affirming the jury’s determination that the decedent’s smoking habit, as well as his exposure to the defendant’s asbestos, were both proximate causes, fifty-five and forty-five percent respectively, of the decedent’s lung cancer and subsequent death, and remanding the case to the trial court for the appointment of damages *576 in accordance with such determination
How later courts described this case
- affirming the jury’s determination that the decedent’s smoking habit, as well as his exposure to the defendant’s asbestos, were both proximate causes, fifty-five and forty-five percent respectively, of the decedent’s lung cancer and subsequent death, and remanding the case to the trial court for the appointment of damages *576 in accordance with such determination
- the victim's contributory negligence was no defense to criminal negligence
- permitting apportionment of damages in a wrongful death action based on smoking history and asbestos exposure
- “A cause may be proximate although it and another cause act at the' same time or in combination to produce the occurrence.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*557 Archer, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part.) I agree with the majority’s finding that the trial court and the Court of Appeals were correct in rejecting defendant’s motion for directed verdict.
As to part m, I do not agree with the majority’s analysis and the pronouncements stated therein. Therefore, I concur in the result only. It is appropriate to remand this case to the trial court for entry of judgment and apportionment of damages.