Film: A Civil Action

In Business Insider article “This is Why Juries Shouldn’t Decide Court Cases” Erin Fuchs argues that court cases in the US shouldn’t be resolved by Juries. Erin Fuchs is completely correct. Cases should not be solved by bias and inexperienced and unwillingness people in law. In the article Professor Peter Van Koppen compared jurors to unequipped people acting as your doctors. In his 2009 essay it states “you wouldn’t want a panel of lay people acting as doctors.” This comparison makes a lot of sense. If you were a “criminal” and you had a case that meant life or death, would you want some bias and not prepared random people off the streets choosing if you are going to die or live? Some horrible criminals get big breaks because some unprepared

In the past, the jury learned from the forensic scientists’ testimony; but now, they’re learning from television and a lot of reality shows. Consequently, what they’re learning is not necessarily what is actually done (Honeycutt). However, those jurors who watch criminal investigation television shows do believe that what they’re seeing on TV is what does go on in real life and they expect to see it in court. This is because, according to Shelton, “the more frequently jurors watched a given program, the more accurate they perceived it to be.”

In class, we have learned many important topics in the legal, ethical, and regulatory environment of business. However in the classroom setting, we have examined each of these topics individually. Jonathan Harr’s A Civil Action allows us to see how the topics learned relate to one another in the context of a real world setting. His book provides an engaging read about the legal practice action while connecting the topics of the relationship between law, business, and ethics; the court system and litigation; alternative dispute resolution; and the nature of the corporation. A Civil Action complements the material learned in class, and it helps to create an overall cohesiveness between the topics learned in class that

The citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act is an important tool to protect and improve rivers, creeks, streams, and wetlands especially as state agencies may not have the resources to conduct regular water quality monitoring on every water body. Citizen involvement in monitoring and reporting pollution problems is key to watershed protection; hereby helping the government enforce the laws.

Our journal for the third week of class was to watch the movie A Civil Action, since we would not be in class. This movie was interesting because Jan Schlichtmann who was originally a greedy personal injury lawyer decides to take on case due to the potentially large settlement involved. Unfortunately, the case eventually bankrupted him and his staff. At the end of the movie, the viewer is able to see that he did not continue the case for the money once he began understand the entire situation. This movie chronicled the progression of Schlichtmann accepting the case to becoming broke. Because the movie carefully showed the underlying issues of water contamination in Woburn, Michigan. This allowed the viewer to understand that there is a fair amount of meetings and negotiations that happen behind the scenes in the legal system. Despite the fact that he was a talented lawyer who could negotiate. It was awfully apparent that in the short term the legal team with the most money and power would win the case, but not in the long run. When Schlichtmann decided to hand the case to the EPA they were able to out power and outspend Beatrice foods, Riley Tannery and chemical company W.R Grace; the companies involved in the water contamination issue.

A Civil Action is a true story based on a law case between the defendants, W.R Grace and Beatriz, and the plaintiffs, Schlichtmann Conway & Crowley. After a tragic accidents happen in a small town called Woburn, Massachusetts, families of their lost ones seek help at a personal injury law offices of Schlichtmann Conway & Crowley. After several weeks of unreturned calls, Ann Anderson, a parents who lost her son to Leukemia, brought it to Jan Schlichtmann, the head lawyer of the firms attention. Deciding that there was no possible case, Mr. Schlichtmann turned down the families, only to accept the case after seeing the possible income his firm could receive. “Who is going to apologize to you and pay me.” [1] Soon after, the plaintiff's, Jan Schlichtmann and his firm, file a complaint to the two companies responsible for the accidents in Woburn, W.R Grace and Beatriz.

Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

In the movie “The Civil Action” Jan is a lawyer at a law firm which uses Ethical Relativism in most of the movie because they think that the more money they get for their clients, the happier they will become or just because they get a large settlement, it’s going to solve their clients problems. After seeing the a contaminated water and the damage done to the families he was representing, Jan thought he was going to strike gold and win a massive amount of money from the company he was going against. The families didn’t care about the money because they all lost something to the polluted water the factory was giving off, and all they wanted was an apology and and for the company to clean up the place so no more children would die. Progressing

Let's face it: The entire story of the United States of America has its dark chapters, passages it does not want to repeat -- not ever.

A bench trial, the judge only hears the facts, evidence, and if the defendant looks like they did it. One juror could save a defendant's life because in 12 Angry Men it stated, “There were eleven votes for guilty. It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” Juror number eight has a point in a jury trial. It is not easy to vote for guilty. He had a reasonable doubt to vote not guilty. “I don’t know” it stated in 12 Angry Men. Juror number 8 just wanted to talk about the situation. This is a reason why a jury trial is more preferable a judge wouldn’t hesitate and give the defendant life in imprisonment. With all the evidence given a judge would have had a final verdict by now. One man stood up and helped the defendant to find him not guilty. This could happen anywhere in a jury trial. If anything jurors could change their vote to not guilty to guilty or the other way around. In a jury trial the jurors could change their vote. “ FOREMAN. I vote guilty. Number two?TWO. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Three?THREE. Guilty. FOREMAN. Number Four?FOUR. Guilty.FOREMAN. Number Five? FIVE. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Six? SIX. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Seven? SEVEN. Guilty.FOREMAN. Number Eight?EIGHT. Not guilty.FOREMAN. Number Nine?NINE. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Ten?TEN. Guilty .FOREMAN. Number Eleven? ELEVEN. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Twelve? TWELVE. Guilty. FOUR. Six to six.” They all voted not guilty it was all tied up.

In the film, A Civil Action, Trial Procedure was shown throughout the entire movie. There are many steps that need to be completed before a verdict and judgment can be reached. These steps are the pleadings, methods of discovery, pretrial hearings, jury selection, opening statements, introduction of evidence, cross examinations, closing arguments, instructions to the jury, and the verdict and judgment. The case in this movie was actually called Anderson v. Cryovac. The plaintiffs are the Anderson family, the Gamache family, the Kane family, the Robbins family, the Toomey family, and the Zona family. The plaintiffs’ attorneys are Jan Schlichtmann, Joe Mulligan, Anthony Roisman, Charlie Nesson, and Kevin Conway. The two co- defendants are

Jonathan Harr wrote a compelling novel, called A Civil Action, on the actual events of a thrilling court case involving two major corporations and the families who were affected greatly. In Woburn, Massachusetts there were twenty-eight children who contracted acute lymphocytic leukemia between the years of 1964 and 1986. The explanation for the contraction of the disease and even the death of some of the children was discovered in the water; two municipal wells near the town were found to be contaminated with toxic chemicals. Eight families filed suit against W.R. Grace & Co. and Beatrice Foods Inc., accusing them for the contamination of the wells and the death of their children. The families only wanted an apology and the truth but when

In “A Civil Action” movie, a group of families (Toomeys, Auferios, Andersons, Kaynes and Robbins) from Woburn, Massachusetts hired Jan Schlichtmann, a personal-injury lawyer, to help represent them against the local tannery because multiple children in the town had died of leukemia and the families believed the local water supply was responsible.(1) The residents claimed that the water was, “foul and ill-smelling”. (1) Mr Schlichtmann knew it was a orphan case because no other law firm would want to spend the capital needed to prove the town’s wells were contaminated. After visiting the town, he agreed to fight for these families mainly for the money,

Trial by Jury and Alternatives to It In order to decide whether or not trial by jury should or should not

Safe Drinking Water Act, passed in 1974 and amended in 1988 allows the Environmental Protection Agency to be vigilant against pollutants that would damage drinking water. In so doing it protects the environment from pollutants that would not be mitigated properly. Industrial waste both hazardous and no hazardous are regulated along with oil, gas spills and radioactive. Other political pollution prevention initiatives were banning of chlorofluorocarbons, act to prevent pollution from ships and the Superfund Act that deals with liability and clean up of hazardous material that has been