- 21 -
market with a defect which was a legal cause of damage to the
plaintiffs, (2) that there was negligence on the part of du Pont
which was a legal cause of damage to them, and (3) that there was
negligence on the part of the plaintiffs which was a legal cause
of damage to them. The jury charged 80 percent of total re-
sponsibility to du Pont and 20 percent of total responsibility to
the plaintiffs. In other words, the jury found du Pont 80 per-
cent negligent and the plaintiffs 20 percent negligent. The jury
further found that the total amount of damages sustained by the
plaintiffs, without any reduction for the percentage of responsi-
bility that the jury charged to them, was $3,796,318. That total
amount of damages was reduced to $3,037,054 to take account of
the jury verdict that the plaintiffs were 20 percent negligent.
On motion of du Pont, the judgment of $3,037,054 was reduced to
$2,837,054 in order to account for the total of $200,000 in
assistance payments that du Pont had made to Mr. Henry in 1991
and 1992. On December 8, 1993, the Florida Court entered an
amended final judgment (judgment) in the plaintiffs' favor in the
amount of $2,837,054.
On December 17, 1993, du Pont, inter alia, filed a notice
of appeal with respect to the judgment. While the judgment was
on appeal, the plaintiffs and du Pont engaged in settlement
negotiations. As a result of those negotiations, on April
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011