: 1:07-CV-1263 (TWT) CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., : THE ANDERSONS, INC., : : Defendants; and : : THE ANDERSONS, INC., : : Defendant/Third-party Plaintiff,: : v. : : STAR OF THE WEST MILLING : COMPANY, : : Third-party Defendant. : _____________________________ : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on December 1, 2008, the undersigned counsel electronically filed the foregoing DEFENDANT CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF FAULT OF NON-PARTY ON GROUNDS THAT O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL with the Clerk of Court 439801-1 Case 1:07-cv-01263-TWT Document 351 Filed 12/01/08 Page 15 of 16 using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send e-mail notification of such filing to the following attorneys of record: Michael J. Warshauer, Esq. Douglas C. Dumont, Esq.

See, e.g., Georgia Power Co. v. Sure Flow Equip., Inc., No. 1:13-CV-1375-AT, 2014 WL 4977799, at *3–5 (N.D. Ga. July 22, 2014). In Georgia Power Co., for instance, the court rejected a third- party plaintiff’s attempted reliance on the active/passive-tortfeasor distinction, Case 3:16-cv-00055-CDL Document 31-1 Filed 04/18/17 Page 18 of 23 [19] noting that the cases on which the third-party plaintiff relied were decided “before the 2005 enactment of Georgia's Tort Reform Act, which appears to do away with this type of indemnity claim brought against a joint tortfeasor.” Id. at 4, citing Dist. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 747 S.E.2d 10, 12–13 (Ga.Ct.App.2013). This is because, in 2005, Georgia adopted “an apportionment regime requiring a trier of fact to consider ‘the fault of all persons or entities who contributed to the alleged injury or damages, regardless of whether the person or entity was, or could have been, named as a party to the suit.’” Id., citing O.C.G.A. § 51–12–33(c). Thus, “even if the trier of fact finds in this case that the proposed third-party defendants, who are not parties to this action, are liable to any degree for the damages to Georgia Power, [the third-party plaintiff’s] own damages will be reduced accordingly.” Id.

This record directly contradicts any contention that Plaintiff was unaware of facts from which a jury could find that non-party General Mills may be at fault, and certainly belies any argument that Plaintiff has been unfairly disadvantaged by CSXT's Notice of Defense of Fault of Third Party.2 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is without merit and should be denied. CONCLUSION Because O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 does not require a party to give notice of its intent to seek apportionment of fault against a non-party other than as prescribed by the statute, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike CSXT's Notice of Defense of Fault of Non- Party as Untimely is without merit. Plaintiff's assertion that CSXT failed to 1 The parties traveled to Charlotte, North Carolina in September 2008 for the deposition of Barloworld, the company which provided the initial training to Plaintiff on use of the trackmobile.

Ins. Co v. Omega Flex, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:13-CV- 879-JEC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42731, *7 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2014)( “Georgia law has abrogated . . . contribution.”); Ga. Power Co. v. Sure Flow Equip., Inc., No. 1:13-CV-1375-AT, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141911, at *11 n.3 (N.D. Ga. July 22, 2014)(“the Georgia Supreme Court recognized that O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 abrogated claims for common-law contribution or apportionment.”).

Inc., 322 Ga. App. 713, 715, 747 S.E.2d 10, Case 1:16-cv-04162-ODE Document 22-1 Filed 05/09/17 Page 8 of 18 -9- 12 (2013)); see also Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Hutchins, No. 1:11-CV-1622-AT, 2013 WL 12109446, at *7 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2013). The same result should follow in this case wherein Tropical Smoothie has similarly alleged a third-party claim for contribution against McGriff, which claim has been abrogated by O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33. Even if Georgia’s apportionment statute does not bar Tropical Smoothie’s claim for contribution, this claim is also subject to dismissal because Tropical Smoothie’s allegations negate the elements of a contribution claim.

Case 1:16-cv-01141-MHC Document 123 Filed 03/23/17 Page 3 of 8 -4- Id. Importantly, the Dist. Owners Court acknowledged that since the Murray decision, “...our Supreme Court has held that O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 supplanted claims for common-law contribution and apportionment.” Id.

; Ga. Power Co. v. Sure Flow Equip., Inc., No. 1:13-CV-1375-AT, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141911, at *11 n.3 (N.D. Ga. July 22, 2014) (“[T]he Georgia Supreme Court recognized that O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 abrogated claims for common-law contribution or apportionment.”); Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Omega Flex, Inc.

................................................................................................22 Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-472, 114 Stat. 2058 ..........................................................................................................................11 United States Grain Standards Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 71-87k .................................................................3 United States Warehouse Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 241-56 .........................................................................6 State Statutes Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111.5 ................................................................................................45, 46 Conn. Gen. Stat. § .........................................................................................................................57 Fla. Stat. § 768.81(3) (2011) ..........................................................................................................43 Ga. Code Ann. § 51-12-33 .............................................................................................................43 Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-258a(d) (2010) .......................................................................................43, 44 Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.182(1)(b) .......................................................................................................46 Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2956 (1996) ..........................................................................................44 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-3A-1 ............................................................................................................44 Okla. Stat. Title 23, § 15(A) (2011) ...............................................................................................45 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 ...........................................................................................................................42

O.C.G.A. § 51-12-31. Further, under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(a) it states: “Where an action is brought against one or more persons for injury to person or property and the plaintiff is to some degree responsible for the injury or damages claimed, the trier of fact, in its determination of the total amount of damages to be awarded, if any, shall determine the percentage of fault of the plaintiff and the judge shall reduce the amount of damages otherwise awarded to the plaintiff in proportion to his or her percentage of fault.” Defendant does not deny any of the factual allegations present in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and can be construed as true.