A Reflection of The Film a Civil Action

I watched “A Civil Action” movie which rests on a true story about a group of families living in Woburn, MA suing US organizations W.R. Grace and J.R. Riley Leather. Many children have died due to Leukemia as a result from illegal dumping of harmful chemicals from these organizations that contaminated the water supply of the residentials in Woburn. Anne Anderson whose son died of Leukemia files a lawsuit against these companies joining hands with the group of families who lost their children and loved ones as well. Jan Schlichtmann, who is a successful personal injury lawyer in Boston, takes over this case after Anne Anderson and the others got rejected by many firms.

At first Jan rejects this case thinking that it is no beneficial to his firm financially but later he agrees to do the case as he figures out how these two parent companies W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods are polluting the water. As a result, this case proves to be very costly for a small firm like Jan’s putting them into debt. He lost his wealth, house, car, partners trying to win this case against these rich companies. The case was eventually tried to settle down for $8 million to which Anne Anderson and the others were not approving of because they didn’t get any apology from whoever was responsible and, no action was taken against these companies to start cleaning up these places for good. I believe that Jan’s ethics of “care” and “justice” urges him to further investigate the case and collect evidence against J.R. Riley and Beatrice Foods. Later on, he hands over this case along with his old documents about this case and new evidence to Environment Protection Agency (EPA) requesting them to retry this case against these companies. Therefore, the case was later settled with these companies having to pay a large amount of sum to clean up the water and land.

Firstly, in my point of view one of the most unethical people I found after watching this video is Jan Schlichtmann. I believe that Jan Schlichtmann got carried away by his ego trying to prove a point. In the point of view of Utilitarianism, I believe that Jan Schlichtmann should have reached out to EPA on time before he risked almost everything trying to win this lawsuit against these rich companies. This action would have been beneficial to most of the people involving in this case along with the victim’s families. I believe it was unethical of Jan to put everything at stake without consulting his partners and clients first. He should have also looked after his firms and partners at the same time and consulted them first before rejecting when the $25 million and $20 million was offered by Beatrice Foods. I think that throughout the movie Jan was humiliated for not being a Harvard student and for just being a personal injury lawyer and he got carried away for his pride. Because Facher dominated Jan with his craftiness and carefree attitude, he was so determined to get justice for his ego. In my opinion, the humiliation got the better of him that made him fight this case risking everything he had.

Although at the beginning of the case Jan was just a money-hungry person motivated by money but eventually during this case he developed his Ethics of “justice” and “care” and fought for the case until he lost everything. But it was unethical of him to let his ego come in the way. Also, I would never take any decisions without consulting my partners and clients first and it would also be very unethical of me to put not only my company’s assets on stake but also mortgage my partner’s houses. I would have tried to settle down the case as soon as possible and then later hand over the case to EPA. Therefore, in the point of view of Utilitarianism, I believe this decision would have not only saved Jan’s firm but also provided proper justice to the victims and their families.

Secondly, another one of the most unethical people I found after watching this movie is Mr. Granger. Mr. Granger was the truck driver of a local truck company who was hired by J. Riley Leather Company to dump the barrels of toxic solvents in the river. I believe that it was unethical for Mr. Granger to not testify as an eyewitness for the trials he knew the Leather company was facing. Many lives were at risk due to the negligence of this big companies and Mr. Granger was a key witness to settle things down for the good of the community. It was unethical of him to shut his mouth over some “Celtics” tickets. His ethics of “justice” was not strong enough to help this case solve on time benefitting everyone involved.

Although, J. Riley Company was the oldest surviving company in Woburn which provided employment opportunities to many, it was still neglecting its deeds against environment degradation which later led to many casualties. In my opinion, Mr. Granger was compelled to prove his loyalty to them because they provided him job opportunity and if that company shuts down, he will be jobless. Due to ethics of “justice”, “care” and Utilitarianism, I would come forward if the community I live in was suffering due to this negligence.

Lastly, another one of the most unethical organizations I found after watching the video are J. Riley Leather Company and Beatrice Foods. I find them the most unethical entity among the ones I am writing about because this is simply the negligence of their actions and greed for money that had cost many innocent lives. In this Civil Action, two big companies are found careless about their action in contaminating the water supply in Woburn. Their actions are unethical of duty and care which has caused harm to the residents of Woburn. Their carelessness had resulted in a chemical of TCP, a cancer-causing agent contaminate the water supply in Woburn. The water was not safe to drink, and many kids drank it and developed Leukemia from it.

As a result, EPA filed a lawsuit against them for their mistreatment of waste. Therefore, it is very important to do the right thing ethically. The wrong actions might be beneficial at first but later it causes a great amount of loss. Likewise, both companies spent a great amount of money for their poor actions and had to clean up the mess they had made in the past. Grace and Beatrice Foods were in fact guilty of such actions because what they did was clearly unethical.

Moreover, after watching this movie I also found ethical people in my point of view who did the right thing and one of them is Mr. Love. Despite being an employee of W.R. Grace, he still came forward as a witness against the company as they were involved in unethical conduct. He had witnessed trucks from his own company dumping the toxic waste solvents into a pit which contaminated the water supply. At first, he was in dilemma whether he should come forward to testify against his own employer, but I believe his ethics of “care”, “justice” and Utilitarianism helped him take the decision. I found him ethical for thinking about his family, his community and his sense of justice.

Although he worked for the company, he acted on this ethics and moral views and didn’t approve of this employer engaging in an unethical situation by dumping barrels of toxic solvents He acknowledged that his employer engaged in unethical conduct by dumping barrels of toxic into the pit. Therefore, I think he is one of the most ethical people I found after watching the movie as he had testified against his own company for the welfare of his community.

Likewise, another one of the most ethical people I found after watching the movie is Anne Anderson and the other families. In my point of view, it was ethical of them to not approve of money and to seek for the real justice or an apology. They were not filing this case for monetary benefits. They just wanted to find out who was responsible for this case and wanted them to apologize for their negligence. When they were offered $8 million to settle down the case by the companies, they didn’t approve of it and asked if they were going to clean the place. It was ethical of them to not root for money and root for justice. No money could compensate what they had lost.

Although, their case was proven not strong enough due to lack of evidence, they still knew it was the company’s negligence that had caused many casualties. Therefore, it was mandatory for the company to fix their mess and clean up the water and land. I believe Anne Anderson was very strong in her ethics as she mentioned no money could compensate what she had lost. Due to this, Jan Schlichtmann was touched and was determined to provide justice doing whatever he could. He later dug deeper into the case even though it was settled down and collected supporting evidence against the company.

In conclusion after watching this movie I found out that there are various aspects one should take decisions upon. I know that business is all about making the most profit but during this process one should also consider taking decisions which will not harm others. The concept of ethical Utilitarianism is an important key to this case. Companies should take actions that provide the greatest good to the society and to make profit without harming others. In this case, greed took the better of them and they went against Ethical Utilitarianism. The defendants lied and tried to cover up the mess they had made. Had they thought about their negligence about dumping the toxic solvents and took actions on time, water would not have contaminated producing cancer-causing agent. Therefore, it is very important to act on Ethical Utilitarianism and try to take actions that would not harm others.

Works cited

• “A Civil Action.” Movie.
• “A Civil Action.” Wikipedia. (downloaded from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action )
• “Centers and Institutes.” SeattleU School of Law, https://law.seattleu.edu/centers-and-institutes/films-for-justice-institute/lessons-from-woburn/about-the-case.
• “A Civil Action” by Jonathan Harr https://www.enotes.com/topics/civil-action/in-depth