With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1987), appeal dismissed, 129 Ill.Dec. 387, 536 N.E.2d 71 (1989)). Illinois courts, like Maryland courts, consider the frequency, proximity, and regularity of a plaintiffs exposure to the asbestos product when determining whether a particular product was a substantial cause of a plaintiffs illness. Excluding, as irrelevant, the evidence of a decedent’s exposure to asbestos products of non-parties does not lessen the plaintiffs burden of proving that the defendant’s product was a substantial cause of his injury. Moreover, the defendant can still negate liability by showing that the plaintiff was not exposed to its products, that any exposure was insufficient to cause injury, or that its products contained an insufficient amount of asbestos to cause injury. See Kochan, 1 Tex.Ct.App.1991) (<HOLDING>). E. Johns-Manville Sales to Fairfield

A: holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial
B: holding that it was harmless error for the trial court to exclude testimony regarding other insolvent companies
C: holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony
D: holding that it was error though harmless to exclude the defendant from inchamber conferences
B.