- 19 -
At the trial in the lawsuit, an expert witness of the
plaintiffs, George C. Reavy (Mr. Reavy), an economist, valued
petitioner's total loss at $3,796,118. In arriving at that total
loss, Mr. Reavy valued (1) the actual inventory of Mr. Henry and
Ms. Estes d/b/a Fred Henry's Paradise of Orchids, which had been
counted by Crawford, at $1,508,052, (2) their inventory which had
been discarded, but which were represented by tags, at
$1,390,078, and (3) their additional orchid plants known as
cattleyas at $356,429, for a total inventory value of $3,254,559.
Mr. Reavy added eight percent interest to that total inventory
value in order to arrive at a total loss of $3,796,118. That was
the position of the plaintiffs at the end of the trial in the
lawsuit. The attorneys for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit did not
present any evidence at the trial in that lawsuit concerning
damage allegedly caused by the evidence that du Pont presented
during that trial.
During closing arguments to the jury after the trial in the
lawsuit, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys argued that the plain-
tiffs were seeking damages only for their lost inventory, and not
for loss of their reputation. That attorney argued in pertinent
part as follows:
Now, this is probably the simplest economic chart
ever presented in a case, but basically what it boils
down to is this. Remember we had Dr. Reavy come up and
explain to you that he looked at the inventory, and
what he did, he only did one thing with the inventory,
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011