The book, A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr, tells the story of a civil case that took place in Woburn, Massachusetts. It explores various issues within the tort law system and engages readers with its compelling narrative. What makes this story unique is its connection to real events. Personally, I found the book to be more immersive and emotionally powerful compared to its film adaptation. The lawyers and families involved in the case made significant sacrifices as they worked to prove two companies' responsibility for the pollution at hand.
The Woburn case began when Anne Anderson grew suspicious after her son, Jimmy, was diagnosed with leukemia in 1966. During his treatment, Anne connected with her neighbors and discovered two other cases of childhood leukemia nearby. She formed a friendship with Joan Zona, another mother whose son had leukemia, and togethe
...r they questioned why this disease seemed so prevalent in their community. Initially dismissed as coincidence, Anne became determined to investigate the underlying reasons behind this phenomenon.
Concerns about water contamination in Woburn emerged in 1965 when wells G and H were drilled to provide water for eastern Woburn. Complaints about water quality and rusty pipes led to occasional shutdowns of these wells before they were eventually closed permanently.
Anne expressed her concerns to her family doctor, church minister, and husband but they did not consider them valid. In 1979, the situation escalated when an inspector tested the water and reported the findings to the environmental department in Woburn. Consequently, the department ordered an immediate closure of wells G and H.
On September 10, 1979, headlines revealed that arsenic had been discovered
in a lagoon located in northern Woburn. At that point, there were already eight documented cases of leukemia in Woburn, predominantly acute lymphocytic leukemia. After four additional cases emerged, certain families in Woburn decided to take legal action.
Initially representing families such as Zona's, Kane's , Robbins', Anderson's ,and Toomey's was Joe Mulligan who did not invest much effort into the case before passing it on to Jan Schlichtmann. Jan was an ambitious young lawyer known for his stubbornness and self-destructive nature with a penchant for luxury living and a passion for law. Despite opposition from his partner Conway and others who believed that winning the complex Woburn case would be difficult; Jan decided to pursue the case despite its reputation as "a black hole." The case, known as the Woburn case involved investigating W.R. Grace's and Beatrice's land for contaminants.It was triggered by the discovery of trichloroethylene (TCE) on the land.Cheeseman, representing W.R. Grace, and Jerome Facher, representing Beatrice, were the opposing lawyers in the case. Schlichtmann discovered barrels of chemicals on Beatrice's land and found reports stating that trucks had removed these barrels. He then conducted a process of discovery, questioning witnesses from both Grace and Beatrice including family members and employees. The depositions given by the families were emotionally charged as they recounted the illnesses and deaths of their children. These depositions, along with J.J Riley's deposition from Riley Tannery and all participating families' depositions, were recorded for future use in the trial.
Throughout the case, Riley denied any knowledge of chemicals or dumping and claimed that all records from that time had been destroyed. However, an employee from Grace came forward
with information about witnessing dumping at Grace and identifying those responsible.
After completing the depositions, Schlichtmann sought out experts to thoroughly investigate every aspect of the case. He hired multiple professionals who examined various aspects such as the land itself, medical histories of the Woburn families, and establishing a connection between TCE exposure and leukemia. Despite incurring significant expenses in expert fees during this intensive investigative process, Schlichtmann aimed to build a strong case against both W.R. Grace and Beatrice.
However, Judge Skinner denied Jan's request to call family members as witnesses for the trial. Undeterred by this setback, Jan relied on his experts for testimony but faced multiple difficulties in doing so.After a lengthy trial, Beatrice was found not guilty while W.R. Grace was found guilty of contaminating the water with trichloroethylene, although not all accusations were proven. Consequently, the case had to be adjourned, leaving Jan and his firm burdened by debt and devastated. Jan approached Eustis - Grace's vice president - in search of a resolution and together with Conway, Gordon, and Schlichtmann, they devised a $25 million settlement proposal. Regrettably, this offer was rejected in favor of just $6.6 million despite advice against it from his partners; however, Schlichtmann refused to accept such a meager amount. The trial resumed in September but Judge Skinner prematurely closed the case leading to Grace settling for eight million dollars with Schlichtmann. While some families in Woburn agreed to this settlement, others were disappointed as it did not meet their expectations. Having dedicated nine years to the Woburn case, Janto lost hope and decided to quit practicing law. Ultimately, Schlichtmann found solace by escaping his troubles and
going to Hawaii as depicted at the conclusion of the book. Eventually, taking control of the case, the Environmental Protection Agency reached a settlement of $69.4 million with Beatrice and Grace representing an estimated cost for cleaning up their contaminated landIn A Civil Action, Harr presents a thorough narrative of a specific legal case, including depositions and the trial. By providing clear explanations of the Woburn trial's legal procedures, Harr enables readers without legal expertise to comprehend the terminology and actions involved. Moreover, while grounded in reality, A Civil Action serves as an educational resource to showcase that cases may not always appear as they seem to the public.
- Jurisprudence essays
- Social Injustice essays
- Juvenile Justice essays
- Business Law essays
- Contract essays
- Consumer Protection essays
- Property essays
- Ownership essays
- Agreement essays
- Common Law essays
- Contract Law essays
- Justice essays
- Security essays
- Tort Law essays
- United States Constitution essays
- Crime essays
- Lawsuit essays
- Treaty essays
- Family Law essays
- Marijuana Legalization essays
- Constitution essays
- War on Drugs essays
- Court essays
- Jury essays
- Police essays
- Protection essays
- Community Policing essays
- Criminal Law essays
- Judge essays
- Lawyer essays
- Employment Law essays
- Copyright Infringement essays
- Injustice essays
- Intellectual Property essays
- Breach Of Contract essays
- Internet Privacy essays
- Cyber Security essays
- Bill Of Rights essays
- Civil Liberties essays
- First Amendment To The United States Constitution essays
- Fourth Amendment To The United States Constitution essays
- Second amendment essays
- Animal Cruelty essays
- Law Enforcement essays
- Juvenile Justice System essays
- Surveillance essays
- Forensic Science essays
- Crime Prevention essays
- Criminal Justice essays
- Criminology essays