WF: Thank you for your explanation. I must admit I was puzzled that Continental's defense case seemed so focused on trying to establish that the fire has started before the tire burst. To me, it would have seemed more logical that it should have focused on the contributory negligence of AF and Aeroports de Paris. But maybe its goal was to hit a "home run" (i.e., be found completely non-culpable) rather than simply to establish that they were but one of several aligning holes in the swiss cheese.