- 17 -
27. As a direct and proximate result of the
defective condition of the product in question, the
Plaintiffs, FRED HENRY and DONNA HENRY d/b/a FRED
HENRY'S PARADISE OF ORCHIDS, have suffered and con-
tinues [sic] to suffer lost profits, loss of business,
loss of business reputation, loss of the reputation of
FRED HENRY and DONNA HENRY as orchid growers, diminu-
tion of sales, incurred additional business expenses,
have had a reduction in the value of the business, have
lost plants, have suffered a diminution in the value of
their nursery as a result of chemical contamination of
the soil, and have suffered other consequential losses
and damages.
In the answer, du Pont denied, inter alia, the foregoing al-
legation in count II of the complaint.
In du Pont's answer, du Pont also alleged certain affirma-
tive defenses against Fred Henry and Donna Henry d/b/a Fred
Henry's Paradise of Orchids, including that any damages sustained
by the plaintiffs as a result of the incident described in the
complaint were caused solely by their negligence, fault, or want
of care or were substantially contributed to by their actions or
inactions and that Benlate was misused by them or by their
agents.
Prior to the trial in the lawsuit, depositions were held by
du Pont of possible witnesses, including customers and others.
Among the claims made by du Pont during those depositions were
that Mr. Henry knowingly sold contaminated orchids, that he did
not know how to grow orchids, that he used improper growing
media, that he improperly used fertilizer, that he improperly
used pesticides, that he improperly stored fertilizers and
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011