Felton Cullen Williams v. Owens-Corning Firberglas

Eleventh Circuit

Felton Cullen Williams v. Owens-Corning Firberglas

405 F.3d 1291

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMay 13, 2004

Docket03-14038, 03-14508

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 405 F.3d 1291 (Felton Cullen Williams v. Owens-Corning Firberglas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Felton Cullen Williams v. Owens-Corning Firberglas, 405 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

These separate interlocutory appeals, Nos. 03-14038 & 03-14508, are again before this Court after the Supreme Court of Georgia’s answer to our Certified Question of State Law. Plaintiffs are relatives, or personal representatives thereof, of Defendant CSX Transportation (“CSXT”) employees who allege in the diversity jurisdiction case they were exposed at locations other than CSXT work facilities, such as at home, to asbestos fibers emitted from the work clothing worn by their CSXT-em-ployee relatives, causing them, among other things, lung diseases. The district court denied CSXT’s motions for partial summary judgments on plaintiffs’ negligence claims under Georgia negligence law. We reverse.

As we recently explained, “the district court held that Georgia negligence law imposed a duty of care on CSXT to its employees’ family members who were exposed to that asbestos-tainted clothing.” Williams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 369 F.3d 1269, 1270 (11th Cir.2004). Because we found no published Georgia case on point, we certified the following question of Georgia law to the Supreme Court of Georgia:

Whether Georgia negligence law imposes any duty on an employer to a third-party, non-employee, who comes into contact with its employee’s asbestos-tainted work clothing at locations away from the workplace, such as the employee’s home?

369 F.3d at 1270.

The Supreme Court of Georgia has now answered our question in the negative as follows, “Georgia negligence law does not impose any duty on an employer to a third-party, non-employee, who comes into contact with its employee’s asbestos-tainted work clothing at locations away from the workplace.” See CSX Transp., Inc. v. Williams, et al., 278 Ga. 888, 608 S.E.2d 208, 210 (2005).

*1293 It was therefore error for the district court to deny CSXT’s motions for partial summary judgment on the ground that CSXT owed such a duty of care. The judgment denying CSXT’s motions for summary judgment are reversed and the cases are remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Georgia State Law.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

These separate interlocutory appeals, Nos. 03-14038 & 03-14508, are again before this Court after the Supreme Court of Georgia’s answer to our Certified Question of State Law. Plaintiffs are relatives, or personal representatives thereof, of Defendant CSX Transportation (“CSXT”) employees who allege in the diversity jurisdiction case they were exposed at locations other than CSXT work facilities, such as at home, to asbestos fibers emitted from the work clothing worn by their CSXT-em-ployee relatives, causing them, among other things, lung diseases. The district court denied CSXT’s motions for partial summary judgments on plaintiffs’ negligence claims under Georgia negligence law. We reverse.

As we recently explained, “the district court held that Georgia negligence law imposed a duty of care on CSXT to its employees’ family members who were exposed to that asbestos-tainted clothing.” Williams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 369 F.3d 1269, 1270 (11th Cir.2004). Because we found no published Georgia case on point, we certified the following question of Georgia law to the Supreme Court of Georgia:

Whether Georgia negligence law imposes any duty on an employer to a third-party, non-employee, who comes into contact with its employee’s asbestos-tainted work clothing at locations away from the workplace, such as the employee’s home?

369 F.3d at 1270.

The Supreme Court of Georgia has now answered our question in the negative as follows, “Georgia negligence law does not impose any duty on an employer to a third-party, non-employee, who comes into contact with its employee’s asbestos-tainted work clothing at locations away from the workplace.” See CSX Transp., Inc. v. Williams, et al., 278 Ga. 888, 608 S.E.2d 208, 210 (2005).

*1293 It was therefore error for the district court to deny CSXT’s motions for partial summary judgment on the ground that CSXT owed such a duty of care. The judgment denying CSXT’s motions for summary judgment are reversed and the cases are remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Georgia State Law.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 F.3d 1291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felton-cullen-williams-v-owens-corning-firberglas-ca11-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack