333 Ga. App. 693
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Fletcher sues CertainTeed and Water Applications for personal injury allegedly from asbestos exposure.
- She alleges exposure between 1960 and 1977 by laundering her father’s asbestos-contaminated work clothes at home.
- Her father worked for City of Thomasville Water & Light Department 1948–1983, handling and installing water pipe, primarily CertainTeed Fluid-Tite asbestos pipe 1969–1973.
- Invoices show city purchases of CertainTeed pipes via Water Applications’ predecessor; pipes contained 10–20% asbestos and were cut/beveled for connections.
- Fletcher contends dangers of home exposure to contaminated clothing were known in literature as early as 1913 and cites various safety warnings and OSHA developments.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants; the Court of Appeals affirms in part and reverses in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty for design defect against CertainTeed | CertainTeed’s design exposes whole product line to risk. | Duty limited by class and risk-utility; no foreseeability to Fletcher. | Design defect duty shows material factual dispute; not summary judgment. |
| Duty to warn by CertainTeed | Manufacturer knew risks and could warn purchasers and third parties; warning would have protected family. | Foreseeability and duty to warn do not extend to Fletcher as bystander; limited to users. | Question for jury remains; trial court erred in granting summary judgment on negligent failure to warn. |
| General negligent claims against CertainTeed | Includes negligent testing/recall; should withstand summary judgment. | These claims lack support. | Trial court's grant of summary judgment affirmed for those claims. |
| Water Applications’ duty to Fletcher | Distributor could foresee hazards and owed warning to third parties. | Distributor had no control or possession of pipe; no knowledge shown. | No duty to warn; summary judgment affirmed on negligent failure to warn. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Nordictrack, Inc., 274 Ga. 115 (Ga. 2001) (risk-utility analysis in design defect cases)
- Banks v. ICI Americas, 264 Ga. 732 (Ga. 1994) (risk-benefit balancing in design defect; design defect factors)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Batten, 264 Ga. 723 (Ga. 1994) (manufacturing/warning duties; product safety responsibilities)
- CSX Transp. v. Williams, 278 Ga. 888 (Ga. 2005) (duty limits for foreseeability; workplace exposure rule guidance)
- Ogletree v. Navistar Intl. Transp. Corp., 271 Ga. 644 (Ga. 1999) (risk-utility analysis; product design defect framework)
- DeLoach v. Rovema Corp., 241 Ga. App. 802 (Ga. App. 2000) (duty extends to user and consumer of product)
- R & R Insulation Svcs. v. Royal Indem. Co., 307 Ga. App. 419 (Ga. App. 2010) (warning duties and third-party foreseeability discussions)