Source: http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180328_0000159.MGA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:25:04+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Farmer v. Air and Liquid Systems Corp.
Farmer v. Air and Liquid Systems Corp.
AIR AND LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
(3) Defendant McWane Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 280) is DENIED.
On May 22, 2017, Defendant Fisher Controls Inc. (Fisher) filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 271.) Plaintiff responded on July 25, 2017 (Doc. 331), and Fisher replied on August 1, 2017 (Doc. 333). On May 22, 2017, Defendant Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 278.) Plaintiff responded on June 12, 2017 (Doc. 296), and Honeywell replied on June 26, 2017 (Doc. 327). On May 22, 2017, Defendant McWane Inc. (McWane) filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 280). Plaintiff responded on June 12, 2017 (Doc. 301), and McWane replied on June 26, 2017 (Doc. 325). As such, the Motions for Summary Judgment are ripe for review. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.3.1(A).
As the nonmovant facing a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff was required to identify those material facts as to which she contends there exists a genuine dispute to be tried. The Local Rules require those responses to controvert statements of material facts in motions for summary judgment with “specific citation to particular parts of materials in the record.” See M.D. Ga. L.R. 56. Accordingly, as to all statements asserted by Defendants in their Motions that are supported by specific record citation, the Court deems them to be admitted where the responding party has not responded with a specific citation to the record.
The parties invoke this Court's diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1.) “[E]xcept in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any diversity case is the law of the State.” Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740, 745 (1980). “Under Georgia law, [w]hether proceeding under a strict liability or a negligence theory, ‘proximate cause' is a necessary element of [a product liability] case.” Hoffman v. AC&S, Inc., 248 Ga.App. 608, 610-11 (2001) (quotations and citations omitted). “Thus . . . to survive summary judgment, an asbestos victim must present evidence that he or she was exposed to asbestos-containing products for which the defendant is responsible.” Thurmon v. Georgia Pac., LLC, 650 F. App'x 752, 757 (11th Cir. 2016). “Such evidence may include [t]estimony of co-workers who can identify a plaintiff by name as having worked with or around a particular defendant's asbestos-containing products.” Hoffman, 248 Ga.App. at 611. “Georgia law requires plaintiffs to prove exposure to a particular defendant's product in order to establish proximate cause because Georgia courts have refused to impose market-share or industry-wide liability upon asbestos manufacturers.” Thurmon, 650 F. App'x at 757 (citing O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11(d)).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1332
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 51