Re: Fw : Edelman.pdf (application/pdf Object)

[Guest guest]

Yea. I think that is right on the contributory cause concept. Which

makes it a double edged sword for smokers. If you smoked before you got ill fr

om a WDB, then the defense would use it to sell doubt of

causation..depending upon your symptoms (ie, smoking does not cause fungus in

the sinuses,

etc)

If you smoked before you got sick from a WDB. Quit after you got out and

got better, then the defense would use it to sell doubt of causation.

BUT, if you smoked before, during and after the exposure, got better after

being out while continuing to smoke, then smoking is discredited as being a

contributing cause of the illness.

The bottom line is, who cares about the defense. Lawsuits are temporary.

You only have one life to the best of my knowledge. Smoking is not good

for you as a general rule and neither is living in WDB's.

In a message dated 6/1/2010 5:36:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

ginloi@... writes:

Pages 5, 8, 22 and 23 for educational purposes looked pretty good in

explaining the concepts of contributory and comparative negligence. In some

jurisdictions, if the court finds you 1% at fault you cannot recover one

penny.

One could make the analogy of asbestos to mold and take it from there.

And the factor of smoking which the defense will bring in. It can be a harsh

rule. This is where I was going with the earlier posted case from 2000.

Some cases can be very old and yet be " good law " that the court will rely

on.

This is not an attack on smokers, it is there to show smoking as an

impediment to " recovery " of damages in a Water Damaged Building.

This is not legal advice.

--

Objet: Edelman.pdf (application/pdf Object)

À: " ginloi " <_ginloi@..._ (mailto:ginloi@...) >

Date: Mardi 1 juin 2010, 5h53

_http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/85/1/Edelman.pdf_

(http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/85/1/Edelman.pdf)