ÿWPCß… ."Û‹[f»Í´È/”ȶÁÔƒÈ<±üllÑ,×ÿ›æÐ_[‹¤ÐŠŸvIÐÆIF&G¼ë¨Ù û,,Æò¬Ja‡ÙÄ&í¼€¸†`»q¤y׈Šá¡ˆòªxÒ3J)ÙöTÛÛt‚19špÿr«ê†NPñžšçÉ/kUîáÒW"¾{þ9à >ÞŸäJLq½ãlÏD‡g;÷‡þ5é¦4!çyË(=Æ Þn–ʪ«å²ßVÑš¡àJŸcL#”O›¯m½ÿ»zdÛÞVhôiÛ…:‡SáBmŽ§s‰nÇ6ÿÇEÝ3Ù:×!¼Ž?˜Ð1”T¸Æ£$»2òAå‘9Íà@ïØfïƒVµ«g-q©»°&XKy&/?ÓˆãÌ+4ñ†û_ÔîþïbcT40æ³e”Ó4xK–&X0ç\¦èžÂãr|tø˜ÊÑ#\ί:“D4n%…#ñìvëøåaneµ3 îr¢ø®»™&«õrJ—kbÅ( (—F<ô¹Ú\!4)° eźÉ}ŽŸBÕý™ôÂ5k¾Ž¨FoOc•Œ“'.ÛDrÛ1ŸÏ&)=É¡W{~N¾/$ ¾¡wã!Ko¤-¿_ %2 0D8 04|U.° 0^ÞU6< U<r E® U*° 1mÚ 0cG w@ª 0xê ;b 0X òõ Æç 0e­e‰U.œ~ÊUFH B*Ž B¸ BÕ Bò BÆ, D+ò AQ AMn AY»4æ(š!¨' 0gÉ) 0I0* 0ay+ 0>Ú, 0t- B Œ/ 0^©/ 0æ2 0^í3 0^K6 0E©8 0î9 02~; 0ú°; 0Pª< D3ú< 0:-= 0Kg= 0V²= 0\>Æd> 0P*? 0Dz? D/¾? 0í? 0õ@ 0£ C D3¯E 0¥âE 0þ‡H 06…I 0»I 0:ÁJ 0hûJ 0FcK©K¸K mºKU.ÑK€ÿKæZ 0De^©^ƾ^ 0F„_ŽÊ_ùXhUHQiÔ™iU.mj›jU.*s¢XsU.úu(vU.¸„ùæ„X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó( ƒ•$¡¡Ñ  Ñ<þ6X9`(Courier(( ÿÿ&H2Ô S ÔÓ =jÓÔ&  ÔÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Óò òÔ€„„„ÔÓ ÔFÓÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ'  ÔÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Óó óÔ€XXXÔÓ 1[ÓÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ<þ6X9`(Courier Newô\  `$Times NewRoman%ä2¼A`Arial# e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;³´$´´Ô2 eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à eeeedE(((3Ͷ$¤¤Ý ƒƒ•!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó 1Ñ#€XXÿÿd#ÑØØ0¡†ÿÿ.NormalÔ S ÔÓ =jÓÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†ÓÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Ó è›Ó  ÓÝ ƒ .·ÿÝÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ô(‹ XXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô(‹  ô(‹ÔÝ  ÝTo€reiterate,€the€jury€instruction€prohibited€consideration€of€evidenceÐ ° Ðrelating€to€appelleeððs€exposure€to€the€asbestos„containing€products€of€òònon„Ð xÈ Ðpartiesóó.€€While€the€jury€was€deliberating,€appellantsðð€counsel€discovered€thatÐ @ ÐOwens„Corning€had€settled€with€appellee.€€Immediately€thereafter,€the€jury€wasÏcalled€back€to€the€courtroom.€€The€judge€instructed€the€jurors€to€cross€off€everyÏreference€to€Owens„Corning€on€their€verdict€sheet,€because€ð ð[¢t]hey£€are€no€longerÐ ˜è Ða€party€in€this€proceeding,€so€you€do€not€consider€them.ðð€€After€thisÐ ` ° Ðinstruction,€the€jurors€were€told€to€go€back€and€continue€their€deliberations.€ÏAt€no€time€after€this€did€either€appellant€request€additional€jury€instructions.€Ï€1, 2, 3,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#+F2Quick 1.ÚƒÚÚ  Ú.à0 àÛ€Û ›Ó  ÓÝ ƒ KÿÝÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ôèŠõXXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôèŠõõôèŠÔÝ  ÝSection€11„108€also€states€that,€in€any€action€for€damages€for€personalÐ ° Ðinjury€or€wrongful€death€in€which€the€cause€of€action€arises€on€or€after€OctoberÏ1,€1994,€an€award€for€noneconomic€damages€may€not€exceed€$500,000.€€ThisÏlimitation€on€noneconomic€damages€shall€increase€by€$15,000€on€October€1€of€eachÏyear€beginning€on€October€1,€1995.€€In€the€present€case,€however,€the€onlyÏrelevant€amount€is€$350,000,€because€of€the€dates€involved.<þ6X9`(Courier t›Ó  ÓÝ ƒ KÿÝÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ôèŠõXXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôèŠõõôèŠÔÝ  ÝRULE€5-703.€BASES€OF€OPINION€TESTIMONY€BY€EXPERTS€€(a)€In€General.€€Ð ° Ðà8  àThe€facts€or€data€in€the€particular€case€upon€which€an€expert€basesÏan€opinion€or€inference€may€be€those€perceived€by€or€made€known€toÏthe€expert€at€or€before€the€hearing.€€If€of€a€type€reasonably€reliedÏupon€by€experts€in€the€particular€field€in€forming€opinions€orÏinferences€upon€the€subject,€the€facts€or€data€need€not€beÏadmissible€in€evidence.'ô4  .Times New RomanBold&ÿÿ0 d dþÿ dýÿ düÿP Pdûÿ   d Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5)ÈÈÈÈdd:;4<=Cþÿ<<Cÿÿ475A<< CÿÿQ4RMüÿ << deUU«Mq)(astOpe Ü›Ý ƒ KÿÝÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ôèŠõXXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôèŠõõôèŠÔÝ  ÝTo€reiterate,€the€jury€instruction€prohibited€consideration€of€evidenceÐ ° Ðrelating€to€appelleeððs€exposure€to€the€asbestos„containing€products€of€òònon„Ð xÈ Ðpartiesóó.€€While€the€jury€was€deliberating,€appellantsðð€counsel€discovered€thatÐ @ ÐOwens„Corning€had€settled€with€appellee.€€Immediately€thereafter,€the€jury€wasÏcalled€back€to€the€courtroom.€€The€judge€instructed€the€jurors€to€cross€off€everyÏreference€to€Owens„Corning€on€their€verdict€sheet,€because€ð ð[¢t]hey£€are€no€longerÐ ˜è Ða€party€in€this€proceeding,€so€you€do€not€consider€them.ðð€€After€thisÐ ` ° Ðinstruction,€the€jurors€were€told€to€go€back€and€continue€their€deliberations.€ÏAt€no€time€after€this€did€either€appellant€request€additional€jury€instructions.€Ï€ ›Ó  ÓÝ ƒ .·ÿÝÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÔ€Lô(‹ XXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€Lô(‹  ô(‹ÔÝ  ÝThere€was€testimony€presented€both€agreeing€and€disagreeing€that€thisÐ ° Ðrelationship€was€known€within€the€scientific€community€at€that€time.€€AmongÏothers,€Dr.€Dement€testified€that€this€relationship€was€known€at€the€time:ÌÌà8  àQ:à0` Ð Ð àDoctor,€let€me€ask€you€this€question.€€When€was€it€establishedÐ Ð  Ðthat€asbestos€could€cause€disease€and€harm€in€human€beings?€ÏWhen€was€that€established€in€the€United€States?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àA:à0` Ð Ð àWell,€certainly€the€fact€of€causing€harm€in€the€case€reportsÐ ð @ Ðwere€before€1924,€but€the€date€when€I€would€say€minimally€thatÏthere€was€a€causal€relationship,€not€just€an€observation€ofÏdisease€and€population,€interesting€finding,€but€one€that€theÏexposures€cause€the€disease€was€by€1924.€€You€can€argue€aboutÏdates,€but€by€1938,€we€had€large„scale€studies€in€the€U.S.Ïthat€were€documenting€asbestosis,€again,€in€the€asbestosÏtextile€industries€by€chest€x„rays€and€measures€of€exposure.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà@VV)ìà...ˆÌÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àSo€most€researchers€will€say€between€ðð49€to€ðð55€period€is€whenÏyou€could€say,€with€confidence,€that€there€was€a€causalÏrelationship,€if€you€will,€between€lung€cancer€and€exposure€toÏasbestos.€€That€is,€it€is€not€just€objectionable€cases,€butÏthere€is€a€causal€relationship.€€Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àQ:à0` Ð Ð àDoctor,€was€there€an€editorial€that€appeared€in€the€Journal€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€American€Medical€Association€in€the€late€¢1940s£€that€spokeÏon€this€issue?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àA:à0` Ð Ð àIt€did.€€There€was€an€editorial€that€reviewed,€again,€theseÐ X¨ Ðstudies€that€I€referred€to.€€And€the€editorial€concluded€thatÏthere€were€„€„€there€appeared€to€be€a€causal€relationshipÏbetween€exposure€to€asbestos€and€cancer€of€the€lung.€€That,Ïagain,€was€published€in€the€U.S.€in€the€Journal€of€theÏAmerican€Medical€Association.€€€ ›Ó  ÓÝ ƒ KÿÝÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ôèŠõXXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôèŠõõôèŠÔÝ  ÝWe€will€not€consider€evidence€adduced€by€the€Fullam€laboratory€studiesÐ ° Ðbecause€this€evidence€was€raised€at€trial€against€H&V.€€H&V€will€be€dismissedÏfrom€this€suit,€due€to€lack€of€personal€jurisdiction.€€Consequently,€the€evidenceÏbrought€forth€against€H&V,€namely,€the€Fullam€laboratory€study,€will€not€beÏadmissible€against€Lorillard.€((3 Q$¥¥Ý ƒƒ•!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.<††ÿÿ:Definition TÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†ÓÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Ó<’’ÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ†|Ü(Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†ÓÓ  ÓÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(3ÿÿ&H1Ô S ÔÓ =jÓÔ&  ÔÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Óò òÔ€°°°ÔÓ 5ÓÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ  ÔÔ'  ÔÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Óó óÔ€XXXÔÓ 1[ÓÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ  Ô d(( ÿÿ&H3Ô S ÔÓ =jÓÔ&  ÔÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Óò òÔ€¼¼¼ÔÓ 1[ÓÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ'  ÔÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Óó óÔ€XXXÔÓ 1[ÓÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ((•ÿÿ&H4Ô S ÔÓ =jÓÔ&  ÔÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Óò òÔ€XXXÔÓ =jÓÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ'  ÔÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Óó ó(( ÿÿ&H5Ô S ÔÓ =jÓÔ&  ÔÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Óò òÔ€ôôôÔÓ €ÓÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ'  ÔÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Óó óÔ€XXXÔÓ 1[ÓÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ(( ÿÿ&H6Ô S ÔÓ =jÓÔ&  ÔÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Óò òÔ€ÔÓ ŸÓÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ'  ÔÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Óó óÔ€XXXÔÓ 1[ÓÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ2‰‰ÿÿ0AddressÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†ÓòòÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Óóó8¹žÿÿ6BlockquoteÔ S ÔÓ =jÓÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ†|Ü(Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,djÿÿ*CODEÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ€XXXÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ((3š¨$££Ý ƒƒ•!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  Ý++++'ÿÿdxd4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3š¨$¢¢Ý ƒƒ•!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'÷ÿ dxd4gmÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔó óÔ€XXXÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ<êðÿÿ:PreformattedÓ†|°(°°Ïî ,KkŠ©È ç#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`pbÈd†ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†ÓÔ€XXXÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ<24ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó?€A*€Ø **?ÓÓ  ÓÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†ÓÔB  ÔÔ€ÔÔ?€ %ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ/€ € H/ÓÓ  ÓÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†ÓÔC  ÔÔ€XXXÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ'þÿÈÈÈÈdxd<44ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓA€A*€Ø**AÓÓ  ÓÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†ÓÔB  ÔÔ€ÔÔ?€ %ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ/€ € H/ÓÓ  ÓÓ†|°(°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`†ÓÔC  ÔÔ€XXXÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ0djÿÿ.SampleÔ€XXXÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ€XXXÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8djÿÿ6TypewriterÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ€XXXÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó:ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔC  ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  ÔÔC  Ô3|x7ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ<þ6X9`(Courier v›Ý ƒ KÿÝÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ôèŠõXXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôèŠõõôèŠÔÝ  ÝIn€his€Motion€To€Strike€Arguments€First€Raised€in€Appellantððs€Reply€Brief,€Ð ° Ðappellee€asks€this€Court€to€strike€certain€portions€of€the€Reply€Brief€ofÏappellant€Lorillard€that€present€a€new€contention€not€raised€in€initial€briefs.€ÏIn€its€reply€brief,€Lorillard€asserted€that€expert€testimony€by€Dr.€GabrielsonÏwas€speculative€and€not€probative€on€the€issue€of€the€inception€of€appelleeððsÏdisease,€and€that€the€testimony€was€ð ðinsufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€carryÐ ˜è Ðplaintiffððs€burden€on€the€Cap€Statuteððs€application.ðð€€Ð ` ° Ðà  àWe€will€not€rule€on€the€merit€of€Lorillardððs€contention€because,€asÏappellee€correctly€states,€the€issue€of€the€sufficiency€of€expert€testimonyÏregarding€the€cap€statute€was€not€raised€in€either€of€appellantsðð€initial€briefs.×ÃT×× C ×€ÏIn€òòFederal€Land€Bank€of€Baltimore,€Inc.€v.€Eshamóó,€43€Md.€App.€446,€459,€406€A.2dÐ € Ð  Ð928€(1979),€we€stated:Ìà8  àThe€function€of€a€reply€brief€is€limited.€€The€appellant€has€theÏopportunity€and€duty€to€use€the€opening€salvo€of€his€original€briefÏto€state€and€argue€clearly€each€point€of€his€appeal.€€We€think€thatÏthe€reply€brief€must€be€limited€to€responding€to€the€points€andÏissues€raised€in€the€appellee's€brief.€€This€is€the€uniform€view€ofÏother€courts€which€have€considered€the€issue.€€òòSee,€e.€g.,€Molnar€v.Ð øH  ÐCity€of€Auroraóó,€38€Ill.€App.€3d€580,€348€¢N.E.2d£€262,€264€(1968)Ð À Ð("The€reply€brief,€if€any,€shall€be€strictly€confined€to€replying€toÏarguments€presented€in€the€brief€of€appellee.€€.€.€.€").€€òòSee€alsoÐ P  ÐSt.€Regis€Paper€Co.€v.€Hillóó,€198€[406€A.2d€937]€So.2d€365€(Fla.Ð h ÐDist.€Ct.€App.€1967);€òò¢Wolfswinkel£€v.€¢Gesink£óó,€180€¢N.E.2d£€452€(IowaÐ à0 Ð1970);€òòHoricon€v.€Langlois'€Estateóó,€115€Vt.€470,€66€A.2d€16€(1949);Ð ¨ø ÐòòMead€School€Dist.€No.€354€v.€Mead€Educ.€Ass'nóó,€85€Wash.2d€278,€534Ð pÀ ÐP.2d€561€(En€banc€1975).€€To€allow€new€issues€or€claims€to€beÏinjected€into€the€appeal€by€a€reply€brief€would€work€a€fundamentalÏinjustice€upon€the€appellee,€who€would€then€have€no€opportunity€toÏrespond€in€writing€to€the€new€questions€raised€by€the€appellant.€ÏDue€process€requires€that€all€parties€have€an€opportunity€to€replyÏto€new€issues€asserted€against€them,€as€the€California€Supreme€CourtÏhas€recognized€in€a€similar€context:€"Obvious€reasons€of€fairnessÏmilitate€against€consideration€of€an€issue€raised€initially€in€theÏreply€brief€of€an€appellant."€€òò¢Varjabedian£€v.€City€of€Maderaóó,€20Ð xÈ! ÐCal.€3d€285,€295€n.11,€142€Cal.€Rptr.€429,€436€n.11,€572€P.2d€43,€50Ïn.11€(1977).€€òòSee€also€Ryall€v.€Waterworks€Improvement€Dist.€No.€3óó,Ð  X#  Ð247€Ark.€739,€447€S.W.2d€341€(1969).Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àð ðThe€reply€brief€must€do€what€it€purports€to€do:€€it€must€respond€to€theÐ @ Ðpoints€raised€in€the€appellee's€brief€which,€in€turn,€are€addressed€to€the€issuesÏoriginally€raised€by€the€appellant.ðð€€òòEshamóó,€43€Md.€App.€at€459.€€We€shallÐ Ð  Ðtherefore€grant€appelleeððs€motion€to€strike€certain€portions€of€Lorillardððs€ReplyÏBrief.€€The€specific€portion€mentioned,€namely,€the€sufficiency€of€Dr.ÏGabrielsonððs€expert€testimony,€will€not€be€considered,€and€Lorillard€shall€beÏconfined€in€its€appeal€to€the€issues€raised€in€appellantsðð€initial€briefs.€Ìà  à Ü›Ý ƒ .·ÿÝÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÔ€Wô(‹ XXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€Wô(‹  ô(‹ÔÝ  ÝTo€reiterate,€the€jury€instruction€prohibited€consideration€of€evidenceÐ ° Ðrelating€to€appelleeððs€exposure€to€the€asbestos„containing€products€of€òònon„Ð xÈ Ðpartiesóó.€€While€the€jury€was€deliberating,€appellantsðð€counsel€discovered€thatÐ @ ÐOwens„Corning€had€settled€with€appellee.€€Immediately€thereafter,€the€jury€wasÏcalled€back€to€the€courtroom.€€The€judge€instructed€the€jurors€to€cross€off€everyÏreference€to€Owens„Corning€on€their€verdict€sheet,€because€ð ð[¢t]hey£€are€no€longerÐ ˜è Ða€party€in€this€proceeding,€so€you€do€not€consider€them.ðð€€After€thisÐ ` ° Ðinstruction,€the€jurors€were€told€to€go€back€and€continue€their€deliberations.€ÏAt€no€time€after€this€did€either€appellant€request€additional€jury€instructions.€Ï€($Ó$‘‘òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ñ  Ñ…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó ó „›Ý ƒ KÿÝÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ôèŠõXXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôèŠõõôèŠÔÝ  ÝThere€was€testimony€presented€both€agreeing€and€disagreeing€that€thisÐ ° Ðrelationship€was€known€within€the€scientific€community€at€that€time.€€AmongÏothers,€Dr.€Dement€testified€that€this€relationship€was€known€at€the€time:ÌÌà8  àQ:à0` Ð Ð àDoctor,€let€me€ask€you€this€question.€€When€was€it€establishedÐ Ð  Ðthat€asbestos€could€cause€disease€and€harm€in€human€beings?€ÏWhen€was€that€established€in€the€United€States?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àA:à0` Ð Ð àWell,€certainly€the€fact€of€causing€harm€in€the€case€reportsÐ ð @ Ðwere€before€1924,€but€the€date€when€I€would€say€minimally€thatÏthere€was€a€causal€relationship,€not€just€an€observation€ofÏdisease€and€population,€interesting€finding,€but€one€that€theÏexposures€cause€the€disease€was€by€1924.€€You€can€argue€aboutÏdates,€but€by€1938,€we€had€large„scale€studies€in€the€U.S.Ïthat€were€documenting€asbestosis,€again,€in€the€asbestosÏtextile€industries€by€chest€x„rays€and€measures€of€exposure.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà@VV)ìà...ˆÌÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àSo€most€researchers€will€say€between€ðð49€to€ðð55€period€is€whenÏyou€could€say,€with€confidence,€that€there€was€a€causalÏrelationship,€if€you€will,€between€lung€cancer€and€exposure€toÏasbestos.€€That€is,€it€is€not€just€objectionable€cases,€butÏthere€is€a€causal€relationship.€€Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àQ:à0` Ð Ð àDoctor,€was€there€an€editorial€that€appeared€in€the€Journal€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€American€Medical€Association€in€the€late€¢1940s£€that€spokeÏon€this€issue?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àA:à0` Ð Ð àIt€did.€€There€was€an€editorial€that€reviewed,€again,€theseÐ X¨ Ðstudies€that€I€referred€to.€€And€the€editorial€concluded€thatÏthere€were€„€„€there€appeared€to€be€a€causal€relationshipÏbetween€exposure€to€asbestos€and€cancer€of€the€lung.€€That,Ïagain,€was€published€in€the€U.S.€in€the€Journal€of€theÏAmerican€Medical€Association.€€€ ïÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ݛР° ÐÓ  Ó€€We€point€out,€however,€that€our€ruling€on€appelleeððs€motion€to€strike€is€essentially€irrelevant,€as€willÏbecome€hereinafter€€evident.NûÖqZ ‹0Ribbon131 Bd BT Bold aff'd foreseeabilityreh'gnoneconomic€Tortfeasor€Feasorsfeasorfeasorstortfeasor<þ6X9`(Courier …›Ý ƒ .·ÿÝÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÔ€Yô(‹ XXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€Yô(‹  ô(‹ÔÝ  ÝThere€was€testimony€presented€both€agreeing€and€disagreeing€that€thisÐ ° Ðrelationship€was€known€within€the€scientific€community€at€that€time.€€AmongÏothers,€Dr.€Dement€testified€that€this€relationship€was€known€at€the€time:ÌÌà8  àQ:à0` Ð Ð àDoctor,€let€me€ask€you€this€question.€€When€was€it€establishedÐ Ð  Ðthat€asbestos€could€cause€disease€and€harm€in€human€beings?€ÏWhen€was€that€established€in€the€United€States?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àA:à0` Ð Ð àWell,€certainly€the€fact€of€causing€harm€in€the€case€reportsÐ ð @ Ðwere€before€1924,€but€the€date€when€I€would€say€minimally€thatÏthere€was€a€causal€relationship,€not€just€an€observation€ofÏdisease€and€population,€interesting€finding,€but€one€that€theÏexposures€cause€the€disease€was€by€1924.€€You€can€argue€aboutÏdates,€but€by€1938,€we€had€large„scale€studies€in€the€U.S.Ïthat€were€documenting€asbestosis,€again,€in€the€asbestosÏtextile€industries€by€chest€x„rays€and€measures€of€exposure.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà@VV)ìà...ˆÌÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àSo€most€researchers€will€say€between€ðð49€to€ðð55€period€is€whenÏyou€could€say,€with€confidence,€that€there€was€a€causalÏrelationship,€if€you€will,€between€lung€cancer€and€exposure€toÏasbestos.€€That€is,€it€is€not€just€objectionable€cases,€butÏthere€is€a€causal€relationship.€€Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àQ:à0` Ð Ð àDoctor,€was€there€an€editorial€that€appeared€in€the€Journal€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€American€Medical€Association€in€the€late€¢1940s£€that€spokeÏon€this€issue?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àA:à0` Ð Ð àIt€did.€€There€was€an€editorial€that€reviewed,€again,€theseÐ X¨ Ðstudies€that€I€referred€to.€€And€the€editorial€concluded€thatÏthere€were€„€„€there€appeared€to€be€a€causal€relationshipÏbetween€exposure€to€asbestos€and€cancer€of€the€lung.€€That,Ïagain,€was€published€in€the€U.S.€in€the€Journal€of€theÏAmerican€Medical€Association.€€€œ<þ6X9`(Courier ˜Ð °   ЛÓ  ÓÝ ƒ .·ÿÝÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÔ€[ô(‹ XXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€[ô(‹  ô(‹ÔÝ  ÝSection€11„108€also€states€that,€in€any€action€for€damages€for€personalÐ ° Ðinjury€or€wrongful€death€in€which€the€cause€of€action€arises€on€or€after€OctoberÏ1,€1994,€an€award€for€noneconomic€damages€may€not€exceed€$500,000.€€ThisÏlimitation€on€noneconomic€damages€shall€increase€by€$15,000€on€October€1€of€eachÏyear€beginning€on€October€1,€1995.€€In€the€present€case,€however,€the€onlyÏrelevant€amount€is€$350,000,€because€of€the€dates€involved.<þ6X9`(Courier †›Ý ƒ .·ÿÝÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÔ€]ô(‹ XXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€]ô(‹  ô(‹ÔÝ  ÝIn€his€Motion€To€Strike€Arguments€First€Raised€in€Appellantððs€Reply€Brief,€Ð ° Ðappellee€asks€this€Court€to€strike€certain€portions€of€the€Reply€Brief€ofÏappellant€Lorillard€that€present€a€new€contention€not€raised€in€initial€briefs.€ÏIn€its€reply€brief,€Lorillard€asserted€that€expert€testimony€by€Dr.€GabrielsonÏwas€speculative€and€not€probative€on€the€issue€of€the€inception€of€appelleeððsÏdisease,€and€that€the€testimony€was€ð ðinsufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€carryÐ ˜è Ðplaintiffððs€burden€on€the€Cap€Statuteððs€application.ðð€€Ð ` ° Ðà  àWe€will€not€rule€on€the€merit€of€Lorillardððs€contention€because,€asÏappellee€correctly€states,€the€issue€of€the€sufficiency€of€expert€testimonyÏregarding€the€cap€statute€was€not€raised€in€either€of€appellantsðð€initial€briefs.×Ã^×× C ×€ÏIn€òòFederal€Land€Bank€of€Baltimore,€Inc.€v.€Eshamóó,€43€Md.€App.€446,€459,€406€A.2dÐ € Ð  Ð928€(1979),€we€stated:Ìà8  àThe€function€of€a€reply€brief€is€limited.€€The€appellant€has€theÏopportunity€and€duty€to€use€the€opening€salvo€of€his€original€briefÏto€state€and€argue€clearly€each€point€of€his€appeal.€€We€think€thatÏthe€reply€brief€must€be€limited€to€responding€to€the€points€andÏissues€raised€in€the€appellee's€brief.€€This€is€the€uniform€view€ofÏother€courts€which€have€considered€the€issue.€€òòSee,€e.€g.,€Molnar€v.Ð øH  ÐCity€of€Auroraóó,€38€Ill.€App.€3d€580,€348€¢N.E.2d£€262,€264€(1968)Ð À Ð("The€reply€brief,€if€any,€shall€be€strictly€confined€to€replying€toÏarguments€presented€in€the€brief€of€appellee.€€.€.€.€").€€òòSee€alsoÐ P  ÐSt.€Regis€Paper€Co.€v.€Hillóó,€198€[406€A.2d€937]€So.2d€365€(Fla.Ð h ÐDist.€Ct.€App.€1967);€òò¢Wolfswinkel£€v.€¢Gesink£óó,€180€¢N.E.2d£€452€(IowaÐ à0 Ð1970);€òò¢Horicon£€v.€¢Langlois£'€Estateóó,€115€¢Vt£.€470,€66€A.2d€16€(1949);Ð ¨ø  ÐòòMead€School€Dist.€No.€354€v.€Mead€Educ.€¢Ass'n£óó,€85€Wash.2d€278,€534Ð ° ÐP.2d€561€(En€banc€1975).€€To€allow€new€issues€or€claims€to€beÏinjected€into€the€appeal€by€a€reply€brief€would€work€a€fundamentalÏinjustice€upon€the€appellee,€who€would€then€have€no€opportunity€toÏrespond€in€writing€to€the€new€questions€raised€by€the€appellant.€ÏDue€process€requires€that€all€parties€have€an€opportunity€to€replyÏto€new€issues€asserted€against€them,€as€the€California€Supreme€CourtÏhas€recognized€in€a€similar€context:€"Obvious€reasons€of€fairnessÏmilitate€against€consideration€of€an€issue€raised€initially€in€theÏreply€brief€of€an€appellant."€€òò¢Varjabedian£€v.€City€of€¢Madera£óó,€20Ð ¸   ÐCal.€3d€285,€295€n.11,€142€Cal.€¢Rptr£.€429,€436€n.11,€572€P.2d€43,€50Ïn.11€(1977).€€òòSee€also€¢Ryall£€v.€Waterworks€Improvement€Dist.€No.€3óó,Ð H ˜  Ð247€Ark.€739,€447€¢S.W.2d£€341€(1969).Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àð ðThe€reply€brief€must€do€what€it€purports€to€do:€€it€must€respond€to€theÐ  ð  Ðpoints€raised€in€the€appellee's€brief€which,€in€turn,€are€addressed€to€the€issuesÏoriginally€raised€by€the€appellant.ðð€€òòEshamóó,€43€Md.€App.€at€459.€€We€shallÐ 0€  Ðtherefore€grant€appelleeððs€motion€to€strike€certain€portions€of€Lorillardððs€ReplyÏBrief.€€The€specific€portion€mentioned,€namely,€the€sufficiency€of€Dr.ÏGabrielsonððs€expert€testimony,€will€not€be€considered,€and€Lorillard€shall€beÏconfined€in€its€appeal€to€the€issues€raised€in€appellantsðð€initial€briefs.€Ìà  à<þ6X9`(Courier ïÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ݛР° ÐÓ  Ó€€We€point€out,€however,€that€our€ruling€on€appelleeððs€motion€to€strike€is€essentially€irrelevant,€as€willÏbecome€hereinafter€€evident.Ý ƒƒ•!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›ÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  àà p à€€òòREPORTEDóóÐ ˜è ÐÌ€€òòIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSóóÐ ( x Ðà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  àà p à€€òòOF€MARYLANDóóÐ ¸   Ðà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  àà p à€€€€No.€1489Ìà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  à€€€September€Term,€1999Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à  àà x àà Ð àÐ  ð  Ðà  àà p àà È àà  à€€€€€ÌßA€+) °°xdEÀ/hAßÐ 0€  ÐÌà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà@((+ôàHOLLINGSWORTH€&€VOSE€COMPANY,ˆÌà@5ôàET€AL.€€ˆÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï€€€€€€€€€€€€€à È àv.Ð ï? ÐÌà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àà@DD/ôàCHARLES€M.€P.€CONNORˆÌÌà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€€€€ÌßA€+) °°xdEÀÖhAßÐ ×' ÐÌÌà  àà p àThieme,Ìà  àà p àKenney,Ìà  àà p àGetty,€James€S.€(Ret'd,Ìà  àà p à€€Specially€Assigned),ÌÌà  àà p àà È àà  àJJ.Ìà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€ÌßA€+) °°xdEÀí hAßÐ î >& Ðà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  àà p à€€àHDD0`à€€€€€€€€€ˆàH.|àOpinion€by€Thieme,€J.ˆÐ Å!( Ðà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€ÌßA€+) °°xdEÀT#hAßÐ U#¥* Ðà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€€ÌÌFiled:ññ€December€28,€2000ññÌÌÓÓÐ  „&Ô!/ ÐÒ°ÀÒÑ€PPÐÑÑ€•ÑÑà  àA€jury€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Baltimore€City€awardedÏappellee,€Charles€M.€P.€Connor,€$2.225€million€dollars€for€damagesÏresulting€from€mesothelioma€induced€from€the€asbestos€in€KentÏcigarettes;€appellee€died€two€months€later.€€Appellants,ÏHollingsworth€&€Vose€Company€(ð ðH&Vðð)€and€Lorillard€Tobacco€CompanyÐ ð @ Ð(ð ðLorillardðð),€promptly€appealed€from€that€judgment,€and€present€theÐ € Ð  Ðfollowing€questions,€which€we€have€rephrased,€renumbered,€andÏconsolidated€for€clarity:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓà8 ` à1.à0¸ ` x` xàDid€the€trial€court€err,€as€a€matter€ofÐ 0€  Ðlaw,€in€denying€H&Vððs€motion€to€dismissÏfor€lack€of€personal€jurisdiction,Ïbecause€of€the€lack€of€contracts€of€H&VÏand€its€subsidiary€with€the€State€ofÏMaryland.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ` à2.à0¸ ` x` xàDid€the€trial€court€err,€as€a€matter€ofÐ ¨ø Ðlaw,€by€instructing€the€jury€that€itÏcould€not€consider€plaintiffððs€exposureÏto€the€asbestos„containing€products€ofÏnon„parties?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ` à3.à0¸ ` x` xàDid€the€trial€court€err,€as€a€matter€ofÐ X¨ Ðlaw,€by€instructing€the€jury€that€H&V€andÏLorillard€had€a€post„sale€continuing€dutyÏto€warn€about€the€potential€danger€of€aÏperishable€consumer€product?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ` à4.à0¸ ` x` xàDid€the€trial€court€err,€as€a€matter€ofÐ  X# Ðlaw,€by€refusing€to€include€a€state€ofÏthe€art€instruction€on€the€jury€verdictÏform?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌØ€Øà8 ` à5.à0¸ ` x` xàDid€the€trial€court€err€in€allowing€Dr.Ð ð#@( ÐDement€to€testify€concerning€the€work€ofÏDr.€Longo,€because€such€testimony€lackedÏfoundation€and€was€both€hearsay€andÏdeficient,€and€further€err€in€allowingÏDr.€Dement€to€offer€opinions€outside€hisÏarea€of€expertise€based€on€thisÏimproperly€admitted€evidence?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ` à6.à0¸ ` x` xàDid€the€trial€court€err€in€both€itsÐ ø*H&1 Ðinstructions€and€special€verdict€formÏwith€respect€to€application€of€the€CapÏâ âStatute€and,€furthermore,€err€in€denyingÐ P- (4 ÐÑ•ÑÑâ âÑ8€ç_XXdÈXXdÈ8ÑØØâ âÑ  ÑÑ•ÑÑâ âÑ8€ç_XXdÈXXdÈ8ÑØØâ âÑ  Ñthe€defendantsðð€post„trial€motion€withÏrespect€to€the€issue?Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÌà8 ` à7.à0¸ ` x` xàDid€the€trial€court€err€in€denyingÐ X Ðdefendantsðð€motion€for€judgment€and/orÏfor€new€trial,€when€plaintiff€hadÏproduced€insufficient€evidence€that€theÏoriginal€Kent€filter€caused€his€disease?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ` à8.à0¸ ` x` xàDid€the€trial€court€err€in€denyingÐ ¸   Ðdefendantsðð€post„trial€motion€to€dismiss,Ïor,€in€the€alternative,€to€exhumeÏplaintiffððs€body?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ` à9.à0¸ ` x` xàDid€the€trial€court€err€in€denyingÐ  ð  Ðdefendantsðð€post„trial€motion€seekingÏappropriate€credits€under€the€UniformÏAct?€ò òÐøH ¸ x¸ x Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àà0hÐ Ð àó óÐ hÐ hÐ  ÐÒ°à ÒÒ°î ÒÓü Óà  àWe€answer€ð ðyesðð€to€question€1,€remand€as€to€questions€6€and€9,Ð ˆØ Ðand€answer€ð ðnoðð€to€questions€2,€3,€4,€5,€7,€and€8.€€We€explain.Ð h Ðà@ÀÀ(ìàòòFactsóóˆÐ ¨ø Ðà  àAppellee€was€diagnosed€with€mesothelioma€in€June€of€1997€andÏdied€as€a€result€of€this€disease€on€July€3,€1999.€€TestimonyÏadduced€that€appelleeððs€mesothelioma€was€induced€by€his€exposure€toÏasbestos,€although€there€was€divergence€as€to€whether€hisÏmesothelioma€was€caused€by€the€asbestos€contained€in€KentÏcigarettes€or€the€occupational€asbestos€to€which€he€had€beenÏsubjected.€€Appellee€initially€sued€27€ð ðoccupational€defendantsððÐ ˜!è% Ðthat€manufactured,€distributed,€or€installed€asbestos€and/orÏasbestos„containing€industrial€or€commercial€products.€€AppelleeÏalleged€that€he€contracted€mesothelioma€because€he€wasÏoccupationally€exposed€to€asbestos€and€asbestos„containing€productsÏfor€25€years€while€working€as€an€assembly€man€and€electronicsÏâ âtechnician€at€an€aircraft€manufacturing€facility.€€Ð ø*H&1 Ðà  àAppellee€later€amended€his€complaint€to€include€bothÏâ âappellants,€contending€that€his€mesothelioma€was€also€substantiallyÏinduced€due€to€smoking€Kent€cigarettes€from€1952€through€1956,€atÏa€time€when€these€cigarettes€contained€crocidolite€asbestos€as€oneÏof€the€components€in€their€filters.€€Lorillard€manufactured€andÏdistributed€the€Kent€brand€cigarettes,€and€H&V€manufactured€theÏcrocidolite€asbestos€filter€used€in€the€Kent€cigarettes.€€WhenÏtrial€commenced,€only€four€defendants€remained.€€During€juryÏdeliberations,€the€last€two€ð ðoccupational€defendantsðð€settled€withÐ 0€  Ðplaintiff;€thus,€H&V€and€Lorillard€were€the€only€remainingÏdefendants.€€Subsequently,€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€ofÏthe€plaintiff€against€H&V€and€Lorillard€in€the€amount€of€$2.225Ïmillion,€with€$225,000€representing€medical€expenses€and€$2€millionÏrepresenting€non„economic€damages.€€Final€judgment€was€entered;Ïthis€appeal€followed.€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€à@0 0 ìàò òI€€Personal€Jurisdiction€over€H&Và@@ìì*ìàà@@ìì*ìàòòó óˆÐ  p Ðà@””%ìàDiscussionóóˆÐ P  Ðà  àH&V€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€its€motionÏto€dismiss€for€lack€of€personal€jurisdiction.€€It€argues€that€theÏState€of€Maryland€lacks€personal€jurisdiction€because€it€is€a€non„¼resident€defendant,€and€jurisdiction€cannot€be€achieved€underÏMarylandððs€long„arm€statute.Ìà  àH&V€is€not€a€Maryland€corporation;€it€was€incorporated€underÏthe€laws€of€the€Commonwealth€of€Massachusetts,€and€its€principalÏplace€of€business€is€in€that€state.€€Thus,€in€order€for€a€MarylandÏcourt€to€assert€personal€jurisdiction€over€H&V,€it€must€do€soÐ ,`'2 Ðthrough€Md.€Code€(1973,€1998€Repl.€Vol.,€2000€Cum€Supp.),€ðð€6„103Ïof€the€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article€(ð ðCJðð),€whichÐ @ Ðprovides:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ€€(a)€òòConditionóó.€ð2ð„€If€jurisdiction€over€aÐ ` ° Ðperson€is€based€solely€upon€this€section,€heÏmay€be€sued€only€on€a€cause€of€action€arisingÏfrom€any€act€enumerated€in€this€section.Ì€€(b)€òòIn€generalóó.€ð2ð„€A€court€may€exerciseÐ ¨ ø  Ðpersonal€jurisdiction€over€a€person,€whoÏdirectly€or€by€agent:Ì€à ¸ à(1)€Transacts€any€business€or€performsÐ (x  Ðany€character€of€work€or€service€in€the€State;Ìà ¸ à(2)€Contracts€to€supply€goods,€food,Ïservices,€or€manufactured€products€in€theÏState;€Ìà ¸ à(3)€Causes€tortious€injury€in€the€StateÏby€an€act€or€omission€in€the€State;€Ìà ¸ à(4)€Causes€tortious€injury€in€the€StateÏor€outside€of€the€State€by€an€act€or€omissionÏoutside€the€State€if€he€regularly€does€orÏsolicits€business,€engages€in€any€otherÏpersistent€course€of€conduct€in€the€state€orÏderives€substantial€revenue€from€goods,€food,Ïservices,€or€manufactured€products€used€orÏconsumed€in€the€State;Ìà ¸ à(5)€Has€an€interest€in,€uses,€orÏpossesses€real€property€in€the€State;€orÌà ¸ à(6)€Contracts€to€insure€or€act€as€suretyÏfor,€or€on,€any€person,€property,€risk,Ïcontract,€obligation,€or€agreement€located,Ïexecuted,€or€to€be€performed€within€the€StateÏat€the€time€the€contract€is€made,€unless€theÏparties€otherwise€provide€in€writing.€€ÌÌÒ°` o!ÒÒ°` }!ÒÓ‹!Óà  àThe€purpose€of€this€statute€is€to€give€the€courts€personalÏjurisdiction€over€all€out-of-state€defendants€who€purposefullyÏavail€themselves€of€the€privilege€of€conducting€activities€inÏMaryland,€thus€invoking€the€benefits€and€protections€of€MarylandÏlaw.€€òòMylan€Lab.,€Inc.€v.€AKZOóó,€N.V.,€2€F.3d€56€(4th€Cir.€1993);Ð ((x#- ÐòòMalinow€v.€Eberlyóó,€322€F.€Supp.€594€(D.€Md.€1971);€òòMohamed€v.Ð *X%/ ÐMichaelóó,€279€Md.€653,€370€A.2d€551€(1977)€(it€is€essential€in€eachÐ è+8'1 Ðcase€that€there€be€some€act€by€which€the€defendant€purposefullyÏavails€himself€of€the€privilege€of€conducting€activities€within€theÏforum€state€--€thus€invoking€the€benefit€and€protection€of€itsÏlaws)òò;€Harris€v.€Arlen€Properties,€Incóó.,€256€Md.€185,€260€A.2d€22Ð ` ° Ð(1969).€€ÌÓÓà@<< ìàòòAppelleeððs€ArgumentsóóÓN*ӈРР  Ðà  àAppellee€points€out€that€H&V€ð ðwas€directly€involved€in€theÐ `°  Ðpromotional€undertakingsðð€together€with€Lorillard€in€regard€to€theÐ ð@  ÐKent€cigarettes€and€that€ð ðH&V€even€went€so€far€as€to€place€an€upperÐ €Ð  Ðlevel€employee€at€Lorillard€on€a€full„time€basis.ðð€€We€are€given€noÐ ` Ðspecific€examples€of€such€conduct€in€appellee's€brief.€€We€will€notÏconsider€this,€or€subsequent,€general€conclusory€arguments€that€areÏsupported€only€by€circular€reasoning€and€that€are€not€appropriatelyÏcorrelated€with€specific€legal€authority€or€evidence€included€inÏthe€transcript.€Ìà  àThe€same€holds€true€for€appelleeððs€vacant€claim€that€H&V€ð ðtookÐ pÀ Ðaffirmative€steps€to€help€insure€that€consumers€in€Maryland€wouldÏsmoke€Kent€cigarettes.ðð€€The€record€extract€in€this€case€consistsÐ à" Ðof€five€volumes,€totaling€3,350€pages.€€If€appellee€had€evidence€ofÏspecific€instances€that€would€support€such€allegations,€he€shouldÏhave€made€reference€to€the€record€extract.ò ò€ó ó€We€will€not€peruse€theÐ @$( Ðrecord€extract€to€find€evidentiary€support€for€appelleeððsÏconclusory€statements.€€ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓThe€liberalizing€provision€relating€to€recordÏextracts€in€€Rule€8-501(c)€does€not€excuse€theÏfailure€to€furnish€in€the€brief€references€toÏfactual€material€in€support€of€a€party'sÏargument€as€required€by€Rule€8-504(a)(4).€€NorÐ `,°'2 Ðdoes€the€liberalization€in€Rule€8-501(c)€alterÏthe€fundamental€rule€of€appellate€practiceÏunder€which€the€appellate€court€has€no€dutyÏindependently€to€search€through€the€record€forÏerror.€òòÐ Ð  ÐÌÒ°` Ž/ÒÒ°` €/ÒÓœ/ÓACandS,€Inc.€v.€Asneróó,€344€Md.€155,€192,€686€A.2d€250€(1996).Ð ˆ Ø Ðà  àAppellee€states€that€ð ðH&V€and€Lorillard€jointly€developed€theÐ h ¸ Ðasbestos€filter€and€jointly€incorporated€it€into€a€product€whichÏthey€placed€in€the€national€stream€of€commerce,€includingÐ ˆØ  ÐMaryland.ðð€€Appellee€also€states€that€ð ðH&V€profited€directly€fromÐ h  Ðthe€sales€in€Maryland€and€elsewhere€„€a€profit€which€was€100%Ïcontingent€upon€the€marketing€effort.ðð€€Although€appelleeððsÐ 8ˆ Ðarguments€may,€at€first€glance,€seem€seductive,€we€are€not€soÏgullible,€devoid€of€worldly€knowledge,€or€so€childlike€in€ourÏapproach€to€realities€that€we€can€be€deceived€and€hoodwinked€byÏclaims€that€have€no€factual€or€legalistic€basis.€€First,€appelleeÏpresents€not€a€spark€of€evidence€to€support€his€claim€that€H&V€hadÏany€involvement€with€Lorillardððs€placement€of€the€cigarettes€in€theÏstream€of€commerce.€€Other€than€a€typical€manufacturer„retailerÏrelationship,€there€is€no€evidence€of€a€joint€venture€orÏpartnership€between€the€two€companies.€€H&V€merely€produced€theÏfilters€that€were€used€as€one€of€the€components€of€the€cigarettes;ÏLorillard€placed€the€cigarettes€in€the€stream€of€commerce€by€Ïmarketing€and€distributing€them€to€its€consumers.€€Ìà  àAppelleeððs€claim€that€H&V€profited€directly€from€the€sales€andÏthat€its€profits€were€completely€contingent€upon€marketing€effortsÏpromoting€the€cigarettes€is€of€dubious€relevance.€€We€are€at€a€lossÏto€determine€how€this€has€any€bearing€on€whether€H&V€had€minimumÐ 8,ˆ'2 Ðcontacts€with€the€State€of€Maryland.€€Of€course€its€profits€wereÏdirectly€related€to€the€sales€of€the€cigarettes.€€H&V€manufacturedÏa€component€that€was€used€in€the€cigarettes€sold€by€Lorillard.€€WeÏtake€judicial€notice€of€the€obvious€„€that€all€manufacturersððÏprofits€are€directly€contingent€upon€the€commercial€success€of€theÏfinished€product€and€that€H&V€profited€from€its€sale€of€filtersÏthat€were€used€in€the€cigarettes.€€Obviously,€the€more€cigarettesÏLorillard€sold,€the€more€H&V€filters€Lorillard€purchased.€€How€canÏthis€be€any€indication€of€minimum€contacts€by€H&V?€€If€we€were€toÏfollow€appelleeððs€reasoning,€then€all€manufacturers€will€be€subjectÏto€personal€jurisdiction€for€the€acts€of€retailers.€€Such€a€resultÏwould€effectively€emasculate€the€due€process€clause,€and€the€reachÏof€the€long„arm€statute€would€approach€infinity.Ìà  àAppellee€argues€that€ð ðH&V€was€intimately€aware€of€how€itsÐ P Ðfilter€was€being€used€in€the€Kent€cigarettes,€how€they€wereÏmarketed€(including€marketing€in€Maryland€through€a€nationalÏadvertising€campaign),€and€how€they€were€packaged€and€sold.ðð€€TheseÐ °  Ðclaims€are€unpersuasive€on€two€grounds.€€First,€once€again,€thereÏis€no€reference€to€any€part€of€the€record€that€substantiates€theseÏclaims.€€Second,€even€if€appellee€had€made€specific€references€toÏsupport€its€claims,€the€truth€of€those€claims€would€still€notÏsubject€H&V€to€personal€jurisdiction.€€What€is€the€relevance€ofÏH&Vððs€knowledge€of€these€matters?€€To€accept€appelleeððs€premise,€weÏmust€then€assume€that€a€non„resident€advertising€agency€has€minimumÏcontacts€with€a€state€if€it€is€ð ðintimately€awareðð€of€how€its€clientsÐ 0*€%0 Ðmarket€their€products€in€that€state.€€It€is€incredible€toÐ À+'2 Ðcontemplate€the€consequences€of€such€reasoning€on€our€traditional€Ïnotions€of€due€process€and€justice.€€H&Vððs€role€in€the€sale€of€theÏKent€cigarettes€was€merely€in€manufacturing€the€filters.€ÏLorillardððs€role€was€to€market€and€distribute€the€cigarettes.€ÏThere€is€nothing€in€the€record€that€contradicts€this€conclusion.€ÏWe€choose€not€to€substitute€ð ðmany„tentacledðð€for€ð ðlong„armðð€in€theÐ € Ð  Ðstatute€so€that€all€distributors,€manufacturers,€and€retailers€are€Ïautomatically€embraced€and€subject€to€personal€jurisdiction€simplyÏbecause€a€company€in€its€supply€chain€happens€to€be€accessible.€€€Ï€à  àAppellee€quotes€from€òòBurger€King€v.€Rudzewiczóó,€471€U.S.€462,Ð À Ð476€(1985):€€ð ðSo€long€as€a€commercial€actorððs€òòefforts€areÐ  ð Ðððpurposefully€directedðð€toward€residents€of€another€Stateóó,€we€haveÐ €Ð Ðconsistently€rejected€the€notion€that€an€absence€of€physicalÏcontacts€can€defeat€personal€jurisdiction€thereðð€(emphasis€added)Ð ð@ Ð(citations€omitted),€and€then€goes€on€to€state€that,€ð ð[¢h]aving£Ð €Ð Ðshown€that€H&V€òòpurposefully€established€this€relationshipóó€withÐ ` ÐMaryland,€additional€factors€must€then€be€considered€€.€.€.€.ðð€Ð ð@  Ð(Emphasis€added.)€€Appellee€has€once€again€used€semantics€at€itsÏconvenience.€€How€has€H&V€purposefully€established€any€relationshipÏwith€Maryland?€€It€only€may€be€concluded€that€it€purposefullyÏestablished€a€business€relationship€with€Lorillard€„€nothingÏfurther.€€Lorillardððs€factories€were€not€in€Maryland.€€LorillardÏmarketed€its€cigarettes€in€Maryland,€as€well€as€throughout€theÏcountry,€but€appellee€has€not€begun€to€establish€that€H&VÏpurposefully€established€a€relationship€with€Maryland.€€TheÐ p+À&0 Ðreference€to€òòBurger€Kingóó€directly€preceding€appelleeððs€statementÐ ° Ðdoes€not€make€his€claim€more€convincing.€€H&Vððs€efforts€wereÏpellucidly€not€ð ðpurposefully€directedðð€toward€residents€of€Maryland.Ð  p Ðà  àAppelleeððs€reliance€on€the€cases€it€cites€is€disingenuous;Ïthey€are€easily€distinguished€from€the€facts€in€this€case.€€ForÏexample,€in€òòVermeulen€v.€Renault€U.S.A.€Incóó,€975€F.2d€746€(11òòthóó€Cir.Ð Ð   Ð1992),€the€defendant€had€designed€its€products€specifically€for€theÏUnited€States€market,€and€thus€was€subject€to€personal€jurisdictionÏin€the€United€States.€€In€this€case,€there€is€no€evidence€that€H&VÏdesigned€its€filters€specifically€for€the€Maryland€market,€nor€isÏthere€any€evidence€that€the€Maryland€market€was€in€any€wayÏspecifically€considered€when€the€filters€were€designed.Ìà  àAppellee€argues€that€the€State€of€Maryland€has€a€ð ðstrongÐ ` Ðinterest€in€adjudicating€this€matterðð€because€it€involves€injury€toÐ  ð Ða€Maryland€resident.€€Moreover,€appellee€asserts€that€H&V€is€notÏsignificantly€inconvenienced€by€having€the€State€of€Maryland€as€aÏforum€for€this€action,€because€H&V€already€has€been€required€toÏdefend€claims€in€several€other€jurisdictions€in€which€it€was€not€aÏresident€corporation.€€In€response,€we€quote€the€Maryland€Court€ofÏAppeals:€€ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€legitimate€interest€that€Maryland€has€inÏproviding€a€forum€to€one€of€its€citizens,€andÏthe€fact€that€the€action€could€probably€beÏlitigated€in€this€State€without€significantÏinconvenience€to€the€foreign€corporations,Ïwhile€factors€worthy€of€serious€consideration,Ïcannot€alone€serve€as€the€foundation€forÏassumption€of€jurisdiction.Ð ` x` x Ðâ âÐ Ð* &0 ÐòòÓÓCamelback€Ski€Corp.€v.€Behningóó,€307€Md.€270,€513€A.2d€874€(1986),Ð ° Ðâ âòòvacated€for€further€considerationóó,€480€U.S.€901,€107€S.€Ct.€1341,Ð à Ð94€L.€Ed.€2d€512€(1987),€òòaff'dóó,€312€Md.€330,€539€A.2d€1107,€òòcert.Ð pÀ Ðdeniedóó,€488€U.S.€849,€109€S.€Ct.€130,€102€L.€Ed.€2d€103€(1988).Ð P   Ðà  àAppellee€claims€that€the€ð ðmatter€would€be€most€efficientlyÐ 0 € Ðhandled€by€maintenance€of€the€lawsuit€against€both€defendantsÐ À   Ðhere.ðð€€Although€such€reasoning€is€certainly€a€factor€in€suchÐ P   Ðcircumstances,€we€do€not€sacrifice€due€process,€fair€play,€andÏadherence€to€judicial€precedent€on€the€altar€of€judicialÏefficiency.€€The€Due€Process€Clause€"does€not€contemplate€that€aÏstate€may€make€binding€a€judgment€in€personam€against€an€individualÏor€corporate€defendant€with€which€the€state€has€no€contacts,€ties,Ïor€relations."€€òòWorld„Wide€Volkswagenóó,€444€U.S.€286,€294€(1980)Ð ° Ð(quoting€òòInternational€Shoeóó,€326€U.S.€310,€319€(1945)).Ð à ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àEven€if€the€defendant€would€suffer€minimal€orÏno€inconvenience€from€being€forced€to€litigateÏbefore€the€tribunals€of€another€State;€even€ifÏthe€forum€State€has€a€strong€interest€inÏapplying€its€law€to€the€controversy;€even€ifÏthe€forum€State€is€the€most€convenientÏlocation€for€litigation,€the€Due€ProcessÏClause,€acting€as€an€instrument€of€interstateÏfederalism,€may€sometimes€act€to€divest€theÏState€of€its€power€to€render€a€valid€judgment.€ÏòòÐ ` x` x ÐWorld„Wide€Volkswagenóó,€444€U.S.òò€óóat€294.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð 0%€ ' ÐÌÓÓà  àWe€hold€that€H&V€did€not€establish€minimum€contacts€with€theÏState€of€Maryland,€and€that€the€exercise€of€personal€jurisdictionÏâ âover€H&V€would€offend€traditional€notions€of€fair€play€andÐ *X%- Ðsubstantial€justice;€consequently,€the€trial€court€erred€inÏasserting€personal€jurisdiction€over€H&V.Ìâ âà  àWe€turn€now€to€an€examination€of€the€trial€courtððs€findingÏthat€it€had€jurisdiction€over€H&V.Ìà  àà0 ` à€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòPersonal€Jurisdiction€óóÐð @` (#` (# Ðà  àApplication€of€this€long-arm€statute€is€a€two-step€process.ÏFirst,€it€must€be€determined€whether€the€statute€purports€toÏauthorize€the€assertion€of€personal€jurisdiction.€€Secondly,€itÏmust€be€determined€whether€an€exercise€of€jurisdiction€permitted€byÏthe€statute€violates€the€due€process€clause€of€the€FourteenthÏAmendment.€€òòMohamed€v.€Michaelóó,€279€Md.€653,€370€A.2d€551€(1977);Ð P  ÐòòGeelhoed€v.€Jensenóó,€277€Md.€220,€352€A.2d€818€(1976).€Ð 0€ Ðà  àUnder€the€familiar€due€process€analysis€enunciated€in€profuseÏMaryland€and€U.S.€Supreme€Court€decisions,€a€defendant€must€haveÏsufficient€minimum€contacts€with€the€forum€state€so€that€theÏmaintenance€of€a€suit€does€not€offend€traditional€notions€of€fairÏplay€and€substantial€justice.€€òòMalinow€v.€óóEberly,€322€F.€Supp€594;Ð P   ÐòòMohamedóó,€279€Md.€653;€òòGeelhoedóó,€277€Md.€220;€òòGroom€v.€Marguliesóó,Ð 0 €" Ð257€Md.€691,€265€A.2d€249€(1970)€òòHarris€v.€Arlen€Propertiesóó,€256Ð "`$ ÐMd.€185;€Allenòò€v.€Allenóó,€105€Md.€App.€359,€659€A.2d€411€(1995).€Ð ð#@& ÐThe€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€limits€the€powerÏof€a€state€court€to€exert€personal€jurisdiction€over€a€nonresidentÏdefendant.€€"[The]€constitutional€touchstone"€of€the€determinationÏwhether€an€exercise€of€personal€jurisdiction€comports€with€dueÏprocess€"remains€whether€the€defendant€purposefully€establishedÐ ,`'0 Ð'minimum€contacts'€in€the€forum€òòState.óóððòò€€Burger€King,€óó471€U.S.€atÐ ° Ð474€(quoting€òòInternational€Shoeóó,€326€U.S.€at€316).€Ð à Ðà  àThis€concept€of€minimum€contacts,€however,€has€been€the€sourceÏof€considerable€controversy.€€In€1945,€the€Supreme€Court€firstÏarticulated€that€the€"presence€in€a€state"€necessary€in€order€toÏestablish€personal€jurisdiction€over€the€person€was€too€limited€forÏthe€increasing€demands€of€interstate€commerce€and€an€expandingÏeconomy.€€Subsequently,€the€Supreme€Court€adopted€a€more€tractableÏapproach€that€recognized€a€state's€jurisdictional€power€over€aÏperson€not€only€when€an€individual€is€physically€present€within€theÏstate,€but€also€when€the€individual€conducts€meaningful€activityÏwithin€the€state€even€though€not€physically€present,€as€long€asÏnotions€of€fairness€are€present€in€asserting€jurisdiction€over€thatÏindividual.€€See€òòInternational€Shoeóó,€326€U.S.€at€316.Ð  ð Ðà  àIn€the€passage€of€time€since€òòInternational€Shoeóó,€the€SupremeÐ €Ð ÐCourt€has€further€polished€the€definition€of€"minimum€contacts."€ÏIn€òòHanson€v.€Dencklaóó,€357€U.S.€235,€251€(1958),€the€Court€limitedÐ ð@  Ðthe€"minimum€contacts"€necessary€to€confer€jurisdiction€to€thoseÏactivities€of€an€out-of-state€defendant€by€which€the€defendantÏ"purposely€avails€itself€of€the€privilege€of€conducting€activitiesÏwithin€the€forum€state."€€òòIdóó.€at€253.€€This€occurs€when€theÐ €%Ð ( Ðcontacts€"proximately€result€from€actions€by€the€defendant€himselfÏthat€create€a€'substantial€connection'€with€the€forum€state,"€ÏòòBurger€King,€óó462€U.S.€at€475,€or€when€the€defendant's€efforts€areÐ €*Ð%. Ð"purposefully€directed"€at€the€state.€€òòIdóó.€at€476.€€ThisÐ `,°'0 Ðdetermination€must€depend€ð ðupon€the€quality€and€nature€of€theÐ ° Ðactivity€in€relation€to€the€fair€and€orderly€administration€of€theÏlaws€which€it€was€the€purpose€of€the€due€process€clause€to€insure."ÏòòInternational€Shoeóó,€326€U.S.€at€319.Ð ` ° Ðà  àThe€sequel€to€òòInternational€Shoeóó€was€the€landmark€1980€SupremeÐ @  ÐCourt€case,€òòWorld-Wide€Volkswagenóó,€444€U.S.€286.€€In€that€case,€aÐ  p  Ðmarried€couple€purchased€a€new€Audi€automobile€from€a€dealer€in€NewÏYork,€and€were€involved€in€an€accident€in€Oklahoma€while€on€theirÏway€to€their€home€in€Arizona.€€The€accident€resulted€in€severeÏinjuries€to€the€wife€and€two€children.€€The€couple€brought€suit€inÏOklahoma€against€the€New€York€dealer€and€the€New€York€distributor,Ïclaiming€that€design€defects€in€the€automobile€contributed€to€theÏinjuries.€€While€the€plaintiffs€acknowledged€that€the€two€New€YorkÏcorporations€were€present,€and€did€business,€only€in€New€York,€theyÏargued€that€Oklahoma's€exercise€of€jurisdiction€over€the€New€YorkÏcorporations€was€appropriate€because€of€the€mobile€nature€of€theÏautomobile€and€the€foreseeability€that€some€cars€these€corporationsÏsold€would€find€their€way€into€Oklahoma.€Ìà  àThe€Supreme€Court,€however,€rejected€this€argument,€rulingÏthat€the€exercise€of€personal€jurisdiction€over€the€New€YorkÏcorporations€by€an€Oklahoma€court€would€violate€the€FourteenthÏAmendment€because€the€New€York€corporations€directed€no€activity€toÏOklahoma.€€The€Supreme€Court€maintained€the€same€reasoning€it€hadÏheld€in€previous€cases,€including€òòInternational€Shoeóó,€which€was€theÐ )à$. Ðlodestar€on€this€subject.€€The€Court€stated€that€the€defendants€hadÐ p+À&0 Ðnot€availed€themselves€of€any€privileges€and€benefits€of€OklahomaÏlaw,€that€the€defendants€had€not€solicited€any€business€thereÏeither€through€salespersons€or€through€advertising€reasonablyÏcalculated€to€reach€the€state,€that€the€record€did€not€show€thatÏthe€defendants€regularly€sold€cars€at€wholesale€or€retail€toÏOklahoma€customers€or€residents,€and€that€the€defendants€had€not€Ïindirectly,€through€others,€served€or€sought€out€to€serve€theÏOklahoma€market.€€òòId.€óóat€295.€€Ð  ð  Ðà  àThe€holding€in€òòWorld-Wide€Volkswagenóó€was€consistent€with€theÐ €Ð  Ðearlier€cases;€however,€the€Court€addressed€the€plaintiffsððÏassertion€that,€because€an€automobile€is€mobile€by€its€very€designÏand€purpose,€it€was€"foreseeable"€that€the€plaintiffsðð€Audi€wouldÏcause€injury€in€Oklahoma.€€The€Court€responded€thatÏ"foreseeability"€alone€has€never€been€a€sufficient€benchmark€forÏpersonal€€jurisdiction€under€the€Due€Process€Clause.€€òòIdóó.€€ItÐ 0€ Ðadded,€however:€€€€€€ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€is€not€to€say,€of€course,€thatÏforeseeability€is€wholly€irrelevant.€€But€theÏforeseeability€that€is€critical€to€due€processÏanalysis€is€not€the€mere€likelihood€that€aÏproduct€will€find€its€way€into€the€forumÏState.€€Rather,€it€is€that€the€defendant'sÏconduct€and€connection€with€the€forum€StateÏare€such€that€he€should€reasonably€anticipateÏbeing€haled€into€court€there.€Ð ` x` x ЀòòÐ ¨%ø ) ÐÓ^nÓIdóó.€at€297.€€òòSeeóó€òòKulko€v.€California€Superior€Courtóó,€436€U.S.€84,Ð p&À!* Ð97-98€(1978).€€Ìà  àThe€Due€Process€Clause,€by€ensuring€the€"orderlyÏadministration€of€the€laws,"€gives€a€degree€of€predictability€toÐ p+À&0 Ðthe€legal€system€that€allows€potential€defendants€to€structureÏtheir€primary€conduct€with€some€minimum€assurance€as€to€where€thatÏconduct€will€and€will€not€render€them€liable€to€suit.€ÏòòInternational€Shoeóó,€326€U.S.€at€319.€€Ð ` ° Ðà  àThis€brings€us€to€the€ð ðstream€of€commerceðð€rationale€raised€inÐ @  ÐòòWorld-Wide€Volkswagenóó,€relied€on€by€appellee.€€The€òòWorld-WideÐ Ð   ÐVolkswagenóó€Court€stated€that€ð ð[¢t]he£€forum€State€does€not€exceed€itsÐ °  Ðpowers€under€the€Due€Process€Clause€if€it€asserts€personalÏjurisdiction€over€a€corporation€that€delivers€its€products€into€theÏstream€of€commerce€with€the€expectation€that€they€will€be€purchasedÏby€consumers€in€the€forum€State.ðð€€òòWorld-Wide€Volkswagenóó,ññ€ññ444€U.S.Ð @ Ðat€297„98.€€The€Court€concluded€that,€although€it€was€foreseeableÏthat€purchasers€of€automobiles€sold€by€defendant€may€take€them€toÏOklahoma,€the€mere€"unilateral€activity€of€those€who€claim€someÏrelationship€with€a€nonresident€defendant€cannot€satisfy€theÏrequirement€of€contact€with€the€forum€State."€€òòId.óó€at€298.€€Thus,Ð `° Ðalthough€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòWorld-Wide€Volkswagenóó€held€thatÐ @  Ðpersonal€jurisdiction€was€not€present,€it€gave€credence€to€theÐ  !p" Ðð ðstream€of€commerceðð€assertion€on€which€appellee€bases€itsÐ °"$ Ðcontention€for€personal€jurisdiction.€€We€shall€now€discuss€thisÐ @$& Ðð ðstream€of€commerceðð€approach€and€explain€why€we€reject€it€under€theÐ Ð% !( Ðfacts€of€this€case.€€Ìà  àIn€its€review€of€the€òòWorld-Wide€Volkswagenóó€opinion,€the€FourthÐ ð(@$, ÐCircuit€U.S.€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòLesnick€v.€Hollingsworth€&€VoseÐ Ð* &. ÐCo.óó,€35€F.3d€939€(4òòthóó€Cir.€1994),€stated€that,€ð ð[¢n]otwithstanding£Ð ° Ðthe€breadth€of€this€ððstream€of€commerceðð€language,€the€entireÏopinion€indicates€that€the€Court€has€not€abandoned€the€notion€thatÏjurisdiction€must€rest€on€a€person's€activity€deliberately€directedÏtoward€the€forum€state.ðð€€òòLesnickóó,€35€F.3d€at€943„44.€€The€FourthÐ @  ÐCircuit€went€on€to€assert:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€sum,€the€òòWorld-Wide€Volkswagenóó€Court'sÐ °  Ðrepeated€reliance€upon€the€fact€thatÏdefendants,€who€did€not€direct€any€of€theirÏactivities€toward€Oklahoma,€could€not€haveÏanticipated€being€subject€to€the€jurisdictionÏof€Oklahoma€courts,€leads€us€to€believe€thatÏwe€should€not€read€the€"stream€of€commerce"Ïlanguage€out€of€context.€€While€òòWorld-WideÐ P  ÐVolkswagenóó€has€been€cited€for€the€propositionÐ @ Ðthat€personal€jurisdiction€may€follow€aÏproduct€if€it€is€delivered€"into€the€stream€ofÏcommerce€with€the€expectation€that€[it]€willÏbe€purchased€by€consumers€in€the€forum€state,"Ï[citations€omitted]€we€read€the€holding€of€theÏcase€to€be€much€narrower,€requiring€purposefulÏactivity€on€the€part€of€the€defendants€toÏestablish€a€meaningful€contact€with€the€forumÏstate.Ð ` x` x ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€944.Ð P ÐÌÓ)zÓà  àThe€next€Supreme€Court€case€refining€the€ð ð€minimum€contactsððÐ ¸! Ðstandard€and€its€application€to€personal€jurisdiction€was€theÏparadoxical€case€of€òòAsahi€Metal€Industry€Co.€v.€Superior€Court€ofÐ Ø"(% ÐCaliforniaóó,€480€U.S.€102€(1987).€€In€òòAsahióó,€a€Californian€wasÐ ¸$ ' Ðinjured€in€a€motorcycle€accident€when€its€rear€tire€tube€exploded.€ÏHe€filed€suit€against€the€Taiwanese€manufacturer€of€the€tube,Ïwhich,€in€turn,€impleaded€Asahi,€a€Japanese€company€thatÏmanufactured€and€supplied€the€tube's€valve€assembly.€€AsahiÐ H+˜&/ Ðconceded€that€it€was€aware€that€its€valve€assemblies€wouldÏeventually€be€sold€on€motorcycles€throughout€the€United€States,€butÏit€contended€that€it€never€expected€to€be€sued€in€the€UnitedÏStates,€since€all€of€its€sales€flowed€from€Japan€to€Taiwan.€€Ìà  àIn€òòAsahióó,€the€Supreme€Court€produced€two€dissonant€pluralityÐ ð @ Ðopinions,€with€each€opinion€shared€by€four€Justices.€€The€schismÏwas€over€whether€the€first€prong€under€the€òòInternational€ShoeóóÐ `°  Ðanalysis,€specifically,€the€minimum€contacts€standard,€had€beenÏachieved.€€Although€there€was€no€majority€opinion€as€to€whetherÏminimum€contacts€existed,€the€Court€did€unanimously€hold€thatÏpersonal€jurisdiction€was€not€present.€€Taking€into€account€theÏburden€on€Asahi€to€defend€an€American€suit,€the€Court€relied€on€theÏsecond€prong€of€òòInternational€Shoeóó€and€decided€that€California'sÐ ` Ðassertion€of€jurisdiction€over€òòAsahióó€would€be€unconstitutional,Ð ð@ Ðbecause€it€would€"offend€traditional€notions€of€fair€play€andÏsubstantial€justice."€€òòAsahi,€óó480€U.S.€at€113.€€In€discussing€€theÐ `° Ðfirst€prong€of€the€òòInternational€Shoeóó€analysis€„€whether€minimumÐ @  Ðcontacts€were€present€„€four€Justices,€including€Justice€O'Connor,ÏChief€Justice€Rehnquist,€and€Justices€Powell€and€Scalia,€opinedÏthat€the€minimum€contacts€standard€had€not€been€met.€€JusticeÏOððConnor,€writing€for€that€plurality,€articulated:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€placement€of€a€product€into€the€stream€ofÏcommerce,€without€more,€is€not€an€act€of€theÏdefendant€purposefully€directed€toward€theÏforum€State.€Additional€conduct€of€theÏdefendant€may€indicate€an€intent€or€purpose€toÏserve€the€market€in€the€forum€State,€forÏexample,€designing€the€product€for€the€marketÐ ,`'0 Ðin€the€forum€State,€advertising€in€the€forumÏState,€establishing€channels€for€providingÏregular€advice€to€customers€in€the€forumÏState,€€or€marketing€the€product€through€aÏdistributor€who€has€agreed€to€serve€as€theÏsales€agent€in€the€forum€State.€€But€aÏdefendant's€awareness€that€the€stream€ofÏcommerce€may€or€will€sweep€the€product€intoÏthe€forum€State€does€not€convert€the€mere€actÏof€placing€the€product€into€the€stream€into€anÏact€purposefully€directed€toward€the€forumÏState.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓ'†ÓòòAsahióó,€480€U.S.€at€112.€€In€sum,€according€to€the€plurality€opinionÐ Ø(  Ðwritten€by€Justice€OððConnor,€even€though€Asahi€may€have€been€awareÏthat€its€products€would€eventually€be€sold€in€California,€its€lackÏof€conduct€directed€specifically€at€California€made€jurisdiction€inÏCalifornia€improper€under€a€"minimum€contacts"€analysis.€€Ìà  àIn€contrast,€Justice€Brennan,€joined€by€Justices€White,ÏMarshall,€and€Blackmun,€concluded€that€òòWorld-Wide€Volkswagen€óóshouldÐ ˆØ Ðnot€be€read€to€require€"additional€conduct"€beyond€simply€placingÏa€product€in€the€stream€of€commerce€with€the€expectation€that€itÏwill€be€purchased€in€the€forum€state.€€As€Justice€BrennanÏcontinued,€"[¢a]s£€long€as€a€participant€in€this€process€is€awareÏthat€the€final€product€is€being€marketed€in€the€forum€State,€theÏpossibility€of€a€lawsuit€there€cannot€come€as€a€surprise."€€òòAsahióó,Ð 8"ˆ% Ð480€U.S.€at€117.Ìà  àJustice€Stevens€remained€above€the€discord€by€declining€toÏaddress€the€issue€and€stating€that€it€did€not€need€to€be€resolvedÏbecause€of€the€unanimous€decision€to€rely€on€the€second€prong€ofÏòòInternational€Shoeóó.€€He€did€state,€however,€that,€"even€assumingÐ X*¨%/ Ðthat€the€[minimum€contacts]€test€ought€to€be€formulated€here,"Ð 8,ˆ'1 ÐJustice€O'Connor's€opinion€"misapplies€[the€test]€to€the€facts€ofÏ[òòAsahióó]."€€òòIdóó.€at€122.€€Justice€Stevens€concluded€that€Asahi'sÐ @ Ðconduct€did€rise€to€the€level€of€"purposeful€¢availment£"€in€theÏstate€of€California€because€of€the€large€number€of€Asahi's€unitsÏthat€ended€up€there.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð @  Ðà  àConceding€that€there€has€been€dissension€among€courts€in€theÏinterpretation€of€the€minimum€contacts€standard,€the€OððConnorÏplurality€opinion€in€òòAsahióó€articulated:€Ð @  ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€World-Wide€Volkswagen€itself,€the€stateÏcourt€sought€to€base€jurisdiction€not€on€anyÏact€of€the€defendant,€but€on€the€foreseeableÏunilateral€actions€of€the€consumer.€SinceÏWorld-Wide€Volkswagen,€lower€courts€have€beenÏconfronted€with€cases€in€which€the€defendantÏacted€by€placing€a€product€in€the€stream€ofÏcommerce,€and€the€stream€eventually€sweptÏdefendant's€product€into€the€forum€State,€butÏthe€defendant€did€nothing€else€to€purposefullyÏavail€itself€of€the€market€in€the€forum€State.ÏSome€courts€have€understood€the€Due€ProcessÏClause,€as€interpreted€in€World-WideÏVolkswagen,€to€allow€an€exercise€of€personalÏjurisdiction€to€be€based€on€no€more€than€theÏdefendant's€act€of€placing€the€product€in€theÏstream€of€commerce.€Other€courts€haveÏunderstood€the€Due€Process€Clause€and€theÏabove-quoted€language€in€World-Wide€VolkswagenÏto€require€the€action€of€the€defendant€to€beÏmore€purposefully€directed€at€the€forum€StateÏthan€the€mere€act€of€placing€a€product€in€theÏstream€of€commerce.Ð ` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€110.Ð à$0 ( ÐÌÓ‘Óà  àConcluding€the€discussion€on€the€two€divergent€interpretationsÏof€the€minimum€contacts€standard,€the€OððConnor€plurality€opinionÏstated€that€the€more€stringent€ð ðpurposefully€directedðð€test,€ratherÐ ¸)%. Ðthan€the€ð ðstream€of€commerce€test,ðð€was€the€position€that€wasÐ H+˜&0 Ðð ðconsonant€with€the€requirements€of€due€process.ðð€€òòAsahióó,€480€U.S.Ð ° Ðat€112.€€ð ðThe€substantial€connection€between€the€defendant€and€theÐ à Ðforum€State€necessary€for€a€finding€of€minimum€contacts€must€comeÏabout€by€òòan€action€of€the€defendant€purposefully€directed€towardÐ °  Ðthe€forum€Stateóó.ðð€€òòId.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòBurger€Kingóó,€471€U.S.€at€476;€òòKeeton€v.Ð  à ÐHustler€Magazine,€Incóó.,€465€U.S.€770,€774€(1984).€Ð p À  Ðà  àAware€that€the€federal€circuits€are€confrontational€on€thisÏrecondite€question€of€whether€the€"stream€of€commerce"€language€inÐ à0  ÐòòWorld-Wide€Volkswagenóó€should€control€in€this€type€of€analysis,€ourÐ pÀ  Ðreading€of€òòWorld-Wide€Volkswagenóó€and€òòAsahióó€is€in€harmony€with€theÐ P  Ðray€that€broke€through€the€clouds€of€logical€inconsistency€in€theÏFourth€Circuit€with€òòLesnick.€€óóThe€òòLesnickóó€Court€reviewed€inÐ À Ðconsiderable€detail€the€òòAsahióó€Supreme€Court€opinion,€concluding:€€Ð  ð ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[¢T]he£€Supreme€Court€has€not€abandoned€theÏòòInternational€Shoeóó€two€pronged€test€as€furtherÐ H˜ Ðarticulated€in€òòHansonóó€and€òòBurger€Kingóó.€TheÐ 8ˆ Ðtouchstone€of€the€minimum€contacts€analysisÏremains€that€an€out-of€state€person€haveÏengaged€in€some€activity€purposefully€directedÏtoward€the€forum€state.€€òòSee€Hansonóó,€357€U.S.Ð € Ð  Ðat€253;€òòBurger€Kingóó,€471€U.S.€at€475;Ð p!À! ÐòòWorld-Wide€Volkswagenóó,€444€U.S.€at€297.€€AndÐ `"°" Ðif€that€initial€test€is€met,€a€court€mustÏstill€determine€whether€the€exercise€of€suchÏjurisdiction€would€offend€traditional€notionsÏof€fair€play€and€substantial€justice.€€òòSeeÐ ¨%ø & ÐAsahióó,€480€U.S.€at€113.€This€reading€ofÐ ˜&è!' ÐòòWorld-Wide€Volkswagenóó€and€òòAsahióó€has€priorÐ ˆ'Ø"( Ðsupport€in€our€jurisprudence.€€òòSee€EllicottÐ x(È#) ÐMach.€Corp.€v.€John€Holland€Party,€Ltd.óó,€995Ð h)¸$* ÐF.2d€474,€477€(4th€Cir.€1993)€(holding€thatÏminimum€contacts€exist€where€the€defendantÏ"purposefully€directs€its€activities€towardÐ è+8'- Ðthe€residents€of€the€forum");€òòsee€also€FederalÐ ° ÐInsurance€Co.€v.€Lake€Shore,€Inc.óó,€886€F.2dÐ  ð Ð654€(4th€Cir.€1989).€€To€permit€a€state€toÏassert€jurisdiction€over€any€person€in€theÏcountry€whose€product€is€sold€in€the€stateÏsimply€because€a€person€must€expect€that€toÏhappen€destroys€the€notion€of€individualÏsovereignties€inherent€in€our€system€ofÏfederalism.€€Such€a€rule€would€subjectÏdefendants€to€judgment€in€locations€based€onÏthe€activity€of€third€persons€and€not€theÏdeliberate€conduct€of€the€defendant,€making€itÏimpossible€for€defendants€to€plan€andÏstructure€their€business€contacts€and€risks.€ÏMoreover,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€holdingÏof€òòWorld-Wide€Volkswagenóó€takes€us€as€far€asÐ ¸  Ðplaintiff€in€this€case€suggests.€€Thus,€weÏhold€that€the€test€to€be€applied€inÏconsidering€the€reach€of€personal€jurisdictionÏinquires€whether€(1)€the€defendant€has€createdÏa€substantial€connection€to€the€forum€state€byÏaction€purposefully€directed€toward€the€forumÏstate€or€otherwise€invoking€the€benefits€andÏprotections€of€the€laws€of€the€state;€and€(2)Ïthe€exercise€of€jurisdiction€based€on€thoseÏminimum€contacts€would€not€offend€traditionalÏnotions€of€fair€play€and€substantial€justice,Ïtaking€into€account€such€factors€as€(a)€theÏburden€on€the€defendant,€(b)€the€interests€ofÏthe€forum€state,€(c)€the€plaintiff's€interestÏin€obtaining€relief,€(d)€the€efficientÏresolution€of€controversies€as€between€states,Ïand€(e)€the€shared€interests€of€the€severalÏstates€in€furthering€fundamental€substantiveÏsocial€policies.€€òòSee€Hansonóó,€357€U.S.€at€253;Ð ¸" ÐòòBurger€Kingóó,€471€U.S.€at€475;€òòAsahióó,€480€U.S.Ð ¨ ø# Ðat€113.€€€€€€Ð ` x` x ÐÓ›ÓÓôPÓÌÓ¿¦ÓòòLesnickóó,€35€F.3d€at€945„46.Ð (#x& Ѐ€à  àAs€in€òòAsahióó,€H&V€in€the€case€at€bar€has€done€nothing€thatÐ %X ( Ðwould€subject€it€to€personal€jurisdiction€under€the€minimumÏcontacts€standard.€€H&V€manufactured€its€filters€in€Massachusetts,Ïit€did€not€maintain€an€office€in€Maryland,€it€did€not€ship€itsÏfilters€to€Maryland,€it€does€not€appear€from€the€record€that€itÐ ˜+è&0 Ðdesigned€or€manufactured€its€filters€specifically€for€the€MarylandÏmarket,€nor€did€it€advertise€or€market€its€filters€in€Maryland.€ÏThe€evidence€shows€that€H&V€distributed€its€filter€material€toÏLorillardððs€plants€in€Kentucky€and€New€Jersey€and€that€H&V€had€noÏinvolvement€with€the€manufacture€of€Kent€cigarettes,€nor€anyÏcontrol€over€their€sale€and€distribution.Ìà  àAlthough€it€is€reasonable€to€assume€that€H&V€was€aware€thatÏits€filters,€as€components€of€Kent€cigarettes,€would€be€purchasedÏand€smoked€within€the€State€of€Maryland,€this€will€not€suffice€toÏestablish€minimum€contacts.€€We€hold€that€H&V€did€not€possessÏsufficient€minimum€contacts€with€the€State€of€Maryland€in€order€toÏsubject€it€to€personal€jurisdiction€within€this€State€under€theÏfacts€in€this€case.€€ÌÓÓà@ ìàò òII€€Jury€Instructionsòòó óˆÐ P ÐÌà@´´!ìàStandard€of€ReviewˆÌÌóóÓ¨«Óà  àòòFarley€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó€355€Md.€34,€46„47,€733€A.2d€1014Ð H˜ Ð1999),€stated:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓWe€have€held€that€the€standard€of€review€forÏjury€instructions€is€that€so€long€as€the€lawÏis€fairly€covered€by€the€jury€instructions,Ïreviewing€courts€should€not€disturb€them.ÏAccordingly,€Md.€Rule€2-520,€"Instructions€toÏthe€jury,"€states€in€€pertinent€part:€€"(c)ÏHow€given.€€The€court€may€instruct€the€jury,Ïorally€or€in€writing€or€both,€by€grantingÏrequested€instructions,€by€giving€instructionsÏon€its€own,€or€by€combining€any€of€theseÏmethods.€€The€court€need€not€grant€a€requested€Ïinstruction€if€the€matter€is€fairly€covered€byÏinstructions€actually€given."€€Thus,€simplyÏbecause€a€requested€instruction€is€an€accurateÏstatement€of€the€law€and€supported€by€theÏevidence€does€not€mean€the€trial€judge€isÏrequired€to€give€it€to€the€jury.€€So€long€asÐ 8,ˆ'2 Ðthe€trial€judge€has€covered€the€applicable€lawÏin€another€instruction,€or€combination€of€Ïinstructions,€Md.€Rule€2-520(c)€makes€clearÏthat€he€or€she€does€not€have€to€give€it€to€theÏjurors.Ìà ¸ àIn€reviewing€the€propriety€of€a€trialÏcourt's€denial€of€a€requested€jury€Ïinstruction,€we€must€examine€"whether€theÏrequested€instruction€was€a€correct€expositionÏof€the€law,€whether€that€law€was€applicable€inÏlight€of€the€evidence€before€the€jury,€andÏfinally€whether€the€substance€of€the€requested€Ïinstruction€was€fairly€covered€by€theÏinstruction€actually€given."€€òòMoreover,€theÐ Ø(  Ðstandard€for€reversible€error€places€theÏburden€on€the€complaining€party€to€show€bothÏprejudice€and€error.ÌÌÓϬÓÒ°` Á¬ÒÒ°` ³¬Òóó(Emphasis€supplied,€citations€omitted.)Ð ˆØ Ðà  àWe€now€turn€to€an€examination€of€the€jury€instructions€atÏissue€in€this€appeal.ÌÓÓà@$ $ ìàòòAppelleeððs€exposure€to€asbestos€by€non„partiesóóˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌÓ‰³Óà  àAppellants€assert€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€instructingÏthe€jury€that€ð ða€plaintiffððs€possible€exposure€to€asbestos„Ð X¨ Ðcontaining€products€of€non„parties€is€not€to€be€considered€by€youÏin€your€determination€of€substantial€causation.ððÐ xÈ  Ðà  àThe€Court€instructed€as€follows:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àIf€a€defendantððs€products€were€aÏsubstantial€factor€in€bringing€about€theÏinjuries€to€the€plaintiff,€the€fact€that€theÏdefendant€could€not€anticipate€the€exact€typeÏof€injury€for€which€the€plaintiff€seeksÏrecovery€or€the€exact€manner€in€which€theÏinjury€came€about€does€not€relieve€theÏdefendant€from€responsibility.Ìà ¸ àWhether€the€exposure€of€any€given€user€orÏconsumer€to€a€particular€manufacturerððs,Ïsupplierððs€or€installerððs€product€would€beÏlegally€sufficient€to€permit€a€finding€ofÏsubstantial€causation€is€a€fact€specific€toÏâ âeach€case.Ð À+'1 Ðà ¸ àThe€analysis€of€substantial€causation,Ïâ âwhich€is€Question€Two,€focuses€upon€theÏplaintiffððs€failure€„€exposure€to€allÏproducts.Ìà ¸ àThe€fact€that€the€plaintiff€may€have€beenÏexposed€to€a€variety€of€asbestos€products€doesÏnot€relieve€the€defendant€of€liability€for€theÏinjuries€complained€of.Ìà ¸ àòòA€plaintiffððs€possible€exposure€toÐ ð @ Ðasbestos„containing€products€of€non„parties€isÏnot€to€be€considered€by€you€in€yourÏdetermination€of€substantial€causation.óóÐ À   Ðà ¸ àThat€finding€would€involve€theÏinterrelationship€between€the€use€of€aÏdefendantððs€products€and€the€activities€of€theÏperson€using€it€either€at€the€work€place€or€inÏthe€general€public€domain.ÌÌÒ°` fµÒÒ°` tµÒ(Emphasis€supplied.)ÌÌÓ‚µÓà  àAppellants€argue€that€they€have€shown€asbestos€exposure€byÏnon-parties€by€demonstrating€that€the€cigarettes€were€notÏunreasonably€dangerous€and€that€they€were€not€a€substantial€causalÏfactor€of€plaintiffððs€mesothelioma.€€They€claim€to€haveÏdemonstrated€this€through€evidence€of€appelleeððs€occupationalÏexposure€to€asbestos€during€his€25„year€employment€at€Glen€L.ÏMartin.€€They€further€claim€to€have€demonstrated€this€through€theÏtestimony€of€€Dr.€Allen€Gibbs,€an€expert€in€the€field€of€pathologyÏand€asbestos„related€disease,€who€testified€that€the€release€ofÏasbestos€from€the€Kent€filter€was€insignificant;€by€Dr.€RubinððsÏtestimony€that€ð ðworkers€at€Glen€L.€Martin€have€mesothelioma€farÐ $à( Ðgreater€than€anybody€else€in€the€universeðð;€and€by€the€testimony€ofÐ  &p!* Ðthree€other€experts€that€indicated€that€80%€of€mesotheliomaÏdiagnoses€in€North€American€men€are€attributable€to€occupationalÏâ âexposure€to€asbestos.€Ð Ð* &0 Ðà  àThe€Court,€continuing€to€instruct€on€the€defendantsðð€duty,€Ïâ âproceeded€as€follows:€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àThere€may€be€more€than€one€cause€of€anÏinjury;€that€is,€several€negligent€acts€mayÏwork€together.Ìà ¸ àEach€party€whose€negligent€act€is€theÏcause€of€an€injury€is€responsible.Ìà ¸ àIt€is€necessary€and€sufficient€toÏconstitute€probable€cause€that€the€conduct€ofÏa€particular€defendant€charged€or€the€productÏor€products€of€a€particular€defendant€were€anÏefficient€cause€that€helped€to€set€in€motionÏthe€chain€of€circumstances€leading€up€to€theÏinjury€and€that€helped€to€produce€the€injury.Ìà ¸ àFailure€to€warn€must€be€a€proximate€causeÏof€the€incident.à À àEach€defendant's€productÐ øH  Ðor€products€may€be€considered€a€legal€cause€ofÏthe€plaintiff's€harm€if€the€defendant'sÏproduct€or€products€are€a€substantial€factorÏin€bringing€about€the€harm.Ìà ¸ àThe€word€substantial€used€in€this€senseÏmeans€that€the€defendant's€product€or€productsÏmust€have€had€such€an€effect€in€producing€aÏharm€as€to€lead€reasonable€persons€to€regardÏit€as€a€cause.Ìà ¸ àWhere€a€plaintiff€has€proved€a€diseaseÏresulting€from€exposure€to€asbestos€productsÏof€different€identified€manufacturers€orÏsuppliers,€no€manufacturer€or€supplier€has€aÏdefense€solely€on€the€ground€that€theÏplaintiff€would€probably€have€suffered€theÏsame€disease€from€inhaling€or€ingesting€fibersÏoriginating€from€the€products€of€others.Ìà ¸ àWhere€the€separate€and€independent€actsÏof€several€defendants€combined€to€produce€aÏsingle€injury,€each€defendant€is€responsibleÏfor€the€entire€injury.Ìà ¸ àIn€other€wordsòòÔ‡ èŠõXXÔ,€Ô#†XçZXõ èŠÁÅ#Ôóójoint€defendants€may€beÐ (#x' Ðlegally€responsible,€even€if€theiròòÔ‡ èŠõXXçZÔÐ $T( ÐÔ#†XçZXõ èŠYÆ#Ôóóparticipation€in€that€injury€occurred€atÐ Ì$ ) Ðdifferent€times,€in€different€ways€and€inÏunequal€proportions.ÌÓ ýÓYou€shall€not€apportion€or€distributeÏresponsibility€in€these€cases.ÌÓ ùýÓÔ‡ èŠõXXçZÔòòÐ ´($. ÐÒ°` ¦¿ÒÒ°` ˜¿ÒÓ†¿ÓÓ ùÓóóÔ#†XçZXõ èŠÇ#Ôà  àWe€find€no€basis€for€disturbing€the€trial€judgeððs€rulingÐ |)Ì$/ Ðregarding€this€jury€instruction.€€The€trial€courtððs€juryÐ  +\&1 ÐÑPPÐÑâ PâÑ  Ñâ PâÑ  Ñinstruction€followed€the€legal€explanation€articulated€in€òòACandS,Ð ° ÐInc.€v.€Asneróó,€344€Md.€155,€686€A.2d€250€(1996),€a€case€cited€byÐ à Ðboth€appellants€and€appellee.€€€€€€€€Ìà  àIn€òòAsneróó,€the€Court€of€Appeals€provided€a€guideline€forÐ  P Ðdealing€with€jury€instructions€as€to€exposure€by€non„parties.€€ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓA€factual€defense€may€be€based€on€theÏnegligible€effect€of€a€claimant's€exposure€toÏthe€defendant's€product,€or€on€the€negligibleÏeffect€of€the€asbestos€content€of€aÏdefendant's€product,€or€both.€€In€such€a€caseÏthe€degree€of€exposure€to€a€non-party'sÏproduct€and€the€extent€of€the€asbestos€contentÏof€the€non-party's€product€may€be€relevant€toÏdemonstrating€the€non-substantial€nature€ofÏthe€exposure€to,€or€of€the€asbestos€contentÏof,€the€defendant's€product.€€But,€a€defendantÏwould€not€ordinarily€generate€a€jury€issue€onÏlack€of€substantial€factor€causation€only€byÏshowing€the€dangerousness€of€a€non-party'sÏproduct€to€which€the€claimant€was€exposed.ÏOrdinarily€a€defendant€would€have€to€follow€upÏthe€evidence€of€exposure€to€the€products€ofÏnon-parties€with€evidence€tending€to€proveÏthat€the€€defendant's€product€was€notÏunreasonably€dangerous€or€was€not€aÏsubstantial€causal€factor.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances€the€proposition€that€theÏdefendant's€product€is€not€a€substantial€causeÏmay€be€made€more€probable€by€evidence€tendingÏto€prove€that€the€claimant's€disease€wasÏcaused€by€the€products€of€one€or€moreÏnon-parties.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Becker€v.€BaronÐ À!$ ÐBros.óó,€138€N.J.€145,€649€A.2d€613€(1994)Ð °"% Ð(whether€processed€chrysotile€in€brakeÏproducts€posed€a€risk€of€causing€mesotheliomaÏin€users€was€a€sharply€disputed€issue€of€factÏat€trial,€so€that€trial€court€erred€inÏinstructing€as€a€matter€of€law€that€theÏproducts€were€defective€without€a€warning).€ÌÌÒ°` §ÊÒÒ°` ™ÊÒÓµÊÓòòId.óó€at€176„77€(footnote€omitted).€€Ð )h$- Ðà  àWe€point€out€that,€at€the€time€this€jury€instruction€wasÏgiven,€Owens„Corning€was€still€a€defendant€in€this€action.€€It€wasÐ ˆ,Ø'1 Ðnot€until€after€jury€instructions€had€been€given€and€the€jury€beganÏits€deliberations€that€Owens„Corning€settled€with€appellee.€ÏTherefore,€at€the€time€of€the€instruction,€Owens„Corning€was€stillÏa€party,€and,€consequently,€the€instruction€did€not€preclude€theÏjury€from€considering€the€effects€of€any€asbestos€exposure€causedÏby€Owens„Corning.ññññ¢×ƒ#×ññññ׃N×ññññññ׃×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€à h àÐ € Ð  Ðà  àTo€counter€the€possible€effect€on€the€jury€of€the€technicalÏapplication€of€this€instruction,€appellants€could€have€re„visitedÏthis€issue€once€Owens„Corning€was€no€longer€a€party€in€this€action.€ÏAfter€the€settlement,€appellants€may€have€been€better€served€byÏrequesting€further€instructions€at€that€time.€€However,€appellants'Ïinsouciance€prevents€us€from€addressing€the€issue.€€€€€€€€Ìà  àTherefore,€we€find€that€the€trial€judge€properly€instructedÏthe€jury€that€it€should€disregard€any€evidence€relating€toÏplaintiffððs€exposure€to€the€asbestos„containing€products€of€non„¼parties.€€Appellants€have€not€demonstrated€that€any€prejudice€andÏerror€resulted€from€the€trial€judgeððs€jury€instructions.€€TheÏinstructions€€given€to€the€jury€adequately€covered€the€applicableÏlaw.ÌÓÓà@ˆˆìàòòContinuing€Duty€to€WarnˆÐ `"°& ÐÐ (#x' ÐÓòÖÓà  àóóAppellants'€next€contention€is€that€the€trial€court€should€notÐ ° Ðhave€provided€the€standard€jury€instruction€pertaining€to€aÏdefendantððs€continuing€duty€to€warn€about€a€perishable€consumerÏproduct.€€Appellants€contend€that€the€instruction€does€not€apply€inÏa€situation€where€the€product€was€used€and€discarded€by€theÏconsumer.€€The€jury€instruction€in€question,€in€relevant€part,Ïprovided:€€ð ðGenerally,€a€manufacturer€or€supplier€of€a€defectiveÐ `  Ðproduct€has€the€duty€to€warn€of€the€product€defects€which€theyÏdiscover€after€the€time€of€sale€and€must€make€reasonable€efforts€toÏissue€a€post„sale€warning.ððÐ À Ðà  àAppellants€concede€that,€as€a€general€rule,€ð ða€manufacturer€ofÐ P  Ða€defective€product€has€a€duty€to€warn€of€product€defects€which€theÏmanufacturer€discovers€after€the€time€of€sale.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòOwens„Ð pÀ ÐIllinois,€Inc.€v.€Zenobiaóó,€325€Md.€420,€446,€601€A.2d€633€(1992).€Ð P  ÐHowever,€appellants€contend€that€in€the€present€case€this€juryÏinstruction€was€incorrect€because€ð ðno€post„sale€warning€could€haveÐ À Ðprevented€the€harm€alleged€to€have€been€suffered€by€plaintiff.€ÏUnlike,€for€example,€asbestos„containing€pipe€insulation,€whichÏstays€in€place€for€many€years€after€installation,€Kent€cigarettesÏwere€used€and€discarded€shortly€after€they€had€been€purchased.ðð€Ð #P& ÐAppellants€further€contend€that€ð ð[a]€ððproduct€recallðð€of€asbestos„Ð $à( Ðcontaining€Kent€cigarettes€many€years€after€Lorillard€stoppedÏmanufacturing€them€would€have€been€a€futile€gesture.ðð€€In€supportÐ °'#, Ðof€their€position,€they€cite€òòIerardi€et€al.€v.€Lorillard,€Incóó.,€777Ð @)$. ÐF.€Supp.€420€(E.D.€Penn.€1991).Ð  +p&0 Ðà  àMass€production€and€wide€distribution€may€limit€the€responseÏduty€rather€than€defeat€the€dutyððs€existence.€€When€a€manufacturerÏof€a€mass„produced,€widely€distributed€product€becomes€aware€thatÏthere€is€a€peril€associated€with€the€product,€creating€a€risk€ofÏserious€injury€or€death,€the€manufacturer€may€have€a€duty€to€takeÏreasonable€steps€to€notify€users€of€that€danger.€€It€would€beÏunreasonable€to€require€such€a€manufacturer€to€track€down€everyÏpurchaser€and€user,€but€it€may€be€appropriate,€in€certain€cases,€toÏrequire€a€manufacturer€to€take€reasonable€steps€under€theÏcircumstances€to€widely€disseminate€notice€of€the€danger.€€WhatÏconstitutes€reasonable€notice€would€be€a€question€of€fact€for€theÏjury.Ìà  àAppellants€presented€this€contention€to€the€trial€judge;€theÏjudge€nonetheless€chose€to€instruct€the€jury€pertaining€to€aÏcontinuing€duty€to€warn.€€We€will€not€disturb€the€trial€judgeððsÏfindings€as€to€whether€such€efforts€to€warn,€either€by€use€of€aÏproduct€recall€or€other€type€of€remedial€measure,€would€have€beenÏfutile.€€We€observe€that€this€ð ðcontinuing€duty€to€warnðð€instructionÐ @" Ðwas€not€error,€and,€moreover,€that€it€was€certainly€not€prejudicialÏto€appellantsðð€case;€the€jury,€irrespective€of€this€instruction,Ïfound€that€appellants€were€liable€to€plaintiff,€as€their€productsÏwere€substantial€causes€of€his€mesothelioma.€€We€find,€therefore,Ïthat€the€trial€judge€properly€instructed€the€jury€that€aÏmanufacturer€or€supplier€has€a€continuing€duty€to€warn€about€aÏproduct€defect€discovered€after€the€sale€of€the€product.ÓÓÌÌà@ ìà€òòState€of€the€Art€InstructionˆÐ À+'2 ÐÐ ˆ,Ø'3 ÐóóÓôäÓà  àThe€trial€court€erred,€appellants€contend,€by€failing€toÐ ° Ðprovide€a€specific€instruction€on€the€jury€verdict€form,€or€as€aÏcurative€instruction,€that€consideration€of€the€state€of€the€art€isÏappropriate.€€Appellants€assert€that€a€determination€as€to€whetherÏthere€was€insufficient€knowledge€of€the€manufacturer€or€of€theÏscientific€field€in€general€would€have€been€relevant€in€order€toÏdetermine€whether€the€Kent€cigarettes,€and€more€specifically€theÏasbestos€filters€therein,€were€defective€for€legal€purposes.€ÏAppellants€contend€that€the€jury€should€have€been€instructed€as€toÏthe€state€of€scientific€and€medical€knowledge,€as€it€existed€at€theÏtime€when€plaintiff€smoked€the€Kent€cigarettes,€regarding€theÏhazards€of€asbestos€exposure.Ìà  àThe€Court€instructed€as€follows:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓUnder€both€the€negligence€and€strict€liabilityÏtheories€of€liability,€the€manufacturer€isÏheld€to€the€knowledge€and€skill€of€an€expert.Ìà ¸ àA€manufacturerððs€status€as€an€expertÏmeans€that,€at€a€minimum,€the€manufacturerÏmust€keep€abreast€of€the€scientific€knowledge,Ïdiscoveries€and€advances€and€is€presumed€toÏknow€what€is€imparted€thereby.Ìà ¸ àIndustry€standards€and€state€of€the€artÏare€not€synonymous.€€State€of€the€art€includesÏall€of€the€available€knowledge€on€a€subject€atÏa€given€time.€€And€this€includes€scientific,Ïmedical,€engineering€and€other€knowledge€thatÏmay€be€available.Ìà ¸ àState€of€the€art€includes€the€element€ofÏtime;€what€was€known€and€when€was€thisÏknowledge€available.ÌÌà@HH'ìà.€.€.€.ˆÌÌà ¸ àYou€are€instructed€that€evidence€offeredÏby€any€of€the€defendants€to€show€that€itsÏconduct€was€reasonable€in€the€light€ofÏprevailing€industry€standards€and€theÏscientific€and€medical€knowledge€at€relevantÏpoints€in€time€may€be€considered€by€you€inÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðdetermining€whether€a€defendant€was€negligentÏor€the€product€was€defective.ÌÌÒ°` ¼èÒÒ°` ®èÒÓÊèÓà  àAppellee€correctly€points€out€that€a€state€of€the€artÏinstruction€òòwasóó€given€as€part€of€the€jury€instructions€and€inÐ ˜è Ðaccord€with€òòACandS,€Inc.€v.€Asner,€óó344€Md.€at€165„66€(quotingÐ x È ÐòòLohrmann€v.€Pittsburgh€Corning€Corpóó.,€782€F.2d€1156,€1164€(4th€Cir.Ð X ¨  Ð1986)).€ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àð ðIndustry€standards€are€the€practicesÐ È  Ðcommon€to€a€given€industry.€€They€are€oftenÏset€forth€in€some€type€of€code,€such€as€aÏbuilding€code€or€electrical€code,€or€they€mayÏbe€adopted€by€the€trade€organization€of€aÏgiven€industry.€€State€of€the€art€is€a€higherÏstandard€because€scientific€knowledge€expandsÏmuch€more€rapidly€than€industry€can€assimilateÏthe€knowledge€and€adopt€it€as€a€standard.ðð€ÓÂîÓÐX` x` x Ðà@ÀÀ(ìà.€.€.ˆÌòòÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àóóThe€role€of€state€of€the€art€evidenceÐ (x Ðunder€Maryland€law€in€strict€liability,Ïfailure€to€warn€cases€was€explained€inÏòòOwens-Illinois,€Inc.€v.€Zenobiaóó,€325€Md.€420,Ð €Ð Ð432-38,€601€A.2d€633,€638„641,€òòreh'g€deniedóó,Ð pÀ Ð325€Md.€665,€602€A.2d€1182€(1992).€ÏAcknowledging€some€division€of€opinion€in€theÏauthorities,€[the€Maryland€Court€of€Appeals]Ïrecognized€in€òòZenobiaóó€that€a€majority€ofÐ ¸! Ðcourts€hold,€expressly€or€implicitly,€"that€aÏmanufacturer€of€a€product,€which€is€defectiveÏonly€because€of€the€lack€of€an€adequateÏwarning,€is€not€liable€when€the€failure€toÏwarn€resulted€from€an€absence€of€knowledge€ofÏthe€dangerous€quality€of€that€product."€€òòIdóó.Ð $à' Ðat€433,€601€A.2d€at€639.€€But,€"the€requiredÏknowledge€can€be€established€by€evidence€thatÏthe€dangerous€quality€of€the€product€shouldÏhave€been€known€by€a€manufacturer€because€itÏwas€known€in€the€scientific€or€expertÏcommunity."€€òòIdóó.€€"[¢E]vidence£€concerning€theÐ h)¸$- Ðpresence€or€òòabsenceóó€of€knowledge€in€the€expertÐ X*¨%. Ðâ âcommunity€is€called€'state€of€the€art'Ð H+˜&/ Ðevidence."€€òòIdóó.€at€435,€601€A.2d€at€640Ð ° Ð(emphasis€added).€òòРð` x` x Ðâ âÌÓõðÓà  àóóTestimony€adduced€at€trial€by€appellee,€although€contested€byÐ 0€ Ðappellantsðð€testimony,€demonstrated€that€it€was€known€within€theÏscientific€community€at€the€time€the€Kent€cigarettes€were€beingÏmanufactured€with€the€asbestos€filters€that€exposure€to€asbestosÏâ âcould€cause€disease.ññññ¢×ƒS×ññññ׃X×ññññññ׃$×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€The€jury€was€free€to€assess€the€credibilityÐ p À  Ðof€the€testimony,€and€decide€for€itself€which€evidence€to€believe.Ð ° ÐòòSee€Ebb€v.€Stateóó,€341€Md.€578,€596€(1996).Ð @ Ðâ âà  àWe€find€that€the€trial€judge€did€in€fact€instruct€the€juryÏregarding€a€state€of€the€art€defense,€and€such€instructionÏadequately€covered€the€applicable€law.€€€Ìà@@ @ ìàòòStatutory€Cap€on€Non„Economic€DamagesóóˆÐ Ð   Ðà  àAppellants€assert€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€itsÏinstruction€to€the€jury€regarding€a€statutory€cap€on€non„economicÏdamages.€€Appellants€correctly€argue€that€the€jury€instruction€onÏthis€issue€directly€affected€the€amount€of€damages€awarded.€€WeÏagree€with€appellantsðð€contention€that€this€jury€instruction€wasÏincorrect.€€The€instruction€in€question,€Jury€Interrogatory€2,Ïasked€of€the€jury:€€Do€you€find€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏthat€the€first€cellular€changes€which€lead€[sic]€to€the€existenceÏof€Charles€M.€P.€Connorððs€mesothelioma€began€before€July€1,€1986?ðð€Ð à0 ÐAppellants€had€proposed€that€the€trial€court€instead€phrase€theÏquestion€in€this€manner:€€ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhen€did€the€cellular€change€caused€byÏasbestos€result€in€Charles€ConnorððsÏmesothelioma?€€a)€on€or€after€July€1,€1986,€b)€Ïbefore€July€1,€1986,€or€c)€we€can€notÏdetermine€whether€Mr.€Connorððs€disease€beganÏbefore€or€after€July€1,€1986.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓThe€wording€of€the€instruction€is€critical€because€of€MarylandððsÏCap€Statute,€which€provides€that€noneconomic€damages€ð ðmay€notÐ ˜&è!+ Ðexceed€$350,000"€in€any€personal€injury€action€ð ðin€which€the€causeÐ ((x#- Ðof€action€arises€on€or€after€July€1,€1986€.€.€.€.ðð€€C.J.€ðð€11„Ð ¸)%/ Ð108(b).ññññ׃×ññññññ׃Z€×ññññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ññÐ H+˜&1 Ðà  àThe€parties€disagree€as€to€what€stage€of€appelleeððs€illness€isÏthe€critical€point€for€determining€whether€noneconomic€damages€areÏsubject€to€the€cap€statute.€€Appellantsðð€position€is€thatÏappelleeððs€cause€of€action€arose€after€July€1,€1986,€therebyÏimposing€the€applicability€of€the€statute€and€effectively€reducingÏthe€amount€of€noneconomic€damages.€€Thus,€appellants€assert€thatÏappelleeððs€cause€of€action€arose€only€when€he€actually€contractedÏmesothelioma.€€Ìà  àAppellee,€on€the€other€hand,€naturally€wishes€to€convince€thisÏCourt€that€his€cause€of€action€arose€before€that€time,Ïspecifically,€when€the€first€cellular€change€took€place€within€hisÏbody.€€Appellee€urges€that€this€cellular€change€gave€rise€to€hisÏcause€of€action,€as€this€is€when€his€body€first€changed€as€a€resultÏof€his€exposure€to€asbestos.€€Such€interpretation€would€result€inÏthe€injury€predating€the€cap€statute.€€Appelleeððs€position,€thatÏhis€cause€of€action€arose€before€July€1,€1986,€would€preclude€theÏstatuteððs€applicability€in€this€case.€€The€jury€instruction€givenÏby€the€trial€court€asked€when€there€was€evidence€of€the€firstÏcellular€changes€that€led€to€the€mesothelioma;€this€wordingÏrepresented€the€interpretation€posed€by€appellee,€focusing€on€theÏonset€of€cellular€change,€rather€than€appellants'€position,€whichÏfocused€on€the€onset€of€the€actual€mesothelioma.Ìà  àIf€appelleeððs€interpretation€is€correct€under€the€intent€ofÏthe€statute,€then€the€jury€instruction€was€indeed€correct.€€TheÏinstruction€is€incorrect,€however,€if€the€intended€point€of€timeÏunder€the€statute€is€actually€the€contraction€of€the€disease.€Ð À+'2 ÐConsequently,€the€issue€can€be€simply€stated€ð2ð„€what€stage€withinÐ ° Ðthe€temporal€spectrum€of€appelleeððs€disease€is€the€determinativeÏpoint€under€the€cap€statute?€€Identifying€the€time€at€which€anÏasbestos-related€injury€came€into€existence€is€easier€said€thanÏdone.€€Due€to€the€incipient€nature€of€asbestos-related€disease,Ïexperts€and€courts€alike€have€had€difficulty€in€pinpointing€itsÏonset.€€òòIdóó.ññ¢×ƒM×ññññ׃\×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð `  Їà  àIn€construing€the€cap€statute,€"we€assume€that€the€words€ofÏthe€statute€are€intended€to€have€their€natural,€ordinary€andÏgenerally€understood€meaning€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€theÏcontrary."€€òòOwens€Illinois€v.€Armstrong,€óó326€Md.€107,€121,€604€A.2dÐ ` ° Ð47€(1992);€òòBrodsky€v.€Brodskyóó,€319€Md.€92,€98,€570€A.2d€1235Ð @  Ð(1990);€òòsee€also€Edmonds€v.€Cytology€Services€of€Maññryland,€Inc.,€etÐ  p  Ðal.óóññññ,€111€Md.€App.€233,€681€A.2d€546€(1996)ññññññóóññññ.€€According€to€òòWebster'sÐ P  ÐNew€World€Dictionaryóó€(2d€ed.)€the€word€"arise"€means€"to€come€intoÐ à0  Ðbeing;€originate."€€Giving€the€word€its€ordinary€meaning,€weÏbelieve€that€a€cause€of€action€arises€when€it€first€comes€intoÏexistence.€€òòArmstrong,óó€326€Md.€at€121.€€Ð à0 Ðà  àA€cause€of€action€in€negligence€or€strict€liability€arisesÏwhen€facts€exist€to€support€each€element.€€òòIdóó.€€In€a€negligenceÐ P  Ðcause€of€action,€the€fact€of€injury€would€seemingly€be€the€lastÏelement€to€come€into€existence.€€The€breach,€duty,€and€causationÏelements€logically€precede€the€fact€of€injury.€€Likewise,€in€aÏstrict€liability€claim,€the€existence€of€the€defective€product€andÏthe€causal€connection€will€precede€the€resultant€injury.€€òòIdóó.€Ð p!À" ÐTherefore,€appelleeððs€non„economic€damages€would€have€to€be€reducedÏunder€ðð€11-108€of€the€Courts€&€Judicial€Proceedings€Article€if€hisÏ"injury"€came€into€existence€on€or€after€July€1,€1986.€€We€haveÏpointed€out€that,€according€to€ðð€388€and€ðð€402A€of€the€RestatementÏ(Second)€of€Torts,€ð ðharmðð€is€one€of€the€necessary€elements€of€aÐ ð @ Ðcause€of€action€in€both€negligence€and€strict€liability.€€TheÏRestatement,€in€ðð€7(2),€defines€ð ðthe€word€ððharmðð€as€used€throughoutÐ `  Ðthe€Restatement€.€.€.€to€denote€the€existence€of€loss€or€detrimentÏin€fact€of€any€kind€to€a€person€resulting€from€a€cause.ðð€€òòOwens„Ð 0€  ÐCorning€Corp.€v.€Baumanóó,€125€Md.€App.€454,€477,€726€A.2d€745Ð ` Ð(1999).€€Comment€b€to€ðð€7€further€explains€that€ð ðððharmðð€implies€aÐ ð@ Ðloss€or€detriment€to€a€person,€and€not€a€mere€change€or€alterationÏin€some€physical€person,€object€or€thing€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòIdóó.€(quotingÐ ` ÐòòAnchor€Packing€Co.€v.€Grimshawóó,€115€Md.€App.€134,€692€A.2d€5Ð ð@ Ð(1997),€òòvacated€in€part€on€other€grounds€sub€nomóó.€òòPorter€Hayden€Co.Ð Ð  Ðv.€Bullingeróó,€350€Md.€App.€452,€713€A.2d€962€(1998)).€€€€€€€Ð ° Ðà  àAppellants€cite€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòBaumanóó€to€supportÐ à  Ðtheir€contention€that€the€juryððs€award€of€noneconomic€damages€mustÏbe€reduced.€€In€that€case,€we€remanded€to€the€circuit€court€for€theÏsubmission€of€the€issue€of€when€appellee's€mesothelioma€"arose"€forÏpurposes€of€determining€the€applicability€of€the€statutory€cap,Ïpursuant€to€C.J.€ðð€11-108.€€€Judge€Davis,€speaking€for€this€Court,Ïstated:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€unique€facts€of€this€case€compel€us€toÏconclude€that€the€ends€of€justice€can€only€beÏserved€by€granting€appellant€the€opportunityÐ `,°'0 Ðto€submit€the€issue€of€the€statutory€cap€to€aÏjury,€particularly€in€view€of€the€court's€Ïadvisement€that€it€would€consider€the€capÏissue€on€appellant's€post-trial€motion.€OnÏremand,€the€circuit€court€should€submit€to€aÏnewly€empaneled€jury€only€the€limited€issue€ofÏwhen€mesothelioma€arose€in€appellee.€ShouldÏthe€jury€determine€that€the€disease€aroseÏbefore€July€1,€1986,€the€statutory€cap€wouldÏnot€be€applicable€and€the€noneconomic€damageÏaward€of€the€original€jury€would€stand.€€AÏjury€decision€that€appellee's€mesotheliomaÏarose€on€or€after€July€1,€1986,€on€the€otherÏhand,€would€require€the€circuit€court€to€applyÏthe€$350,000€cap€on€the€noneconomic€damageÏaward.€Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓ‘Ó125€Md.€App.€at€522.Ìà  àAs€part€of€our€discussion€in€òòBaumanóó,€and€before€we€hadÐ ˆØ Ðdeclared€our€holding,€we€had€clarified€this€point€by€stating:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€sum,€mere€exposure,€without€cellularÏchange,€does€not€constitute€an€injury€or€harmÏfor€which€one€may€maintain€a€cause€of€action.ÏFurthermore,€cellular€change€withoutÏaccompanying€injury€does€not€constitute€harmÏor€functional€impairment€that€would€give€riseÏto€a€cause€of€action.€For€purposes€of€theÏstatutory€cap,€the€crucial€distinction€isÏwhether€a€plaintiff's€cellular€change€developsÏinto€an€asbestos-related€disease€or€simplyÏinto€an€asbestos-related€condition.€€WhenÏcellular€change€later€results€in€anÏasbestos-related€disease,€the€harm€wasÏirreversible€from€the€time€of€contraction,€andÏthe€"injury"€as€well€as€the€cause€of€actionÏarose€when€the€disease€came€into€existence.ÏConsequently,€the€presence€or€absence€ofÏsymptomatology€is€irrelevant€for€purposes€ofÏthe€statutory€cap,€because€the€cause€of€actionÏarose€when€the€disease€was€contracted.€On€theÏother€hand,€when€a€plaintiff€becomes€afflictedÏwith€an€asbestos-related€condition,€such€asÏpleural€plaques,€it€is€not€untilÏsymptomatology€is€present€that€any€functionalÏimpairment€occurs.€€Therefore,€when€aÏplaintiff€develops€an€asbestos-relatedÏcondition,€the€statutory€cap€only€is€triggeredÏupon€the€presence€of€symptoms,€because€thereÐ ,`'2 Ðis€no€harm€until€the€symptoms€arise.€€In€theÏcase€òòsub€judiceóó,€however,€appellee€developedÐ xÈ Ðan€asbestos-related€disease€and€theÏirreversible€harm€arose€when€the€disease€cameÏinto€existence.€Ð ` x` x ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€482„83.Ð ˆ Ø ÐÌÓÙÓà  àAppellee€incorrectly€asserts€that€the€òòBaumanóó€Court€concludedÐ @  Ðthe€following:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhen€a€plaintiff€actually€contracts€anÏasbestos-related€disease,€the€legallyÏcompensable€harm€may€be€retraced€to€the€firstÏmoment€of€cellular€change;€however,€when€aÏplaintiff€contracts€the€condition€of€pleuralÏplaques,€the€legally€compensable€harm€onlyÏarises€with€the€onset€of€a€symptom.€ÏTherefore,€the€standard€for€determining€harmÏis€uniform,€but€an€"injury"€does€not€ariseÏuntil€symptoms€are€manifested€while€the€harmÏfor€a€fatal€and€irreversible€"disease"€arisesÏas€soon€as€the€cellular€change€develops.€OurÏrecent€decisions€in€òòFordóó€and€òòAbateóó€haveÐ ` Ðfollowed€the€òòGrimshawóó€standard€and,Ð P Ðaccordingly,€Maryland€law€is€clear€as€to€whenÏan€asbestos-related€injury€becomes€a€legallyÏcompensable€harm.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓs Ó125€Md.€App.€at€482.€€Appellee€errs€in€his€interpretation€ofÏòòBauman,€óóas€we€have€already€set€forth€our€conclusion€in€the€òòBaumanóóÐ  ð  Ðcase.€€Our€conclusion€in€òòBauman€óóclearly€stands€for€theÐ € Ð" Ðinterpretation€posed€by€appellants.€€Moreover,€in€that€theyÏcontradict€our€holding€in€that€case,€we€reject€and€disregard€theÏtwo€paragraphs€quoted€from€òòBaumanóó€by€appellee.€€This€languageÐ €%Ð ( Ðrepresents€inaccurate€statements€of€the€law€on€this€point,€andÏleads€to€further€obfuscation€on€this€topic.€€We€reject€appelleeððsÏâ âother€quote€taken€from€Bauman,€specifically:Ð €*Ð%. ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€person€diagnosed€with€mesothelioma€hasÏâ âsuffered€a€real€and€immediate€injury€which€wasÏinflicted€when€the€cancer€cells€first€beganÏgrowing€in€his€body€--€even€though€the€personÏwas€not€aware€of€that€injury€until€the€cancerÏwas€diagnosed.€€By€contrast,€a€person€who€isÏmerely€diagnosed€with€pleural€plaques€has€noÏpresent€loss,€detriment,€impairment€or€injury.€Ï€Ð ` x` x ÐÓ\&ÓThis€quoted€language€was€actually€taken€from€a€footnote€in€theÏòòGrimshawóó€case.€€The€statement€it€footnoted€was:€€ð ðAlthough€pleuralÐ H ˜  Ðplaques€are€merely€changes€in€the€body€that€only€become€ððinjuryðð€ifÏsymptoms€develop,€òòmesothelioma€and€asbestosis€are€diseases€thatÐ ¸  Ðconstitute€compensable€harm€upon€contractionóó.ðð€€125€Md.€App.€atÐ ˜è  Ð479.€€€(Emphasis€added.)€€We€regret€that€the€footnote€quoted€byÏappellee,€intended€to€clarify€the€discussion,€actually€causedÏadditional€confusion,€as€is€evident€by€appelleeððs€reliance€on€it.€ÏWe€will€not,€however,€raise€a€mere€footnote€to€a€loftier€statureÏthan€the€actual€statement€that€it€attempts€to€clarify.€€We€observeÏthat€the€original€statement,€ð ð[¢a]lthough£€pleural€plaques€are€merelyÐ H˜ Ðchanges€in€the€body€that€only€become€ððinjuryðð€if€symptoms€develop,Ïmesothelioma€and€asbestosis€are€diseases€that€constituteÏcompensable€harm€upon€contraction,ðð€is€an€accurate€statement€of€ourÐ ø H# Ðposition,€and€that€this€statement€completely€explains€theÏdistinction€we€are€dealing€with€in€this€case.€€To€the€extent€thatÏit€unsettles€the€issue€before€us€and€clearly€is€a€misrepresentationÏof€the€law€on€this€subject,€we€unequivocally€reject€that€particularÏâ âlanguage€used€in€footnote€7€in€òòGrimshawóó.€Ð È($- Ðà  àAppellee€has€quoted€language€from€òòGrimshawóó,€and€that€caseÐ ° Ðremains€sound€law,€but€for€the€language€we€have€now€rejectedòò.óó€€InÐ à Ðâ âfact,€the€standard€enunciated€in€òòGrimshaw,óó€which€is€controlling€inÐ pÀ ÐMaryland,€is€that€ð ðharm€results€when€the€cellular€changes€òòdevelopÐ P   Ðinto€an€injury€or€diseaseóó.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€òòGrimshawóó,€115€Md.Ð 0 € ÐApp.€at€160;€òòsee€ACandS,€Inc.€v.€Abate,€óó121€Md.€App.€590,€710€A.2dÐ `  Ð944,€òòcert.€denied,€óó350€Md.€487,€713€A.2d€979€(1998);€òòFord€Motor€Co.Ð ð@  Ðv.€Wood,€óó119€Md.€App.€1,€703€A.2d€1315€(1998).€€à  àÐ Ð  Ðà  àWe€reject€appelleeððs€contention€regarding€the€point€in€time€toÏbe€used€for€cap€statute€purposes€when€dealing€with€noneconomicÏdamages€for€mesothelioma€and€accept€appellantsðð€position€on€thisÏissue.€€Consequently,€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€juryÏinstruction:€€the€critical€point€in€time€that€was€posed€to€the€juryÏshould€not€have€been€whether€appellee€had€experienced€òòcellularÐ €Ð Ðchangeóó€before€July€1,€1986;€the€question€should€have€insteadÐ `° Ðpertained€to€whether€appellee€had€òòcontracted€mesotheliomaóó€beforeÐ @ ÐJuly€1,€1986.ÌÓÓà@ô ô ìàò òIII€€Dr.€Dementððs€expert€testimonyó óˆÐ °"" ÐÌÓñ2Óà  àAppellants€contend€that€the€trial€court,€by€allowing€Dr.ÏDement€to€testify€concerning€the€work€of€Dr.€Longo,€improperlyÏallowed€the€introduction€of€inadmissible€hearsay.€€AppellantsÏfurther€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€Dr.€DementÏto€testify€outside€of€his€area€of€expertise€based€on€this€allegedlyÏinadmissible€hearsay.€€A€motion€òòin€limineóó€was€filed€raising€theÐ 8,ˆ'. Ðissue€of€whether€the€report€by€Dr.€Longo€was€of€the€type€reliedÏupon€by€experts€in€a€particular€field€so€as€to€be€admissible€underÏMaryland€Rule€5„703(a).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€At€the€hearing€on€this€motion,€theÐ Ð  Ðfollowing€occurred:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓThe€Court:€€The€next€is€Lorillardððs€motion€to€¼à0 ¸ àexclude€Dr.€William€Longoððs€testimony€andÏevidence€experiments€conducted€by€MAS.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌMr.€Geary€[Counsel€for€Lorillard]:€€We€would€€¼à0 ¸ àadopt€appropriate€Maryland€law€and€runÏwith€it.€€Your€Honor€I€think€what€weÏwould€suggest€on€that€issue,€Your€Honor,Ïas€we€approach€the€day€when€Dr.€Longo€isÏgoing€to€testify,€which€I€think€isÏseveral€weeks€off,€we€might€discuss€thatÏissue,€but€I€donððt€think€we€will€approachÏthe€issue€at€this€time.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌThe€Court:€òòYou€are€withdrawing€your€motion€Ð à0 Ðà0 ¸ àthen?óóÐÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌMr.€Geary:€€Your€Honor,€that€is€correct.€€ÌÌÒ°` H6ÒÒ°` V6Ò(Emphasis€supplied.)ÌÌÓd6Óà  àIt€is€thus€clear€that€appellants€had€withdrawn€their€motion€òòinÐ ¨ø Ðlimineóó.€€Before€Dr.€Dement€actually€began€to€testify,€LorillardÐ ˆØ Ðpreserved€this€issue€for€appeal,€as€it€had€requested€and€wasÏgranted€a€continuing€objection€to€any€reference€to€Dr.€LongoððsÏwork.€€H&V€did€not€ask€for€a€continuing€objection,€and€did€not€joinÏin€on€Lorillardððs€continuing€objection.€€H&Vððs€failure€to€preserveÐ $h' Ðthis€contention€is€irrelevant,€however,€as€we€have€already€ruledÏthat€its€motion€to€dismiss€for€lack€of€personal€jurisdiction€shouldÏhave€been€granted.€€The€continuing€objection€by€Lorillard€wasÏgranted€after€Mr.€Geary€(counsel€for€Lorillard)€stated:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ[¢W]e£€have€some€criticisms€of€what€[Dr.€Longo]Ïdid.€€Without€him€being€here,€we€wonððt€be€ableÏto€cross„examine€him,€but€we€understand€otherÏwitnesses,€including€Dr.€Dement€today,€willÏtalk€about€the€work€of€Dr.€Longo,€what€sort€ofÏmaterials€have€been€provided€to€him.€€And€ourÏobjection,€Your€Honor,€is€that€that€would€beÏpure€hearsay.€ÌÌÒ°` g<ÒÒ°` u<ÒÓƒ<Óà  àContinuing€objections€have€only€recently€become€a€recognizedÏpart€of€Maryland€trial€practice.€€Rule€2-517(b)€provides€that,€atÏthe€request€of€a€party€or€on€its€own€initiative,€the€court€mayÏgrant€a€continuing€objection€to€a€line€of€questions€by€an€opposingÏparty.€€For€purposes€of€review€by€the€trial€court€or€on€appeal,€theÏcontinuing€objection€is€effective€only€as€to€questions€clearlyÏwithin€its€scope.€€òòSchreiber€v.€Cherry€Hill€Construction€Co.,€Inc.,Ð X¨ Ðóó105€Md.€App.€462,€482,€660€A.2d€970,€òòcert.€deniedóó,€340€Md.€500,€667Ð 8ˆ ÐA.2d€341€(1995).€€We€find€that€the€continuing€objection€in€thisÏinstance€was€specific€and€that€the€testimony€being€objected€to€wasÏwithin€the€scope€of€this€objection.€€Ìà  àDr.€Dement€was€properly€offered€as€an€expert,€at€which€timeÏthe€trial€judge€asked€appellants'€counsel€whether€they€wished€toÏcross„examine€the€doctor€regarding€his€qualifications.€€AppellantsÏdeclined€to€do€so.€€Dr.€Dement€testified€as€to€several€mattersÏbefore€he€was€questioned€about€Dr.€Longoððs€publication.€€That€Ïparticular€questioning€transpired€as€follows:Ð ˜+è&1 ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓQ:à0 ¸ àI€want€to€ask€you€a€little€bit€about€KentÐ ° Ðcigarettes.€€Can€you€tell€us,€Doctor,Ïwhether€or€not€you€are€familiar€with€theÏfact€that,€during€the€period€of€time€fromÏ1952€to€1956,€Kent€cigarettes€were€madeÏwith€a€micronite€filter?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌA:à0 ¸ àI€am€certainly€familiar€with€that€fromÐ ( x Ðsome€published€reports,€yesÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌQ:à0 ¸ àWhat€is€your€familiarity,€Doctor?Ѐ Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌA:à0 ¸ àWell,€Iððm€familiar€with€the€publications,Ð `  Ðfirst€of€all,€that€looked€at€workers€inÏthe€factory€that€actually€made€theÏfilter,€some€epidemiology€studies.€€AndÏthere€is€also€a€study€by€Dr.€LongoÏpublished€in€the€literature€that€reviewedÏthat€circumstance€and€also€release€ofÏfibers€as€well.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌQ:à0 ¸ àYou€have€reviewed€the€Dr.€Longo€study?Ðh¸ x¸ x ЀÌ:à ` àA:à0 ¸ àI€have.Шø¸ x¸ x ÐÌQ:à0 ¸ àAnd€the€jury€has€heard€testimony€aboutÐ 8ˆ ÐKent€cigarette€makersðð€attempts€to€reduceÏor€eliminate€mineral€fiber€exposure€fromÏthe€cigarette€smoke.€€What€does€Dr.ÏLongoððs€study€tell€us€in€that€regard?Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðà ¸ àÌA:à0 ¸ àWell,€Dr.€Longoððs€studies€demonstratedÐ è8 Ðthat€these€filters,€these€cigaretteÏfilters€were€„„€released€fibers€in€itsÏexperimental€circumstances,€so€theyÏcertainly€released€fibers€that€would€beÏin€the€smoke.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌQ:à0 ¸ àIt€seems€to€make€common€sense€to€me,€butÐ `"°& ÐI€will€ask€the€question€anyway.€€If€theÏcigarette€fibers€are€releasing€fibers€inÏthe€smoke,€where€are€those€fibers€going?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌMr.€Geary:€Your€honor,€I€object.€€It€is€¼à0 ¸ àargumentative.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌThe€Court:€I€will€strike€the€portion€regardingÏà0 ¸ àcommon€sense.€€The€balance€is€overruled.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌA:à0 ¸ àOf€course,€smoke€is€designed€to€beÐ ø*H&1 Ðinhaled.€€And€if€it€comes€in€the€smoke,Ïit€is€going€to€be€inhaled.Ј,Ø'3¸ x¸ x ЇQ:à0 ¸ àDoctor,€is€the€inhalation€of€crocidoliteÐ ° Ðfibers€a€hazard€to€the€health€of€humanÏbeings?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌA:à0 ¸ àIn€my€opinion,€yes,€sir.ÐÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌQ:à0 ¸ àAnd€what€do€you€base€that€on?Ð` °¸ x¸ x ÐÌA:à0 ¸ àThe€epidemiology,€published€information.Ðð @¸ x¸ x ÐÌQ:à0 ¸ àIn€that€scenario€where€the€human€being€isÐ € Ð  Ðinhaling€the€fibers€directly€from€theÏcigarette€filter,€is€there€any€safe€levelÏof€asbestos€that€that€individual€canÏinhale,€crocidolite€asbestos,€in€yourÏopinion,€Doctor?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌA:à0 ¸ àNo.€€There€is€no€„€„€again,€there€is€noÐ øH  Ðestablished€threshold€below€which€thereÏis€no€risk€of€disease.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÒ°` ·BÒÒ°` ©BÒÓÅBÓà  àAppellee€argues€that,€even€if€Dr.€Dementððs€testimony€wasÏerroneously€admitted€over€proper€objections,€the€juryððs€verdictÏshould€be€affirmed€because€it€was€effectively€cumulative€and,Ïtherefore,€harmless€error,€as€other€evidence€admitted€at€trialÏproduced€the€same€results.€€As€examples,€appellee€cites€to€theÏtestimonies€by€Dr.€Brody€and€Dr.€Rubin,€as€well€as€the€study€by€theÏFullam€Laboratory.׃%×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×à  àIt€is,€of€course,€true€that€the€erroneousÐ xÈ! Ðadmission€of€evidence€will€not€justify€reversal€unless€theÏcomplaining€party€can€show€that€the€admission€was€prejudicial.€ÏòòKapiloff€v.€Lockeóó,€276€Md.€466,€472,€348€A.2d€967€(1975);Ð (#x' ÐòòKlingensmith€v.€Snell€Landscapeóó,€265€Md.€654,€662,€291€A.2d€56Ð %X ) Ð(1972);€€òòMcKay€v.€Paulsonóó,€211€Md.€90,€126€A.2d€296€(1956).€Ð è&8"+ ÐHowever,€it€is€also€clear€that€this€Court€will€not€hesitate€toÏreverse€when€hearsay€evidence€is€erroneously€admitted€and€prejudiceÏis€shown.€€òòKapiloff,€óó276€Md.€at€472.€€The€burden€of€provingÐ Ð  Ðprejudice€in€a€civil€case€is€on€the€complaining€party,€here,€theÏappellants.€€òòKlingensmithóó,€265€Md.€at€662;€òòM.A.€Realty€v.€StateÐ @  ÐRoadsóó,€247€Md.€522,€527,€233€A.2d€793€(1967);€€òòState€Roads€Comm.€v.Ð  p  ÐKuenneóó,€240€Md.€232,€235,€213€A.2d€567€(1965).Ð P  Ðà  àIn€the€present€case,€we€do€not€believe€that€appellants€haveÏmet€their€burden€of€proving€prejudice.€€Appellee€has€shown€that€theÏadmission€of€Dr.€Dementððs€testimony€was€in€fact€harmless€error,€andÏdoes€not€constitute€grounds€for€reversal.€€We€need€only€look€toÏtestimony€by€Dr.€Rubin€on€the€subject€to€arrive€at€this€conclusion.€ÏThe€relevant€portion€of€Dr.€Rubinððs€testimony€adduced:€€ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓQ:à0 ¸ à...do€you€have€an€opinion€to€a€reasonableÐ @ Ðmedical€certainty€as€to€whether€or€notÏMr.€Connorððs€exposure€to€Kent€cigarettesÏwas€a€substantial€contributing€factor€inÏhis€developing€of€mesothelioma?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌA:à0 ¸ àYes,€I€do.Ðð@ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌQ:à0 ¸ àAnd€what€is€your€opinion?Ѐ Ð"¸ x¸ x ÐÌA:à0 ¸ àMy€opinion€is€that€it€was€a€substantialÐ "`$ Ðcontributing€factor€to€his€development€ofÏmesothelioma.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌQ:à0 ¸ àWhat€is€the€basis€of€that,€Doctor?Ð0%€ (¸ x¸ x ÐÌA:à0 ¸ àThe€basis€is€that€this€„€„€first€of€all,Ð À&"* Ðwe€know€that€crocidolite€is€a€potentÏcarcinogen,€as€we€have€talked€earlier,Ïthe€most€potent€or€among€the€most€potentÏof€the€asbestos€fibers€in€producingÏcancer.€€This€was€asbestos€that€was€putÏup€directly€against€his€respiratory€tractÏthat€he€was€breathing€through.€€And€IÐ 8,ˆ'1 Ðthink€it€is€highly€likely,€given€thatÏinformation€that€there€were€asbestosÏfibers€that€were€released€from€theseÏfilters€that€were€respirable,€that€wereÏdeposited€into€his€respiratory€tract€and,Ïtherefore,€contributed€to€the€asbestosÏburden€in€his€lung€that€ultimately€led€toÏhis€development€of€mesothelioma.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÒ°` ëUÒÒ°` ùUÒÓVÓà  àThus,€although€the€trial€judge€may€have€erroneously€admittedÏDr.€Dementððs€testimony,€this€was€harmless€error,€as€there€was€otherÏtestimony€that€used€similar€language€and€produced€similar€results.€Ïà@øøìàò òIV€Sufficiency€of€Evidence€relating€to€Kent€filtersó óˆÐ h¸  Ðà  àAppellants€filed€Motions€for€Judgment€and/or€for€New€Trial€onÏtwo€grounds€involving€the€Kent€filters.€€First,€appellants€contendÏthat€appellee€did€not€produce€sufficient€evidence€that€KentÏcigarettes€actually€caused€his€disease,€as€there€was€doubt€raisedÏby€appellants€as€to€whether€he€smoked€the€cigarettes€at€a€time€whenÏthe€asbestos€filters€were€being€used.€€Second,€appellants€contendÏthat,€assuming€he€did€actually€smoke€the€cigarettes€with€theÏasbestos€filters,€appellee€nonetheless€failed€to€introduce€evidenceÏthat€the€Kent€filter€released€asbestos€in€amounts€sufficient€toÏcause€his€mesothelioma.€Ìà  àThere€was€testimony€adduced€at€trial€that€supported€appelleeððsÏcontention€that€Kent€cigarettes€caused€his€disease,€and€that€heÏsmoked€Kent€cigarettes€at€a€time€when€they€contained€asbestosÏfilters.€€That€matter€is€beyond€review.€€The€jury€had€anÏopportunity€to€assess€appelleeððs€credibility,€as€well€as€theÏcredibility€of€his€witnesses.€€Appellants€had€an€opportunity€atÏtrial€to€question€appellee€and€his€witnesses€regarding€theseÐ H+˜&1 Ðclaims.€€Whether€testimony€at€trial€was€credible€goes€to€the€weightÏof€the€evidence,€rather€than€its€sufficiency.€€òòSeeóó€òòBinnie€v.€Stateóó,Ð @ Ð321€Md.€572,€580,€583€A.2d€1037€(1991).€€Weighing€the€credibilityÏof€witnesses€and€resolving€any€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€tasksÏproper€for€the€fact€finder.€€òòIdóó.;€òòMcKinney€v.€Stateóó,€82€Md.€App.Ð @  Ð111,€117,€570€A.2d€360,€òòcert.€deniedóó,€320€Md.€222€(1990).€€InÐ  p  Ðperform‚ing€this€role,€the€fact„finder€has€the€discre‚tion€to€decideÏwhich€evidence€to€credit€and€which€to€reject.€€òòSeeóó€òòVelez€v.€Stateóó,Ð à  Ð106€Md.€App.€194,€202,€664€A.2d€387€(1995),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€341€Md.Ð pÀ  Ð173€(1996)€("'[¢I]t£€is€the€exclusive€function€of€the€jury€to€drawÏreasonable€inferences€from€proven€facts.'"€(quoting€òòMcMillianóó,€325Ð à0 ÐMd.€at€290,€600€A.2d€430€(1992)).€€In€this€regard,€it€may€believeÏpart€of€a€particular€witness's€testimony€but€disbe‚lieve€otherÏparts.€€òòSeeóó€òòPugh€v.€Stateóó,€103€Md.€App.€624,€651,€654€A.2d€888,Ð à0 Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€339€Md.€355€(1995).€Ð À Ðà  àThe€jury€was€free€to€believe€all,€part,€or€none€of€theÏtestimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòMuir€v.€Stateóó,€64€Md.€App.€648,€654,€498€A.2d€666Ð 0 €  Ð(1985),€òòvacated€and€remanded€on€other€groundsóó,€308€Md.€208,€517Ð "`" ÐA.2d€1105€(1986).€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denyingÏappellantsðð€motion€for€judgment€and/or€new€trial€due€toÏinsufficient€evidence€produced€by€appellee.€€€€Ìà@TT ìàò òV€Motion€to€Revise€or€Reopen€Judgment/Exhumation€of€Body€€ó óˆÐ  (ð#* Ðà  àAppellants€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€their€Ïmotion€to€reopen€and€revise€the€judgment€and€to€dismiss€appelleeððsÐ ,`'. Ðclaims€based€on€the€refusal€by€appelleeððs€family€and€counsel€toÏpreserve€appelleeððs€lung€tissue€as€requested€by€appellants.€ÏAppellants€argue€that€availability€of€the€lung€tissue€would€haveÏpresented€appellants€with€an€opportunity€to€analyze€the€fiberÏburden€of€the€tissue€in€order€to€determine€causation€of€theÏmesothelioma.€€Appellants€further€contend€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€denying€appellantsðð€alternative€request€for€an€order€toÏexhume€plaintiffððs€body€so€that€the€lung€tissue€could€be€obtainedÏand€tested.€€Appellants€accuse€appellee€of€deliberate€spoliation€ofÏthe€evidence€resulting€from€the€burial€of€plaintiffððs€body€withoutÏthe€removal€and€testing€of€plaintiffððs€lung€tissue.€Ìà  àCourt€orders€denying€motions€are€reviewed€on€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€standard.€€òòCooper€v.€Sacco€et€al.óó,€357€Md.€622,€745€A.2dÐ pÀ Ð1074€(2000).€€Appellants€have€failed€to€meet€their€burden€toÏdemonstrate€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€denyingÏtheir€requests.Ìà  àAppellants€have€presented€not€the€slightest€suspicion€of€aÏdeliberate€spoliation€of€evidence;€€appellants€astoundingly€compareÏthe€burial€of€a€loved€one€to€the€destruction€of€documents.€€InÏòòKlupt€v.€Krongardóó,€126€Md.€App.€179,€728€A.2d€727€(1999),€thisÐ °"& ÐCourt€identified€the€elements€that€must€be€established€in€order€toÏdemonstrate€that€there€has€been€a€destruction€of€evidence.€€TheÏòòKluptóó€Court€reiterated€a€recent€decision€of€the€United€StatesÐ °'#, ÐDistrict€Court€for€Maryland,€which€clearly€laid€out€the€consensusÏrules€for€sanctioning€destruction€of€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòWhite€v.€OfficeÐ  +p&0 Ðof€the€Public€Defender,€óó170€F.R.D.€138,€147-48€(D.€Md.€1997).€€TheÐ ° ÐòòWhite€óóCourt€identified€four€elements€generally€regarded€as€beingÐ à Ðprerequisite€to€a€court's€imposition€of€spoliation€sanctions:€€(1)ÏAn€act€of€destruction;€(2)€Discoverability€of€the€evidence;€(3)€AnÏintent€to€destroy€the€evidence;€and€(4)€Occurrence€of€the€act€at€aÏtime€after€suit€has€been€filed,€or,€if€before,€at€a€time€when€theÏfiling€is€fairly€perceived€as€imminent.€€òòIdóó.€at€147.€€Ð °  Ðà  àAppelleeððs€family,€in€their€efforts€to€respect€the€rights€ofÏthe€deceased,€vestigial€though€they€be,€understandingly€shrunk€backÏfrom€appellantsðð€requests€to€exhume€and€disfigure€the€deceasedÏplaintiffððs€body.€€We€concede€that€many€dollars€are€contingent€uponÏthe€outcome€of€this€case;€nonetheless,€we€do€not€place€cash€beforeÏconscience.€€Appellants€were€certainly€aware€of€the€lethal€natureÏof€mesothelioma,€and€could€have€taken€the€procedural€stepsÏnecessary,€earlier€in€this€action,€in€order€to€obtain€or€preserveÏthe€evidence€they€desired€without€having€to€ask€for€the€exhumationÏof€the€body.€€They€elected€not€to€go€through€discovery€proceduresÏto€request€a€biopsy€or€for€the€preservation€of€the€lung€tissue.€€WeÏfind€it€unconscionable€that€appellants€now€denounce€appelleeððs€nextÏof€kin€and€counsel€for€ð ðdeliberate€spoliation€of€evidence,ðð€simplyÐ P# & Ðbecause€they€arranged€for€their€loved„oneððs€burial.Ìà  àAlthough€plaintiffððs€body€had€obvious€evidentiary€value€inÏthis€case,€we€perceive€no€"deliberate€spoliation€of€evidence."€€TheÏdeceasedððs€family€properly€disposed€of€the€body€as€would€beÏexpected€in€the€circumstances.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€rulingsÐ  +p&0 Ðregarding€the€denial€of€appellantsðð€motions€to€review€or€reopenÏjudgment€and€to€dismiss,€or,€in€the€alternative,€for€exhumation€ofÏthe€plaintiffððs€body.Ìà@  ìàVI€à@@È È ìàòòSettlement€Credits€under€Tortfeasor€ActóóˆÐ ` ° Ðà  àAppellants€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€themÏcredi