- 42 -
claimed in that lawsuit, or $3,796,118. Du Pont also presented
evidence in the lawsuit through an expert who valued the plain-
tiffs' inventory at $75,000 and who concluded that the total loss
of the plaintiffs was between $172,995 and $267,803. No other
witness testified in the lawsuit concerning the amount of damages
sustained by the plaintiffs.
In advancing his contention that the $2,800,000 total
settlement amount, and consequently the $1,623,203 settlement
payment, was paid on account of the loss of the plaintiffs'
business reputation and the loss of their reputation as orchid
growers, Mr. Henry reasons as follows:
Proximate cause is the causal connection between
the tortfeasor actions and the injury. This is the
traditional "but for" test. Dupont negligently placed
on [sic] defective product on the market, that product
caused damage to orchids, those damaged orchids were
sold by an individual who has a reputation of producing
and selling high quality orchids, the orchids were
generally sold to people knowledgeable about orchids,
the orchids became deformed, failed to flower, and died
(definitely not high quality orchids), the reputation
for selling and producing high quality plants was
destroyed by the selling plants which became deformed
and died. But for the Dupont's negligence the peti-
tioner's reputation would not have been damaged. There
was no intervening cause. * * *
Not only is petitioner's "but-for" argument rejected by the
record in this case, which establishes that the $2,800,000 total
settlement amount, and consequently the $1,623,203 settlement
payment, was not paid on account of the loss of the plaintiffs'
business reputation or the loss of their reputation as orchid
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011