ML17347A404

Forwards Summons & Complaint Filed Against Util & Eberline Instrument Corp Re Alleged Injury Resulting from Radiation Exposure of Plaintiff While Working at Plant

ML17347A404
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	03/11/1987
From:	Harward J AMERICAN NUCLEAR INSURERS
To:	Saltzman J NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
References
NUDOCS 8704220263
Download: ML17347A404 (38)

Text

REGULATORY . ORNATION DISTRIBUTION BYS 'll (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR: 8704220263 DOC. DATE: 87/03/11 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET 0 FACIL: 50-250 Turkey Point Plant> Unit 3> Florida Power and Light C 05000250 50-251 Turkey Point Plant> Unit 4> Florida Power and Light C 05000251 AUTH. NANE AUTHOR AFFILIATION HARWARD> J. E. American Nuclear Insurers REC IP. NANE RECIPIENT AFFILIATION SALTZMAN> J. Assistant Director for State 5 Licensee Relations SUB JECT: Forwards summons Zc complaint f i led against util 5 Eberl inc Instrument Corp re. alleged in burg resulting from radiation exposure of plaintiff while working at plant.

DIBTRIBVTION CODE: NOIED COPIEB RECEIVED: LTR TITLE: Insurance Claims (Indemnity >

+ ENCL I BI ZE l

REC P IENT COP IEB RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/MANE LTTR ENCL ID CODE/MANE LTTR EiNCL PD2-2 LA 1 0 NcDONALD> D 1 INTERNAL: AEOD/DOA 1 1 AEOD/DSP/TPAB 1 1 NRR/PLEAS/PTBB 1 O /HDS2 1 1 OGC H ST 1 01. 1 RGN2 1 EXTERNAL LPDR NRC PDR 1 1 NBIC TOTAL NUBBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LT1R 12 ENCL ii

~g

'"}

g.'l, ',',

),

~ t l.

I

"~

C l

t.

C ll n

I I r

'k g

I

AMER CAN JOHN E, HARWARD NUCLEAR Vice Prescient-Cfoims BURT C. PROOM, CPCU NSUR ERS President and Chief Execvrive Otricer March 11, 1987 Mr. Jerome Saltzman Assistant Director State and Licensee Relations Office of State Programs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hashington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Abstract 1124 Eberline Instrument Corporation and Florida Power and Light Corporation, NF-185 Turkey Point'uclear Reactor Re: Gaspar Rodriguez D/0: March 1, 1984 Suit -- Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida

Dear Jerry:

Attached find a copy of a Summons and Complaint filed against Florida Power and Light Company and Eberline Instru-ment Corporation.

This suit involves a claim by an employee of Florida Power and Light Company for alleged injury resulting from radia-tion exposure of the plaintiff while working at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Reactor. The allegations against the employer include failure to properly train, instruct and protect the worker from radiation exposure and wrongful discharge from his employment. The allegations against the codefendant Eberline, include a claim that a portable survey meter, manufactured by Eberline, malfunctioned when the instrument went "off scale" causing the plaintiff to misin-terpret his radiation exposure.

Even though the NRC has assessed a fine against Florida Power 8 Light Company for improper procedures in this case, the recorded exposure of the plaintiff was only . 5 Rem, well below the permissible NRC quarterly limit.

87042202b 3 87031l I PDR ADOCK S

The Exchange Suite 245/ 270 Forminoton Avenue/Forminoton. Connecticut 06032/(203677-7305 0 Enci. Dept. (X$ 677-7715/ TLX Na 643-029

~ Ir tI W

lib(,<<NH >W r K pb

, <<ll wr I

>>f l',

D b lj!F. ir H Fk ~ >>w Nlt ' >(r jf>W Ir, K kbi, ( tfl, l

>':I HN bl '.>H ri!j "NP<<fr 'J ip 'rf l fll Wb

' "i p fit H' 'I K N <<Ill,,>>p> I P! fp ( <<>>ff >>HI l P N pt ( lrp)b

<<H K(

N >i Nl N I'i, Nj (. I'l<<u'lw i) Nil >> k ~

I H I rt H<<

jr '

)I

'iINH,N "'

N!kk'i NW P HN>rPPFP, N,P N NW,<<l', j'l'lll"I'Ib j K" '"b QL: fI '>K i rj ,t lit 11 'I i NKW,

, <<! >I, Wb W JY O'K l cl P . ')r H *PHK, N b rl tli j ll W b tl H P g i'rf l'l"I j ll j W rt!'l I ( lk fll fr i

>>r<< I>N H N H H

'b k ic ll W pj ff j "WC N,, ~

C b'f K.

N S 'l P If t*'p< r, lr>ll j FH Z>HHN; ~ '

'j W

<< IW

$ C" iki<< I<

"tlt' W NPN > vk" HP I" 'lw H "N' <<1 >F b I( Il!I k P N W 1 bbll ~ li j,<<>>"H Il'\i ~ > >> <<il el l bb << . H t t W Wkli lt b It tl il i1 C I ~ W Itff C > p ~ rl ~ b tlu Uf k<< > ill " j ' ' Mr. Jerome Salt@man Page 2 March 11, 1987 He do not cover the claim made against Florida Power and Light Company by their employee and are not participating in their defense. He are defending Bberline Instrument Cor-poration and have assigned counsel to defend them in this matter, although we have taken a reservation of rights with Bberline, with respect to the count for punitive damages, which is not covered in Florida unless involving the vica-rious liability of a principal. He are continuing our investigation to obtain additional facts in respect to the radiation exposure incident reported by the plaintiff and to confirm the levels of radiation exposure sustained by the plaintiff as a result of, this occurrence. Very truly yours, J. E. Harward Vice President, Claims JEH/pb j Enclosure v dvv ', I IIS ~ tv S v I ~ I 'h Iil S "7>> fII v ir t It li ' '" S %VS "I h. I , h" v d I v h: Vt S SSI tv tl t h hpSIh d - II ) kS'~4SSF ) K hl ) R d'IA S ltd I IJ I lis " v > "~ I tr 'I IF 'S tr'-I I tlhSS Sh l h F ls.I ~'vd .'!,"Q. ),',!, SJ V'l>d I~ ',ll S <<NI r v'.'ti v I dvviI )') v }l Id Fl I F FSIII I I'vedi I "'I'<ISI IsSISF hl', ll hf'i fh>> I'v' 'l I' I ~ f /'hg I SS't W 1P Sh F vil S,,tiSfgg tv II'S, lt IS pl ~ IWfhv II I FFIII~ )I lpg v I I'I IS,S vg 'I v It "S h ~ t h vhd.' 1(s I <s~I ~ I. vdt vv I g ~I iitISI .I <>, Sh! It,,'I'l, isa h "I, s',4 ih 2t I'd'i >I" 4 II S S Ihg( Nv Fl S "S~.SISh";: t'II I,ll vh Id)h>> Is 'sv' sf (td tiIIrthis I.'s 4 ~ v ~ h f. 4 p~/// 'r+ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA. IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY CASE NO. GASPAR RODRIGUEZ'laintiff GEHERAL JURISDICTIOH DIYISIOH -vs CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and EBERLINE Florida Bar No. 516813 INSTRUMENT CORPROATIONg Defendant s. THE STATE OF FLORIDA: To Each Sheriff of Said State: P YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to serve this summons and a copy of the complaint or petition in this actton on defendant: EBERLINE INSTUMENT CORPORATION By Serving: C. T. Corporate Systems, as Registered Agent Address: 217 W. Manhattan Avenue Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Each defendant is required to serve written defenses to the complaint or petition on Plaintiff's attorney to it'ICHAEL R. SEWARD ESQ. 3520 Southeast Financial Center, 200 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131-2331 (305) 372-3852 within 20 days after serviceof this summons on that defendant, exclusive of the day of service, and to file the original of '.he dc~en,es'with -the Clerk of this Court either b fore service on Plaintiff's attorney or immediately thereafter. If a defendant fails to do so, a default will be entered against that defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint or petition. DATED ON , 19 Richard P. Brinker, as Clerk of said Court by: ~~ as Deputy Clerk CIRC&IJ 50 Aev. 451 (Court Seal) g,le IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 1 1 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION XV 8'7-v.* GASPAR RODRIGUEZ, a citizen of Florida, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FLORIDA POWER Ec LIGHT COMPANY, a Florida Florida Bar No. 516813 corporation, and EBERLINE INSTRUMENT CORPORATION, a New Mexico corporation, Defendants. Plaintiff, GASPAR J. RODRIGUEZ ("RODRIGUEZ" ), by and through his under signed counsel, sues Defendants, FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY ("FPE L") and EBERLINE INSTRUMENT CORPORATION, ("EBERLINE") and alleges: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. This is an action for damages in excess of $ 5,000.00,

'exclusive of interest and costs.

2. All of the reckless, wanton, negligent, and wrongful acts set forth herein occurred in Dade County, Florida, except for the design and manufacturing defects attributable to EBERLINE.

3. Plaintiff, RODRIGUEZ, is a Florida citizen residing in Dade County, Florida.

4.. Defendant, FP8L, is a Florida corporation registered to do business in Dade County, Florida.

5. Defendant, EBERLINE, is a New Mexico corporation doing business in Dade County, Florida within the meaning of Section 48.193 of the Florida Statutes (1985).

,6. Venue is proper 'in Dade County, Florida because FP8L resides in Dade County and also because the cause of action I < ~ p accrued therein. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. On March 1, 1984, FPEL employed RODRIGUEZ at its Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant ("Turkey Point" ) in Dade County, Florida. RODRIGUEZ worked at Turkey Point as an Instrument and Control Technician, a specialized position involving the calibration and repair of instruments used to monitor the plant's two nuclear reactors.

8. On January 8, 1986, while working an otherwise routine night shift, RODRIGUEZ received a work order to repair a jammed probe in the Traversing Incore Probe drive at ea of Unit 3 containment (hereinafter, "the containment area"). The probe is necessary to monitor the condition of the nuclear fuel rods in the nuclear reactors.

9. The work order failed to provide adequate instructions to RODRIGUEZ. Nevertheless, RODRIGUEZ was aware of the general nature of the work to be performed as well as the importance of completing the work that night. Indeed; RODRIGUEZ's supervisor, Vern Miller, had placed a great deal of pressure on RODRIGUEZ to fix the probe quickly so that the reactor would be ready for use the next day.

10. Along with the work order, RODRIGUEZ received a radiation work permit ("RWP"), stating that the area surrounding the probe contained less than 0.1 REM (one REM is the equivalent of 50 chest x-rays). In fact, the area contained at least 8.0 REMs of radiation more than 100 times the amount listed on the RWP by FPAL's Health Physics Department.

11. After receiving his work order and the RWP, RODRIGUEZ entered the containment area to repair the probe. RODRIGUEZ was equipped with a hand-held survey meter which had been issued'o him by FP5L. The survey meter was "designed and manufactured by EBERLINE to allow technicgans to measure nuclear radiation so as to avoid overexposure.

~ ~ 1

12. Inside the containment area, the radiation level was so great that it caused RODRIGUEZ's hand-held survey meter to overload and malfunction. Because of design and manufacturing defects, the overloaded survey meter registered "zero"; thereby, leading RODRIGUEZ to believe that he was being exposed to a minimal dosage of nuclear radiation, if any, when in fact his body was being physically bombarded by potentially lethal dosages of nuclear radiation.

13. Both EBERLINE and FP8L failed to warn RODRIGUEZ that his hand-held survey meter would register zero after it had reached a saturation level. Therefore, RODRIGUEZ had no reason to suspect that his body was being exposed to potentially lethal dosages of nuclear radiation as he worked to repair the jammed probe.

14. After repairing the jammed probe, RODRIGUEZ left the containment area and removed his protective overalls. He then glanced at his dosimeter -- an instrument kept in the technician's pocket to gauge the technician's cumulative nuclear radiation exposure level and realized for the first time that he had been overexposed to nuclear radiation.

15. In a state of fear, panic, and anxiety, RODRIGUEZ reported to FPhL's Health'hysics Officer. The oificer downplayed RODRIGUEZ's dosimeter reading, suggesting that the instrument probably was broken. Subsequent tests revealed that the dosimeter was not broken. To the contrary, the hand-held survey meter had malfunctioned and RODRIGUEZ had been exposed to a potentially lethal dosage of nuclear radiation.

16. The next morning, Everett Hayes, FPEL's Instrument and Control Department Supervisor, telephoned RODRIGUEZ and ordered

~< m to attend .a m>eting at Turkey Point. Hayes informed RODRIGUEZ that the entire incident was "snowballing" and that RODRIGUEZ should come to the plant immediately.

17. RODRIGUEZ prompt'ly reported to Turkey Point. Unknown to RODRIGUEZ, FPKL officials had already decided -- without

~ I~ ~> ~ ~ 'I ~ 4 ~ ' ~ ~ conducting an investigation or hearing of any sort -- to terminate RODRIGUEZ. Once RODRIGUEZ arrived at the plant, FPEL officials'onducted a kangaroo court in which they expressed concern that an incident of this'agnitude could cause the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to revoke Turkey Point's operating license. In an unsuccessful attempt to shift blame from FPAL to RODRIGUEZ, FP4L filed a report claiming that RODRIGUEZ's overexposure was entirely his fault.

18. To support its decision that RODRIGUEZ was entirely at fault, FPAL demoted RODRIGUEZ to a broom-pushing job and banned him from ever again working in the field of nuclear energy. To a man like RODRIGUEZ, whose specialized training and career aspirations focused solely on nuclear energy, FPEL's conduct constituted a constructive termination.

19. RODRIGUEZ is presently wor king sporadically as a

= roofer.

20. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission subsequently conducted an independent investigation of RODRIGUEZ's overexposure. The Commission concluded that FPd L had violated numerous federal statutes pertaining to the health and safety of employees. Moreover, the Commission categorized FP&L's violations as a "Severity Level III problems Severity Level III problems are defined as violations that are cause for significant concern.

COUNT I Ne ligence A ainst FPEL Plaintiff realleges and adopts herein paragraphs 1 through 20 ' 2>. At all times. materi,al hereto; FP%L was engaged'n the business of maintaining, conveying, handling, and distributing atomic and nuclear power, and for this purpose did own, operate, maintain, 'manage and control the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant. r ~ 4

22. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 19.12 (1986), FPAL was required to instruct and train RODRIGUEZ in the health protection problems associated with exposure to nuclear radiation and in the precautions and procedures to minimize exposure.

23. FPSL knew, or in the exercise of due diligence should have known, of its statutory duty to instruct and train RODRIGUEZ as described in paragraph 22.

24. In breach of its statutory duty, FPSL failed to instruct and train RODRIGUEZ in the health protection problems associated with exposure to nuclear radiation and in the precautions and procedures to minimize exposure. Particularly, FPEL failed to instruct RODRIGUEZ to avoid prolonged exposure to a high level of nuclear radiation.

25. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 19.12 (1986), FP&L was r equired to instruct and train RODRIGUEZ in the purposes and functions of protective devices, including hand-held radiation survey meters, and in the methods of detecting instrument failures and the actions to be taken if the instrument was suspected of failure.

26. FPAL knew, or in the exercise of due diligence should have known, of its statutory duty to instruct and train RODRIGUEZ as described in paragraph 25.

27.'n breach of its statutory duty, FP8 L failed to instruct and train RODRIGUEZ in the purposes and functions of protective devices, including hand-held radiation survey meters, and in the methods oi detecting instrument failures and the actions to be taken if the instrument was suspected of failure. Particularly, FP8L failed to instruct RODRIGUEZ that his hand-held survey meter might register "zero" radiation after it had reached a saturation level.

28. In f'v~>>>r .breach of, its statutory 'duty, FPEL failed to do the following:

/ A. Provide adequate instructions on the plant work order for the maintenance and repair'tasks to be performed; B. Obtain a health physics technician to accompany 0 4 %a l RODRIGUEZ into the containment area while RODRIGUEZ repaired the jammed probe; and C. Limit RODRIGUEZ's exposure to nuclear radiation to the limits established by the plant work order.

29. As a result of FPAL's breach of its statutory duty, RODRIGUEZ's body was physically bombarded by potentially lethal dosages of nuclear radiation.

30. In addition to physical injury, RODRIGUEZ has suffered, and will continue to suffer, mental anguish and emotional distress because of the thought of the severe and potentially lethal dosages of nuclear radiation to which his body has been exposed.

31. FPAL's conduct constitutes negligence per se.

32. FPEL's conduct was grossly negligent, willful and wanton and accompanied by a reckless disregard for human life.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and a judgment in his favor and against FP8L for compensatory and punitive ~damages in excess of $ 10,000,000.00 and further relief as this Court shall deem proper. COUNT II Strict Liabilit A ainst FPAL Plaintiff realleges and adopts herein paragraphs 1 through 20.

33. At all times material hereto, FPAL was engaged in an inherently dangerous activity and an ultrahazardous activity.

34. RODRIGUEZ's injuries occurred while he was working within the 'scope of his employment at FPAL.

35. FP8 L is strictly liable to RODRIGUEZ for the injuries he received when his bodv was physically, bombarded by potentially lethal dosages of nuclear radiation.

36. In addition to physical injury, RODRIGUEZ has suffered, and w ill c'ont inue 'to su ffer, mental anguish. and emotional distress because of the thought of the severe and potentially

lethal dosages of nuclear radiation to which his body has been exposed.

37. FP&L's conduct was willful and wanton and accompanied by a reckless disregard for human life.

WHEREFORE, RODRIGUEZ demands a trial by jury and a judgment in his favor and against FP&L for compensatory punitive ~ and damages in excess of gi0,000,000.00 and further r elief as this Court shall deem proper. COUNT III Mron ful Discharge A ainst FP&L Plaintiff realleges and adopts herein paragraphs 1 through 20 '8. Prior to January 9, 1986, RODRIGUEZ had invested much of his time, finances and resources into the training necessary to become a skilled nuclear radiation technician.

39. RODRIGUEZ enjoyed his work and his profession and looked forward to a successful and longtime- career in the field of nuclear energy.

40. At all times material hereto, RODRIGUEZ's work at Turkey Point had been satisfactorily performed in accordance with plant procedures and requirements.

41. RODRIGUEZ showed great promise as a competent Instrument and Control Technician. Indeed, RODRIGUEZ scored grades well above average in his "red badge" and other periodic plant tests. Moreover, RODRIGUEZ was being "groomed" for a management position and had already successfully worked in a temporary management position.

42. Despite RODRIGUEZ's history of satisfactory performance and his promising future in the field of nuclear energy, FP&L constructively fired RODRIGUEZ on January 9, 1986.

43. Without cause or justification, FP&L demoted RODRIGUEZ to a broom-pushing job. 'Simultaneously, FP&L forever banned RODRIGUEZ from the field of nuclear energy. RODRIGUEZ's promising career and his secure future were instantly destroyed.

44. FP&L's conduct was intended, calculated and designed to force RODRIGUEZ to leave employment at FP&L.

45. FP&L's action constituted a wrongful discharge and a retaliator y ter mination.

46. FP&L's conduct was willful and wanton and purposefully designed to shift blame for RODRIGUEZ's overexposure to nuclear radiation from FP&L to RODRIGUEZ.

WHEREFORE, RODRIGUEZ demands a trial by jury and a judgment in his favor and against FP&L for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $ 10,000,000.00 and further relief as this Court shall deem proper. COUNT IV Ne li ent Infliction of Emotional Distress A ainst FP&L Pla ntiff realleges and adopts herein paragraphs 1 through 20 '7. At'all times material hereto, FP&L had a duty to avoid inflicting unnecessary emotional distress upon RODRIGUEZ. 48- FP&L knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of its duty to avoid inflicting unnecessary emotional \ distress upon RODRIGUEZ.

49. In breach of its duty, FP&L inflicted unnecessary and extreme emotional distress upon RODRIGUEZ by wrongfully accusing RODRIGUEZ of being entirely at fault for his overexposure to nuclear radiation.

50. Despite RODRIGUEZ's plea for,FP&L officials to consider his account of the overexposure, FP&L officials wrongfully I

refused to admit or consider. FP&L's own fault in RODRIGUEZ's N overexposure.

51. FP&L inflicted further emotional distress upon RODRIGUEZ by demoted him from a specialized position to a menial position and forever banning him from his chosen pl ofession--

that of nuclear energy.

52. In one quick fell swoop, FP&L destroyed RODRIGUEZ's

.0 i' promising career . 53 'PEcL's conduct was gt ossly negligent, willful and wanton and purposefully designed to shift blame for RODRIGUEZ's overexposure to nuclear radiation from FPAL to RODRIGUEZ. WHEREFORE, RODRIGUEZ demands a trial by jury and a judgment in his favor and against FPM. for compensator y and punitive damages in the amount of $ 10,000,000.00 and further relief as this Court shall deem proper. , COUNT V Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress A ainst FPEL Plaintiff r ealleges and adopts herein paragraphs 1 through 20.

54. FPAL intentionally inflicted extreme emotional distress upon RODRIGUEZ by wrongfully accusing RODRIGUEZ of being entirely at fault for his overexposure to nuclear radiation.

55. FP8L knew, or in the exercise of due diligence should have known, that FP5L was largely or entirely at fault for RODRIGUEZ's overexposure to nuclear radiation.

56. FPlkL intentionally inflicted extreme emotional 'distress upon RODRIGUEZ by wrongfully demoting him from a specialized position to a menial position and forever banning him from the field of nuclear energy.

57. FPAL knew, or in the exercise of due diligence should have known, that there was no cause or justification to demote RODRIGUEZ or to ban him from the field of nucleal energy.

58. FPEL's conduct was willful and wanton and purposefully designed to inflict emotional distress upon RODRIGUEZ by shifting blame for RODRIGUEZ's overexposure to nuclear radiation from FPEL'o RODRIGUEZ.

WHEREFORE, RODRIGUEZ demands C a trial by jury and a judgment in his favor and against FPSL for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $ 10,000,000.00 and further relief as this Court'hall deem proper. t ft (. COUNT VI YNe li ence A ainst Eber line Plaintiff realleges and adopts herein paragraphs 1 through 20. all k

59. At times material hereto, EBERLINE was engaged in the business of designing and manufacturing devices and instruments to detect and .measure nuclear radiation.

60. At all times mater ial hereto, EBERLINE was engaged in the business of distributing and selling and otherwise furnishing to consumers devices and instruments to detect and measure nuclear radiation.

61. Prior to January 8, 1986, FP&L purchased a hand-held survey meter from EBERLINE. That instrument was designed and manufactured by EBERLINE and distributed to FPEL by EBERLINE.

The hand-held survey meter was issued to RODRIGUEZ on the evening of January 8, 1986.

62. On January 8, 1986, RODRIGUEZ was working at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant owned and operated by FPEL. At the time, RODRIGUEZ was equipped with the hand-held survey meter.

63. Relying on the accuracy of the hand-held survey meter, RODRIGUEZ unknowingly entered an area (the containment area) of nuclear radiation measuring at least 8.0 REMS.

64. awhile perfor ming maintenance work in the containment area, RODRIGUEZ's hand-held sur vey meter malfunctioned. As a result, the needle on the gauge registered "zero" REMS.

Continuing to rely on the accurateness of his hand-held survey meter, RODRIGUEZ remained in the containment area until he had finished his work. Unknown to him, his body was being physically bombarded by potentially lethal. dosages of nuclear radiation.

65. At all times material hereto, EBERLINE was negligent in e

the des'ign and manufacturing and the placement on the market of the hand-held survey meter used by RODRIGUEZ.

66. EBERLINE knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care 10

I should have known, that the hand-held survey meter would be used by RODRIGUEZ or other persons who would rely on the machine~s accuracy while working in or about areas of high radiation such as the containment area.

67. EBERLINE had a duty to provide RODRIGUEZ with a safe hand-held survey meter.

68. EBERLINE had a duty to warn RODRIGUEZ of the potential hazards accompanying the use of the hand-held survey meter.

69. In br each of these duties, EBERLINE failed to provide RODRIGUEZ with a safe hand-held survey meter and failed to warn, him of the potential hazards accompanying the use of the hand-held survey meter.

70.'s a direct and proximate result of the foregoing negligent acts and omissions, RODRIGUEZ's body was physically bombarded by potentially lethal dosages of nuclear radiation.

71. In addition to physical injury, RODRIGUEZ has suffered, and continues to suffer, mental anguish and emotional distress because of. the thought of the severe and potentially lethal dosages of nuclear radiation to which his body has been exposed.

72. EBERLINE's conduct was grossly negligent, willful and wanton and accompanied by a reckless disregard for human life.

WHEREFORE, RODRIGUEZ demands a trial by jury and a judgment in his favor and against EBERLINE for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $ 10,000,000.00 and further relief as this Court shall deem proper. COUNT VII Breach of Im lied Warranty of gerchantabilit A ainst Eberline Plaintiff realleges and adopts herein paragraphs 1 through 20 '3. At all times material hereto, EBERLINE was a seller within the purview and meaning of Sections 672.313; 672.314, and 672.315 of the Florida Statutes (1985) .

74. EBERLINE impliedly warranted that its hand-held survey 11

k F k I 1 meter was reasonably fit for a particular purpose and for its intended use as an instrument to detect and measure the amount of nuclear radiation to which a human body is being exposed.

75. The hand-held sur vey meter was not fit for a particular purpose nor for its intended use as an instrument to detect and measure the amount of nuclear radiation to which a human body is being exposed. The hand-held survey meter lacked adequate safety and protective devices; thereby, rendering it exceedingly unfit for its particular purpose and for its intended use.

76. EBERLINE represented to the general public and to RODRIGUEZ and his employer, FPAL, that the hand-held survey meter was safe, when in truth, EBERLINE knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the hand-held survey meter was designed and manufactured such that the hand-held v'urvey meter lacked adequate and proper safety devices to prevent injuries from extreme and/or potentially lethal dosages of nuclear radiation.

77. As a direct and proximate result of EBERLINE's breach of warranty, RODRIGUEZ, while engaged in the performance of his duties as a nuclear radiation technician, was physically bombarded by potentially lethal dosages of nuclear radiation.

78. In addition to physical injury, RODRIGUEZ has suffered, and continues to suffer, mental anguish and emotional distress because of the thought of the severe and potentially lethal dosages of nuclear radiation to which his body has been exposed.

79. EBERLINE's conduct was willful and wanton and accompanied by a reckless disregard for human life.

MHEREFORE, RODRIGUEZ demands a trial by jury and a judgment in his'favor and against EBERLINE for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $ 10,00p,000.00 and further'relief as th'is Court shall deem proper. 12 1 1 COUNT VIII y Breach of Ex ress Warrant of Fitness for a Particular Pur ose A ainst EBERLINE Plaintiff realleges and adopts herein paragraphs 1 through 20 ~ 80 ~ At all times'aterial hereto, EBERLINE was a seller within the purview and meaning of Sections 672.313, 672.314, and 672.315 of the Florida Statutes (1985).

81. EBERLINE expressly wart anted in its advertising that the hand-held survey meter was appropriate for the use to which it was being put at the time of RODRIGUEZ's overexposure to nuclear radiation.

82. The advertisements were part of the basis of the bargain between EBERLINE and FPAL, RODRIGUEZ's employer'.

83. The hand-held survey meter was purchased with this inducement and FP8L relied on these representations for the safety of RODRIGUEZ and other employees.

84. By designing, manufacturing and distributing the hand-held survey meter in a defective condition, EBERLINE failed to conform to the representations made; thereby, breaching its express warranty.

85. As a direct and pr oximate result of EBERLINE's breach of warranty, RODRIGUEZ, while engaged in the perfor mance of his duties as a nuclear radiation technician, was physically bombar ded by potentially lethal dosages of nuclear radiation.

86. In addition to physical injury, RODRIGUEZ has suffered, and continues to suffer, mental anguish and emotional distr ess because of the thought of the sever e and potentially lethal dosages of nuclear radiation to which his body has been exposed.

87. 'EBERLINE's,conduct vas willful ard- wanton and accompanied by a reckless disregard for human life.

WHEREFORE, RODRIGUEZ demands a trial by jury and a judgment in his favor and against EBERLINE for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $ 10,000,000.00 and further relief as this 13 I r ~ ~ Court shall deem proper. COUNT IX Strict Liabilit A ainst Eberline Plaintiff realleges and adopts herein paragraphs 1 through 20 '8. EBERLINE placed a hand-held survey meter in the stream of commerce.

89. The hand-held survey meter was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous at the time of its sale to FP&L.

90. The hand-held survey meter was in a defective condition for all of the following reasons:

(1) EBERLINE designed it defectively; (2) EBERLINE manufactured it defectively; and ~ (3) EBERLINE failed to warn the intended user of its inherent dangers.

91. The hand-held sut vey meter was used by RODRIGUEZ; an intended user, in the performance of his employment at FP&L.

92. Without misuse of the product by RODRIGUEZ, the hand.-

held survey meter malfunctioned causing RODRIGUEZ to be physically bombarded by potentially lethal dosages of nuclear radiation.

93. In addition to physical injury, RODRIGUEZ has suffered, and continues to suffer, mental anguish and emotional distress because of the thought of the severe and potentially lethal dosages of nuclear radiation to which his body has been exposed.

94. EBERLINE's conduct was willful and wanton and accompanied by a reckless disregard for human life.

WHEREFORE, RODRIGUEZ demands a trial by jury and a judgment in his favor and against EBERLINE for compensatory and. punitive damage i.n c=.cess of >10q000,000.00 and further relief as this Court shall deem proper. ~ -'e Respectfully submitted, ' LAW OFFICES OF FERRARO & ASSOCIATES,PEA. MICHAEL R. SEWARD Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Plaintiff One Southeast Financial One Southeast Financial Center Center Suite 3520-Suite 3520 Miami, FL 33131-2331 Miami, FL 33131-2331 (305) 371-4028 (305) 372-3852 BY: Br: M CHAEL RE SEWARD J S LE FERRARO r .j C