- 48 -
negligence and strict liability in tort. The plaintiffs in that
lawsuit alleged as essential facts that they used Benlate on the
orchid plants that they were growing, that those plants suffered
severe damage, that the damages to the plaintiffs' orchid plants
were the direct and proximate result of the breach of duty and
negligence of du Pont, that du Pont sold Benlate in a defective
condition, that du Pont is strictly liable to the plaintiffs "for
any physical damages or economic losses sustained by the Plain-
tiffs as a result of the defective condition of the product in
question", and that, as a direct and proximate result of the
negligence of du Pont and the defective condition of Benlate, the
plaintiffs suffered
lost profits, loss of business, loss of business rep-
utation, loss of the reputation of FRED HENRY and DONNA
HENRY as orchid growers, diminution 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.
Nowhere in the complaint in the lawsuit filed by Mr. Henry and
Ms. Estes d/b/a Fred Henry's Paradise of Orchids or in the
documents relating to the settlement of that lawsuit that are
part of the record in the instant case did the plaintiffs use the
term "personal injuries" to describe the injuries that they
claimed to have suffered as a result of their use of Benlate.
See Fabry v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. at 313. Nor did they allege
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011