proceeded on every day on which they have been set down\nfor trial. Neither the Company nor the Court has delayed the trial of\nthese cases. These cases were set down in regular course for hearing\nin the court of Chancery, and in fact were set down for a hearing at an\nearlier date than ordinaryly occurs in Chandery cases, which require a\nlong time for trial. The Company has not asked for delay, and the Court\nhas expedited the case as much as was possible under all the circumstances.\nThe usual course was followed in continuing the hearing to September. The\nCourt set the cases down for the first available date. It should be born\nin mind that the plaintiffs admitted that in the summer of 1925 they knew\nsubstantially as much about their alleged cause of action as they knew now,\nand yet they delayed the institution of suit for nearly two years after the\ntime they concede that they had such knowledge. Most of the delay which\nhas occured, therefore, is to the plaintiffs and the remainder\nof the delay is unavoidable. The Company had its witnesses in court\nprepared to present its defense at the last hearing. The plaintiffs case\nhowever, was not concluded in time to permit it do do so.\nSo far as we have been able to ascertain neither the manufacturers of such\npaint nor the person engaged in applying it, nor scientific men familar with\nradium had any idea that the hazard was involved in the application of\npaint to watch dials, until trouble developed among our employees in (1924).\nSome of the plaintiffs witnesses concede that they know nothing of any such\nhasard prior to the time when the trouble developed among our former\nemployees. No instance has been cited of any such hazard being known by\nanyone prior to that time. Under the se circumstances we think that we were\nnot negligent in using the same method which has generally been employed\nby the trade, and had not resulted in injury to anyone so far as was then\nknown.\nThese facts will be fully developed in the course of the defense at the\nhearing. To think that we should not be asked at this time to go into\ndetail, as yet, however the public has heard but one side of the case,\nand the think that judgment should be reserved until the other sidelas been\npresented. It should be Born in mind that the plaintiffs had left our\nemploy long before they became ill. Opinions may differ as to whether\nthis illness is attributable to exposure to radium, but even if it is, these\nmose unfortunate circumstances are due to a hazard which he above stated\nwas entirely unknown at the time the risk was incurred.\nThe Company has not delayed the trial of these cases, it has been ready to\nproceed, and has proceeded on every day on which they have been set down\nfor trial. Neither the Company nor the Court has delayed the trial of\nthese cases. These cases were set down in regular course for hearing\nin the court of Chancery, and in fact were set down for a hearing at an\nearlier date than ordinaryly occurs in Chandery cases, which require a\nlong time for trial. The Company has not asked for delay, and the Court\nhas expedited the case as much as was possible under all the circumstances.\nThe usual course was followed in continuing the hearing to September. The\nCourt set the cases down for the first available date. It should be born\nin mind that the plaintiffs admitted that in the summer of 1925 they know\nsubstantially as much about their alleged cause of action as they know now,\nand yet they delayed the institution of suit for nearly two years after the\ntime they concede that they had such knowledge. Most of the delay which\nhas occured, therefore, is to the plaintiffs and the remainder\nof the delay is unavoidable.\nThe Company had its witnesses in court\nprepared to present its defense at the last hearing. The plaintiffs case\nhowever, was not concluded in time to permit it do do so."
}