On watching the movie A Civil Action based on a fact drama stared by John Travolta who acts as a lawyer to personal injury and fights for the residents of Woburn, Massachusetts against an industrial pollution court case in the 1980s. it is based on how waste is dumped against the law and how the waste contaminates drinking water causing cancer and leukemia. The people of Woburn suffer from health problems causing the death of 12 people of whom 8 were children. Among these 8 children is Anne Anderson’s son who died of leukemia, he tries to file a petition against the industries but most of the legal firms without success until he meets Jan Schichtmann. At first, Jan does not accept the case but later reconsiders based on the big pay-off. In his study, he finds that the contaminated water in the rivers can be traced back to two financially stable companies, W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods.
The case is very expensive and makes Jans law firm drown in a big amount of debt. It is settled for 8 million which leaves Wobums people not happy for the small amount and lack of an apology from the people responsible for the contamination. It does not only leave the people unhappy but also leads to Jan losing everything that he owned including his friends. Later Jan discovers a new piece of evidence against Beatrice Foods and J.R. Riley. He presents the new piece of evidence to the environmental protection Agency which reopens the case filed and ends up with the responsible companies paying a large amount to the people and cleaning the contaminated water.
The movie shines a negative light against the business world basing the whole movie on two companies that were responsible for the contamination of the town’s water leading to the death of children and poor health conditions to the people around. It paints the business world as a world that does only cares about making a profit and not the well-being of the people and the environment. The movie shows how the two companies dumped waste illegally knowing that the waste dumped contaminated water that the people depended on causing serious health problems and even death. It shows the negligence of the two companies towards the health of the people and the law itself. The companies go further to covering up their actions so as to have a point of denial of their actives. It also shines a negative light on the lawyer’s litigation process.
127 our experts are availableright now
At first, the main character is seen to reject the cases and changes his mind on knowing that the families trying to files the case are not interested in the money but most importantly an apology from the people responsible of the whole contamination and the defendants have deep pockets. It is not only on the main character that the interest of money is seen but also to all other layer firms who see the case as not able to pay enough and rejects it painting a picture of lawyers as people who do not have souls and are only interested in money other than the truth. Jan is most focused on making money that he invests a lot more than the case can payoff and drowns in debt. the accused lawyer says that justice is not to the truth but to the highest bidder.
The case is faced by a number of dilemmas Mr. Love an employee who has eight kids and most of them are suffering from health problems and worries if he would appear before the court as an eye witness. He believes that the health complications are caused by the water pollution of the company which he works for. He knows that the employer is responsible for the contamination of water for he had witnessed trucks from the company emptying solvents into a pit at the back of the company. He also had the knowledge that the son of Anne Anderson had died from leukemia which the primary cause was the contamination of water but cannot testify for the fear of losing his job. He finally gets the courage to testify and his testimony helps the case in a great way. In my view, it is definite that Mr. Love would defiantly be fired for testifying against his boss who thought he did a good thing other than the other writer who did nothing. He is a figure that acts ethically and believes in the truth and protects his own children.
He acts like a moral person in society for doing the right thing and stands as a courageous figure for standing together with the people of the society against the source of his income to stand for the truth. It is also a dilemma for Jan whether to continue with the case knowing that the financial difficulties. It is upon his to cater for all the finances that the case incurs from paying private investigators and expert to collect evidence and show the harms that the contaminated water does to the people. He is forced to mortgage his house to finance the case at one time his offered 45 million dollars so as to put an end to the case without consulting his partner or his client but he refuses. At the end of the case, they are given 8 million without a formal apology or a way to clean the water this is way less than what he had been offered in advance in order to drop the case. Jan uses everything at his disposal to attain justice and it finally pays off when he finds a new piece of evidence that condemns the actions of the companies. If he had given up after the first court ruling he would be at a loss and not competent for not fulfilling the wants of his clients.
Mr. Granger was in charge of driving the trucks that were used to dispose of the waste and were bribed by his employer for a ticket to a cricket game. He went ahead and hired a new driver to the truck so as not to be responsible of the disposal. During the trial period, Mr. Granger did not come forward to testify against his employer. After the case was settled Jan knew about Mr. Granger he confronted him that he agreed to testify. He appeared before the environmental authority and gave his knowledge of the incident helping the case in a great way. At first, he does a wrong thing even against the ethic but agreeing to testify to an ended case shows courage.
This testimony finally gives hard evidence of the involvement of the companies in the contamination of water with toxic solvents. The companies in the knowledge of the effect of their waste disposed carcinogen and ignored their responsibility that the waste was not a threat to the people of Wound. The companies went ahead covered the responsibility and even tried to bribe Jan knowing that people were dead and others sick due to their action but still cared less. It even corrupted the morals of their employees that they could not speak of the evil that the company was doing or testify in court even at the risk that their young ones were the ones who were suffering from the contaminated water.
The companies show a negative picture of instead of helping the surrounding the society they take their financial weakness to act against their rights. Having to clean the water was their responsibility even before the authority told them to. Even though they could do nothing about those who were dead they would at least apologize. Conclusion Watching the movie is a good way to understand ethical issues in the real world and also about civil action of the law and what happens in a trial process. It also enlightens that cases are expensive so are lawyers in a civil case against any powerful company, organization or people. It also gives light to the importance of the environment and the well-being of the people. It gives knowledge that any company should consider what its waste does to the people and if it neglects the rights of the people it is upon the people to fight such companies. When called to testify for justice we should do so in truth, not to the amount of money offered (Zaillian, 1998).
