A Civil Action Summary

1) The main problem of the movie “A civil action” emerged with a phone call. Anne Anderson, after finding that her child is diagnosed with leukemia, as well as many other children in the city, gathered with the other families that were suffering the same situation; and contact with a small firm of personal injury lawyers, led by a famous and respectable man called Jan Schlichtmann. However, as she got not answer from the buffet, she contacted again with it the next year, in this chance with Jan. She questioned his lack of interest in the case, and noticed him what happened during the year he didn’t take the case: her son, as many others from neighbor’s families, has died. And she blames a tannery and a factory in Woburn, of dumping toxic chemicals on the ground, and of being responsible of those deaths. The poison got into the water table and was pumped by two wells into the drinking water. This, as Anne explained to Jan, caused the death of eight neighborhood children of leukemia. Their families sue Beatrice Foods and W. R. Grace, the mega-firms responsible for pollution, but, Anne made clear something: rather than receiving money, what she expected from this firms is their forgiveness, watching them assuming the responsibilities on what they have done.

The problem for Jan started when he doubt whether he should take the case or not, because he knew that if he did, he would have to face big important companies, the lack of sufficient evidence, a costly trial and the huge risk of not succeeding. But overall, he knew it would be a case where he would found quite difficult to keep his feelings apart from.

2) The problem affects lots of people, in different ways. Firstly, all the families that had suffered the pollution of the tanneries in the worst way: with the loss of someone beloved, in this case, their sons and daughters. They are, obviously, affected by this case, and that’s why they claimed for justice. Besides, the tanneries themselves got affected when the threat of a sue started to emerge: a sue for firms as famous as those, would have ruin their reputation, and result quite unprofitable. Moreover, how the case develops and get close also affects the firm of lawyers of Jan Schlichtmann, as their career depends on the success of that kind of cases. As the three parts (the families, the tanneries and the firm of lawyers) are directly affected by this problem, it is correct to affirm that, as they all have interests committed, it is quite impossible for them to be entirely reasonable at the moment of presenting the facts, in order to defend themselves.

3) The people involved are the following:

 In the judge: Walter J Skinner

 Afflicted families:

 Anderson, Anne & Charles – son Jimmy (leukemia victim)

 Aufiero, Richard & Lauren – son Jarrod (leukemia victim)

 Gamache, Roland (leukemia victim)

 Kane, Kevin & Patricia – son Kevin Jr. (leukemia victim)

 Nagle – son (leukemia victim)

 Robbins, Donna & Carl – son Carl III (Robbie) (leukemia victim)

 Toomey, Richard & Mary – son Patrick (leukemia victim)

 Zona, Joan – son Michael (leukemia victim)

 Attorneys for plaintiffs

 Jan Schlichtmann – picked up case at M&R, did most of work

 Joe Mulligan – originally took case, passed it to Schlichtmann who was working for M&R at the time.

 Kevin Conway – worked for Mulligan & Reed, with Jan Schlichtmann

 Anthony Roisman – rep. of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, put funds into case

 Charlie Nesson – Harvard Law professor who worked with them on case, gave advice regarding legal theories, etc.

 Attorneys for defendants

 William Cheeseman: for Grace.

 Jerome Facher (May, 1982): for Beatrice. Part-time professor at Harvard.

 Neil Jacobs: for Beatrice.

 Michael Keating: for Grace

 Medical expert witnesses

 Scientific witnesses (geologists, and experts in hydrology and ground water)

 Key witnesses from Grace, they include Grace’s: painter, plant manager, groundwater expert, glacial morphology, the maintenance man at Grace plant, the electrician, among others.

 Key witnesses from Beatrice: includes the soil chemist, the verdict of an engineer, one of its workers that was victim of a lung cancer, and the manager of the Beatrice tannery.

4) Jan firstly rejects the invitation of taking the case. He originally decided this, due to both the lack of evidence and a clear defendant. Besides, he alleged it would be too costly and unprofitable for the firm. They had “too much to loose”, and few chances to win.

However, Jan after visiting the families and the city, and seeing how the activities of these defendant companies affected the environment by polluting the water, changed his mind: he decided to go forward against the two giant corporations (real-life companies Beatrice Foods and W. R. Grace and Company) with links to the tanneries, thinking that the case could possibly earn him millions, as well as enhancing his and his firm's already considerable reputations. Besides, the fact of watching the devastated families and all their suffer, also affected him: he got involved emotionally, and from that moment, he was unable of rejecting the case.

5) We think that we would have taken the case, since, regardless the cost that must have entailed, this case seems to be quite interesting and complex; and we consider that it is important to have someone fighting for the cause. Mainly because of the many families that had suffered the death of their children, and need someone to give them explanations; someone to assume the responsibilities of what they have done. The families are not looking for money, but for truth. And for that truth to come to the surface, they need someone to stand strong and defend the cause. And we would like to be that person, not only because it feels as it is the right thing to do, but also as a moral response. We would assume the risks necessaries in order

...