Iron Duck
I havent read the trial transcript (can't read French) but from news reports and the comments posted here I've gained the impression that Continental's lawyers didn't directly challenge Concorde's airworthiness, but went to great lengths to try to establish a preexisting fire that mitigated the influence of the titanium strip, and therefore the culpability and liability of their client. Please correct me if I have this wrong.
So all in all, Continental's argument appears to me to have been examined and found wanting.
I have no idea if you have this right or wrong and that is why I questioned its validity.
I am aware of that argument and of course just the fact that the argument persists would be logically pointed out by
any lawyer for examination and weighting.. Of more interest and assignment to a party defense would have been their evidence that their expert's facts supported the argument.
The unanswered question itself would have mitigated assignment of blame.