- 16 -
In the answer, du Pont denied, inter alia, the plaintiffs'
allegations in count I of the complaint (1) that any Benlate that
the plaintiffs may have purchased or used was defective, (2) that
the damages to the plaintiffs' orchid plants were a direct and
proximate result of the breach of duty and negligence of du Pont,
and (3) that, as a direct and proximate result of the negligence
of du Pont, the plaintiffs suffered and continued to suffer lost
profits, loss of business, loss of business reputation, loss of
their reputation as orchid growers, and diminution of sales and
incurred additional business expenses, had a reduction in the
value of the business, lost plants, suffered a diminution of the
value of their nursery as a result of chemical contamination of
the soil, and suffered other consequential losses and damages.
In count II of the complaint relating to the claimed strict
liability in tort of du Pont, the plaintiffs alleged in pertinent
part:
24. The product, when sold by the Defendant, Du
PONT, was in a defective condition, unreasonably dan-
gerous to the Plaintiffs, FRED HENRY and DONNA HENRY
d/b/a FRED HENRY'S PARADISE OF ORCHIDS', plants due to
the defects in the design of the product as are more
fully set forth above.
* * * * * * *
26. The Defendant, Du PONT, is therefore strictly
liable to the Plaintiffs, FRED HENRY and DONNA HENRY
d/b/a FRED HENRY'S PARADISE OF ORCHIDS, for any phys-
ical damages or economic losses sustained by the Plain-
tiffs as a result of the defective condition of the
product in question.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011