- 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 andPage: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011