Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
46. Is the court likely to grant the manufacturer's motion for summary judgment?
One of the named manufacturers moved for summary judgment, arguing that the sailor had no evidence she had been exposed to asbestos products used by the particular boating manufacturer. In its motion for summary judgment, the manufacturer did not provide any evidence contradicting its presence in the naval yard, nor did it provide any support to negate the evidence put forth by the sailor.
A sailor filed suit in federal court against several boat manufacturers that all used asbestos products on the ships they built. The sailor alleged she had been exposed to asbestos while working in the naval shipyard. Discovery revealed that several ships containing asbestos had been at the naval yard where the sailor had worked at various times over the course of her employment. Each of the named defendants manufactured the ships.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing information that clearly establishes there is no factual dispute for a jury to resolve. The movant can show the lack of a genuine issue of fact by submitting affidavits. They must:
(i) only contain matters as to which the affiant has personal knowledge;
(ii) state only matters which would be admissible at trial; AND
(iii) show the affiant is competent to testify at trial. The movant may also submit the fruits of discovery no matter which side they were obtained from.
B is correct. A defendant who moves for summary judgment may succeed either by demonstrating that no evidence in the record supports the plaintiff's case or by a showing of affirmative evidentiary support.
In this case, while the evidence in the record does not alone establish the sailor's exposure to this particular manufacturer's asbestos, the evidence does support the sailor's case generally. Therefore, in its motion for summary judgment, the boating manufacturer would have had to either make an affirmative showing of evidence contradicting its presence in the naval yard or negating the evidence put forth by the sailor.
A is incorrect. A moving party is not required to make an affirmative showing of evidence in support of its motion. A defendant who moves for summary judgment may be able to offer evidence that undermines the plaintiff's evidence, which is required to carry the plaintiff's burden. This choice is incorrect because it indicates that the manufacturer would only have prevailed with an affirmative showing of evidence in support of its own motion.
C is incorrect. The sailor did put forth evidence that each of the boating manufacturers, including this specific boating manufacturer, was present in the naval yard at the same time when the sailor had worked. While that evidence alone does not establish the sailor's exposure to the movant's asbestos, it is evidence of a genuine dispute of material fact between the parties. The burden is now on the boating manufacturer to undermine that evidence.
D is incorrect. The facts do not indicate that the sailor acted in bad faith by bringing the suit against all the boating manufacturers. Moreover, with multiple defendants, as is the case here, plaintiffs may utilize discovery to narrow down the appropriate parties within the case.