court is precluded from reviewing on appeal from final judgment entered by the district of south carolina the question of whether the eastern district of pennsylvania's interlock tory cision was a correct application of all wrong and precisely on appeal from final judgment this court has jurisdiction to review whether an inner walked or decision by district court in another circuit was a correct application of all and again we rely on twenty eight u s c twelve ninety one twenty eight you see twelve ninety four and then the reasoning and take no still be beers construction come in for the record i'll cite the the cite is to seventy one f third one fifty regularity or frequent sit chics she certainly established proximity in some instances but the testimony if you look at the testimony of a coworker it was very spongy it was mr pace worked around certain machines at certain periods of time i don't recall if  from this situation yes your honor because we're only appealing the application of south carolina soaps so i mean that goes to this overall issue that judge duncan's asking about is if for instance he worked in building thirty one and thirty proximity and and then it has to be respect to crane products yes your honor and i mean that and to respond to that briefly before getting back to just duncan's question the actual work on the pumps and turbans occurred in the or ship that i can remember standing there and seeing who worked on his assessment that the sea works on the pumps a lot was based on the length of time working at the shipyard so he provide specific recollection of actually see mr pace work on the crank open but that's the same situation that we had in rolling where all you need is a co worker's testimony to say this is the product or this is the type of that the person worked on even if you pumps in building eighty dollars one also worked on mr pace worked on you name them he named them but he did not have a specific recollection of mr pace actually working on a crank oh paul and it's our position that a specific recollection of actually seeing the individual work that home is not needed when you have coworker testimony basically saying all machinist worked on crane collapse and building eighty and there was a special because the machine assumed that was their regular duty to repack and overhaul paltz which included removing gaskets and packing from parts they would have been experimental or kinds of pumps worked on by a machinist we know that that crane h mr pace actually worked on himself but he did recall that crane cope's worked on by a machinist in building eight yeah but he when i asked identify whether the place he said that based might have  and that's the only evidence we have that he did work on things that he himself but again yeah but we have to have somebody else well from rolling when we have that machinist worked on these parts in building eighty the to look at it read it you go to the cases where they're going to go to the jury were evidence similar to your honor well from from this court we would rather rely on warman unrolling we think there's definitely more evidence here than was in ormond rowling basically said you don't have to have a specific recollection use have had a coworker saying that this product was worked on in a specific area and there was exposure to everyone around that what about the south carolina or your honor i'm as your view better weaker than this where you got to go to the jury you know i think it was about the same you had different numbers of witnesses you had some invoices from the eastman facility had issue in garvan but it was different evidence moving quickly i guess two to go if i may so for one year mr pace worked in shop thirty one where again he worked on paul this work included removing packing and repack worker saying i saw mr page working on this got well saying that i saw mr pace work on x paul our our position is that rolling is we're going to roll in here it which we think is right on point we don't have the specific recollection of him working on a specific song what we had it is about rolling they did not have that you're on what they had was coworkers basically saying this is that this is that machine has worked on in this area and all the machines would have been exposed to this  stuff there were don't abandon the fact that mr pace most likely worked on these poles you know we rely on the evidence as it is but additionally we say that mr pace was exposed to asbestos from these pumps and these products from other machine is working to all of the components of lower so i think rowling certainly speaks to the proximity point it doesn't speak as much to the regularity in frequency point but in rowling the critical component was that the plaintiff was in the same limited area working side by side as other people all of whom were inhaling the specificity us in that limited area now can hear the same from the same source yes from the same source shop thirty eight is not a limited area as mr morgan testified shop thirty eight was comprised of two buildings of two large football fields each with two levels and there were over five hundred machinists working in there other witnesses likewise testified that machinists worked on different things some of them had different specialties so for instance mr pace testified when describing his primary job description that he worked on types other types of equipment not right now westinghouse is only in this did not testify that any of the work that mr pace performed on the one or two westinghouse turbines exposed them to us vested us but even if it did one or two exposures is simply not enough under south carolina law this court applying the regularity frequency and proximity test in mormon held that ten to fifteen exposures of one to eight hours each is not sufficient so certainly one or two exposures or other de minimus amount of exposure likewise fail and we can assume that mr pace was working on westinghouse turbines more than this in because mr lee who plaintiff has emphasized work side by side with mr pace and worked with him a lot said that he only worked on three turbines total with mr case and only one or two of those was a westinghouse or by dust on ships which are not at issue here and mr sneed although he testified that some westinghouse servants were sent to shop thirty eight for electrical work never testify that that work involved exposure to asbestos dust and even if it had shot thirty eight again it's not limited area it's not the same situation as rolling where these people when you say limited area do you mean close or wood or small i think it would probably be both a small and  rolling doesn't specify exactly what i think the assumption is that it wasn't in open air there but it there we don't know for sure what the exact setup was in rolling what we do know is that it's very different from here where you have a shop that is literally two buildings of two floors of two football fields each with five hundred people working in it it simply is sheer speculation to assume that when a westinghouse or brightness and to that shop mr pace who none of the people who worked with him saw him working on westinghouse turbines so it's it's sheer speculation to assume that he was around that work now the point is also argued for a more relaxed standard in these of helium a context as an initial matter the south carolina one or two exposures or other de minimus amounts of exposure are still insufficient even if there were enough exposure evidence here which there is not c b s would also not be liable because it did not make or supply any of the insulation that allegedly injured mr pace it's blackletter tort law that a defendant is only liable for harms caused by products that it puts into the stream of commerce and this court held in the boman case that south carolina law itself that princip so they came in uncovered and then the navy got the insulation so i think it was mr ross i think your next st claim is limited to only what happened in the shop that's a that's a limited universe of exposures and i thought about that as i was looking through this record and i don't know how often mr pace was working on the ships versus in the shop but one of his ship one of his coworkers m said that basically all mr look at bill did was he worked on the ships pace help them thirty percent of up so it's a substantial amount of time he was in the ships which isn't even an issue now as far as crank oh your honour's i think it's very notable mr pace when he was asked over two days of deposition about all of his us best exposures he didn't utter the words crank so if he was working on these pumps it's not something he remembers now mr lee plaintiffs were coworker witness who talked but even if this court were to accept that even if you find ok it's reasonable to believe mr pace might a work on a crank up pop i want to go to a question judge duncan asked which was something like this and i wrote it down wrong but it's close enough that we know that crane co pumps cost us best as exposure something like that do we know that work with the pump caused exposure no absolutely not that there are two components that were used with these pump plane of says might have caused mr pace an exposure a gasket product which is a little sealing device and a piece of hacking which looks like rope and it's another type sealing device it seals around the stem of about where there's moving metal parts we don't know what kind of work mr pace did with these crank up if he did and it could have been rebuilding the moat he there's nobody that says he worked with these these gasket impacting problems and we know from m and this is page six ninety three of the record that some of the gaskets and packing used at the shop in the shop at the shipyard didn't contain asbestos so we have no idea whether even if mr pace work with crank up even if he was working with the gas work with the pumps there was he worked with the gaskets in the packing they were us best this and it was frequent regular and are certainly no evidence of that but even if you go all those steps it's still undisputed that there's no evidence that this s but the ne us best components to a case like this one and that without evidence that crank actually made or sold any of these things that we have no idea that mr pace even work with summary judgment appropriate for that reason as well unless the court has any questions for me i'm so that thank you mr ross mr with the gold much less that there was any exposure on a regular basis over an extended period of time because of this the plaintiff here under the guise of circumstantial evidence are seeking to build a case against school circumstantial evidence is perfectly appropriate but here it is not circumstantial evidence this is nothing but speculation this is based on possibilities even the rolling opinion which plainness rely on here affirm the granting of summary judgement as to some claims because there was only a possibility of exposure that is not enough the plaintiff cannot circumvent the frequency proximity regularity floorman test by taking speculation and characterizing it as absurd as circumstantial evidence they still need to show evidence of exposure on a regular basis over an extended period of time in part simply it's not an easy case or  and really your focus i guess is not on the circumstantial but is on the identification of the products that your client manufactured i'm happy to address period of time and a specific job taking place here none of the witnesses are able to put mr pace at a specific time frame in a specific area of the shop as opposed to ship in a shop around any question mr carson about mr pace mr pace complaint was filed after the deposition of mr karst even if you consider mr carson testimony it does nothing here mr karr says that at some point hundred seventy three and one nine hundred ninety six encounter gould's and shop thirty one we don't know what year we don't know what part of the shop and there's no testimony here that connects mr pace to any of that specific work or certainly no work took place in a shop and the shop we know from mr morgan stuff the money was two football fields and link there were two buildings and two stores so there was there's no testimony here where you can establish a connection between mr better sitting down at will but we are one of thirty one defend that in this case judge for brain no specifically applied rolling decision which chris webb has tried to weave his case into under a circumstantial evidence  standard the plaintiff himself was deposed over two days and he did name some products he named specifically milwaukee pope's cambridge pumps and general electric he never had a thing to say about buffalo palms nor did any of the coworkers that were heard from have anything to say about mr pace work with the buffalo pump one thing i want just make clear and i think judg number of different manufacturers of this equipment american blower aurora combustion engine during the love valve foster wheeler gardner denver hearty times anger saul ran leroy company shooting and hurting warren and for example judge and so again there was nothing specific as to as to buffalo pumps and mr pace testified that he did work with valves and clamps and motors and generators and condensers and nuclear repair machinery and nuclear refueling machinery and blowers and gun mounts and fire hose directors that's in the record on page one hundred twenty five only want to demonstrate that he was a machinist with a wide variety of tasks and finally shot thirty eight what what i don't want us to labor out of the dissolution or misimpression that it's a small shop like a car for car automotive garage i know you've heard that you had a four football field links that is actually a six hundred feet up stairs six hundred feet down stairs six hundred feet next to one a warehouse six hundred feet next door in a warehouse or linear feet the difference with rolling there of the plaintiff work on a specific boiler as a pipe they're installing pipes in the boiler and it was working alongside insulators they were installing insulation of the same boiler here we've got a wide open  workplace over twenty five years with four different co workers and mr pace being examined pretty rigorously of course by all the lawyers about whether or not he could put a specific product mention this that some exposures still could happen but not there and finally there was there was other testimony regarding the shop that there were just a lot score i'd like to just address the regularity of frequency that seems to be focused like to point out that or at least my position is not sheer speculation for example with respect to regular mr pace a machinist and there is testimony that one of the main duties he had was repacking in removing opec in from hong is a reasonable inference not sheer speculation but that is a regular duty that he did it by the testimony that's a regular duty stinks so again regularity we would rely on the reasonable efforts of what he did on a daily basis and then when you take that into consideration with the testimony of coworkers that puts this specific point at issue here at least in the same shop where he worked worked on by machinist is a recent first as a machinist those are some of the pumps that he worked on with respect to frequency i was reminded from the record that mr pace did work aboard the ship to about thirty percent of the time that leave seventy percent of the time he's there are different sections of the shops but the machinist were working all parts work in one section of the shop so they're still working side by side if one person is working on a pulp and removing packing and there is specified dust in the air the other machine goes to the problem of regularity in exposure the other words he may have worked one hundred percent on two pumps but his work on the pumps may been a very small percentage of his overall work right you're on about the testimony would support that one of the primary duties of the machine is one of the main a regular i forget the exact testimony but was working on pumps from experience machinist mostly works on pumps turbans condensers some motors that type of equipment is sort of the main equipment the machine is works works on getting back to rowing i would note that five months exposure was enough and rolling and that would coincide with what we know from the scientific medical literature which i cited that in a brands of thermal insulation i think in that appeal there were two defendants at issue so there were more than one there was more than one source of a specific spot but again the court basically said five months of exposure is no here we have