For many years, the Funch Gum Company sold a product that it called "aspargum," a low-calorie gum made from asparagus and other ingredients. Although aspargum never enjoyed great success in the market, it did prove very popular with a small number of people. Clint was one such person. He chewed aspargum almost daily for nearly two decades. Several years ago, however, aspargum was taken off the market when it was discovered to cause several forms of cancer, including mouth cancer. Clint was recently diagnosed with mouth cancer and has sued Funch. Funch admits that it owed a duty of care to Clint, and that it had carelessly sold a product that it should have known was carcinogenic. It insists, however, that Clint's cancer was not caused by the aspargum but by the cigarettes that he smoked over the same period. In fact, the evidence indicates that there is a 60 percent chance that the cancer was caused by the aspargum and a 40 percent chance that it was caused by smoking. Assuming that Clint's damages are valued at $1 000 000, how much should he actually receive? Should Funch's liability be reduced to $600 000 to reflect the possibility that the cancer was caused by cigarettes? Explain your answer.