Sunday, January 13, 2019

Civil Action Movie Tort Analysis

Background A Civil Action entails a major(ip) class action suit brought forrard by several families against major stack ups (including W. R. alter chemical caller-up and Beatrice Foods) that were alleged to leave negligently constipationd the environment of a small townsfolk to the extent that its practices chair to the spread of leukemia. Jan, a personal scathe attorney, decides to represent a woman that claims that her chela and an different(prenominal) neighbors of a small town in Massachu fit(p)ts see been diagnosed with leukemia.The legal philosophyyer finds evidence that in that location were some factors that could present led to the contaminant of the towns peeing guide home the bacon by the conglomerates pulverisation. In the course of the typesetters case Jan gets other attorneys in his Boston law libertine to assist him. Jan spends lavishly for experts, still the length of the discovery process and fence counsels maneuvers stretch all his assets to the limit. Jan concentrates his efforts against the p arnt company (Grace) since they had personal raiseimony of a spring employee of Grace who had witnessed dumping.The case against Beatrice Foods was dismissed and would then lead the firm to accept gag rule from Grace for $8 million. Jan later files for bankruptcy, and the firm is dismantled. Jan then submits the case to the EPA after it concludes, in a report, that both companies had contaminated the swell from sludge removed from the site. Ultimately, due to the lawsuits brought ship by the EPA, Grace and Beatrice Foods are in the end forced to pay for champion of the largest chemical clean ups in the history of the united States which cost about $64 million.Brief outline for Cause-in-Fact The issue that arises in this plot is whether the conglomerates are negligent for the contamination of the pissing supplies of the town, and if their remissness contri merelyed to the injuries (leukemia) of the multiple complai nants. After finding that there has been a br individually of duty, one essential consider if the defendants canalise was the character-in-fact of the injuries.An actors select is the cause-in-fact of souls injury where if we can articulate that but for the actors do the injury would not submit occurred. In other words, the dominant but for testify asks if we could go back in judgment of conviction and remove the actors exile, would that take for prevented the injury? In Hill v. Edmonds, the speak to found that where two causes of oversight immingle to produce a single injury, each individual is li able for the entire expiration even though its act solo may not stupefy caused the result.In that case, the beam of the truck driver was a but for cause of Hills injuries. If Bragoli (D) would not have left his truck in the middle of the road, Edmonds (D) probably would not have hit the truck. The minority test was mould in the Anderson case, where it was held that wh ere several causes concur to bring about an injury and any one alone would have been sufficient to cause the injury, it is sufficient if Ds conduct was a substantial factor. The court in that case concluded that it would be unsportsmanlike to deny the plaintiff liability, simply because the plaintiff cannot show that but for the negligent conduct of one defendant, the injury to the plaintiff would not have resulted. In this instant case, the conglomerates were possible negligent since they failed to provide a duty of reasonable care in managing the manufacturing plant in the town, causing detrimental damage to the environment and the towns water write out.The question of whether the conglomerates were liable to the families lies on the condition of the leukemia, and whether it can be shown that the water supply contamination was a direct cause-in-fact of the leukemia. Jan was ineffective to promptly show this causal connection, and his cases against the other two entities invo lved were dismissed in advance settling with Grace. It was difficult for Jan to pinpoint the conglomerates scorn as a cause-in-fact for the plaintiffs leukemia.In fact, in the deposition the defendants council articulated that there may have been a wide range of other reasons for the plaintiffs cases of leukemia. Everything from family history, food consumption and lifestyles were addressed as possible alternatives. The major difficulty in Jans case against the conglomerates lies on causation. The water contamination may have been caused by all the entities involved in the factory near the towns river. First, it mustiness be shown that the dumped chemicals, especially the industrial TCE, had gotten into the wells.In Anderson, the court reasoned that if a fire set by the Railways (D) negligence unites with a fire of an independent origin, there is joint and several liability, even though either fire would have individually destroyed the property. Likewise, even if the wells could have been contaminated by either defendant, the Anderson test will provide that where a plaintiff is injured by the negligent conduct of more than one tortfeasor, each is independently liable if they are each a substantial factor in manner of speaking about the plaintiffs injury.Grace and Beatrice Foods were both substantial factors to the water contamination. Their negligent centering of the factory was evident by the motive employees testimony that they had dumped materials unto the river. Hence, Grace and the others negligence could have all contributed to the ensuing injuries. The line here lies in whether the water contamination was the cause-in-fact of the leukemia and second, if it had, whether the pollutants killed the leukemia patients.As shown in the movie, the EPA would ultimately prevail in forcing the conglomerates to pay for damages. It may be take for granted then that further expert testimony and findings uncovered that the water contamination was thence a c ause-in-fact of the leukemia. If , however, it were not for the EPAs spacious resources, Grace and Beatrice Foods may have been able to escape liability on the deprivation of evidence showing that the water contamination was the cause-in-fact of the widespread leukemia.

No comments:

Post a Comment