Environmental Law in “A Civil Action” Drama Film

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Characters
Summary of the Movie
Discussion
Conclusion
References

A famous American legal drama movie, A Civil Action, came out in 1998 and became a success both among adolescents and adults and especially among those who are interested in the law sphere. The film is based on a book with the same name written by Jonathan Harr and tells a real story of a legal case. The case took place in Woburn, Massachusetts, in the late nineteen eighties and was about environmental pollution caused by giant corporations owning tanneries. A Civil Action won several awards and became a film that is known all over the world and actively discussed among environmentalists and legal practitioners.

Characters

Jan Schlichtman, starring John Travolta, is an eccentric and egoistical personal injury lawyer owning a small law firm; he is a representative of the plaintiffs in the case of environmental contamination in Woburn. James Gordon (William Macy) is his chief financial advisor and a personal friend. Jerry Facher, starring Robert Duvall, is the attorney of Beatrice Foods, one of the corporations responsible for the pollution of the Woburn rivers. Anne Anderson, starring Kathleen Quinlan, is a citizen whose family suffered from the contamination – her son was diagnosed with leukemia due to water pollution. The woman discovers that not only her child is affected by environmental violations of the tanneries but many other residents of the city – both children and adults. It is she who forces the case to an investigation and makes it taken to court. William Cheeseman is a lawyer of another corporation accused of pollution of the town’s water – Grace.

Summary of the Movie

A Civil Action begins with Anne Anderson discovering that her child is sick with a rare disease, leukemia, and soon found out that there are many causes of the illness in her town, Woburn. People with the same health problem decide to hire Jan Schlichtmann – a lawyer who will investigate the issue to advocate for their rights. Firstly, Jan rejects the case as seemingly unprofitable but later discovers that Woburn’s water is contaminated by chemicals that caused several deaths in the town and decides to take up the case.

Jan takes to federal court two possibly responsible companies, W. R. Grace and Company and Beatrice Foods, and plans both to earn a large amount of money and boost the reputation of his firm. The lawyer represents families who demand contaminated areas to be cleaned up and ask for an apology for the harm. However, the accused companies’ lawyers are tough, and a judge rules against the plaintiffs, so gradually Jan and his firm find themselves depending on the case outcome in terms of financial and professional survival. Although receiving settlement offers, Jan stubbornly declines them and starts to believe that the issue is not only about money; he makes blatant demands and decides on winning no matter the cost.

A lengthy trial turns out to be a failure for Jan; he turns down the corporations’ offer of twenty million dollars, and the case is dismissed in favor of the corporations that were accused. A settlement with them barely covers the case expenses, so Jan and his firm end up broke; it gradually falls apart, and the main character winds up living a solitary life in a lonesome apartment. From a postscript, a viewer discovers that the Environmental Protection Agency later brings one more enforcement action against the two corporations. As a result, they are forced to pay millions to eliminate the contamination – to clean up the groundwater and the land. In a few years, Jan settles the debts and starts working in the area of environmental law.

Discussion

The main problem in the movie is that innocent Woburn residents suffer from the industrial externalities of the two large corporations, which contaminate the land and the water, causing people to die. The case may be considered both as civil and criminal as the corporations did not only harm one or several individuals but are rather considered as harmful to society as a whole (Tipton, 2018). Although Jan did not manage to settle the case himself, it was soon revived by EPA, so in the end, the violators were punished and forced to eliminate the negative impact of their industries.

One may wonder about the reasons for Jan moving forward despite the hurdles on his way were, and the answer may be not only his outrageousness and excitement but the understanding of the issue’s importance. Although he forced his firm into bankruptcy and was left with nothing but debts and loneliness, Jon’s decision to move on with the case was a good one. All in all, in the end, the goal he was striving for was achieved, although not by him. However, had he been in the situation all over again, it seems that Jan could have done a little bit better. The lawyer could have been more dedicated and attentive to the case from the very beginning and less self-centered and stubborn about accepting the settlements.

Environmental law has several principles set to shape its design and application, among them being precautionary and prevention principle, integration and public participation, and the “polluter pays” principle. The last one was born out of the need to devise a strategy to make pollution control feasible – those who contaminate the environment have to bear the costs (Faure, 2016). Polluters have to take responsibility for their actions since their actions may harm the whole society (Khan, 2015). The environmental violation shown in the movie is not unique as many companies do not abide by safety rules and ecological principles. A construction company AIREKO, for instance, violated the federal Clean Air Act in August of 2017, and “was sentenced to a fine of $1.5 million and three years of probation” (“2017 major criminal cases”, 2018, para. 14). The company also had to cover medical examinations for the victims who were exposed to asbestos fibers after the illegal removal of materials that include them from a San Juan office building.

Conclusion

Summing up, A Civil Action is an interesting movie that triggers a profound thought process – the viewers can see the real world rather than the picture-perfect and exciting lives of lawyers from John Grisham’s books. The film provides viewers insights from the legal sphere and shows the scale of environmental problems, which may be caused by large corporations. Moreover, being based on real events, A Civil Action gives a lasting impression of the world’s corruption, and it prompts to act for its protection. Through the film, the viewer observes the development of the main character Jan and understands that sometimes, personal defeat may lead to a greater good.

References

2017 major criminal cases. (2018). Web.

Faure, M. (Ed.). (2016). Elgar encyclopaedia of environmental law (Vol. 6). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Khan, M. (2015). Polluter-pays-principle: The cardinal instrument for addressing climate change. Laws, 4(3), 638-653.

Tipton, S. (2018). Differences between the criminal and civil justice systems. Web.

Zaillian, S. (Director). (1998). A civil action [Video file]. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Environmental Law in “A Civil Action” Drama Film

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)