For 20 years, in Woburn, Massachusetts, there were more than dozens of cases of childhood leukemia due to contamination of the local wells. This contamination was brought by companies and their chemical waste dumping. The families had children dying and few surviving, therefore they pursued legal help. After hiring a lawyer, the case becomes viral over the duration of the settlement. The struggle between the companies, the lawyer, and the families increased over time but soon saw a solution. In the 1970s, engineers found contaminants in the local wells: Well H and Well G. They found suspected carcinogens including trichloroethylene (TCE) known to cause cancer. Families gathered after the Anderson family noticed the recurring events of a rare disease in a small town. Although Woburn had a history of industrial activity, the two major companies that contributed to the contaminants were W.R. Grace Co. and Beatrice Foods. The families sought help and went to a Boston lawyer, Joe Mulligan, and signed his firm. No one picked up the case due to not enough evidence, but Jan Schlictmann, who was a newcomer, picked up the Woburn case. Although advised to neglect it, he still looked into it. He joined with a non-profit firm who were seeking an environmental case like Woburn’s. They quickly filed a complaint against the two major companies. After introducing the case, the companies attacked. Beatrice Foods hired a trial lawyer, Jerome Facher, to represent them. W.R. Grace Co. hired William Cheeseman and his firm to represent them. Cheeseman filed a Rule 11 motion against Schlictmann and the firm to end the case as soon as possible, but he refused questioning which led to having a hearing directed by Judge Skinner. Schlictmann then leaves Jo... ... middle of paper ... ... against Beatrice Foods and W.R. Grace to pay for the clean-up effort in the Woburn area which totaled to $69 million. Close to losing his sanity, Schlictmann ran away and attempted suicide. Works Cited • Boynton, Robert S. (1997). Jonathan Harr. The New New Journalism: Conversations with America’s Best Nonfiction Writers on Their Craft. Retrieved from http://newnewjournalism.com/bio.php?last_name=harr • Horton, J. (1986). Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corporation. The Environmental Law Reporter: The Best Legal Resource On Earth. Retrieved from http://elr.info/litigation/%5Bfield_article_volume-raw%5D/20081/sterling-v-velsicol-chem-corp • Asimow. M. (1999). In Toxic Tort Litigation, Truth Lies at the Bottom of a Bottomless Pit. Retrieved from http://usf.usfca.edu/pj//articles/Civil_Action-Asimow.htm • Harr, J. (1995). A Civil Action. New York: Random House, Inc.
MacEwing, J. M. (October 25, 2005). Making Sense of the Recent Case Law. Jenkins Marzban Logan
Woburn is a small town in Massachusetts which their local drinking water were contaminated with several carcinogens as a result of Industrial pollution. It all started late in 60’s to early 70’s where up to 12 cases of children were afflicted with leukemia. This led to a group of parents of children who were affected by this life-threatening illness to seek justice for causes of the the epidemic and to bring anyone or company involve to book . They consulted an injury lawyer in Boston in person of Jan Schlihtmann who took up the case which had once been neglected after he discovered the defendant are deep pockets company.
Jan Schlichtmann, a successful lawyer, is approached by Anne Anderson and eight other families who wish for him to represent their case against big name companies W.R. Grace & Co. and Beatrice Foods Inc. Anderson believes that the improper disposal of toxic chemicals polluted the local groundwater in their town of Woburn, Massachusetts, causing leukemia in eight children (including her own) and ultimately resulting in their tragic demise.1 Schlichtmann was driven by the possibility of earning a large sum of money from this case, but in the end it was the desire for righteousness that lead him and his three colleagues to bankruptcy. After reaching a settlement of 8 million dollars, neither Anderson nor the families were content seeing as they
He says, "Frank Whitbread is a chemist who worked for a state environmental protection agency. Several times his boss had refused to allow him to testify before a state panel investigating the agency’s failure to test the well water of subdivisions located near sites where hazardous materials had been dumped. Eventually he called up a state senator and told him his story. Shortly thereafter Frank was fired. The state civil service commission made his agency take him back, but he was given no work to do and an office that was once a janitor’s closet." (Alfred, 2002, p.
When a chemical company called Krane Chemicals poisons the ground water with chemical toxic waste hundreds of people die of cancer or get seriously ill. When Mary Grace and Wes Payton win the case the against the company, the shares drop dramatically. Carl Trudeau, who owns an impressive amount of shares looses over one billion dollars in one day, an...
Fatcher will do whatever he can to prevent those families from appearing in trial. Mr. Schlichtmann continues his discovery through depositions and also gets a court order giving him the right to inspect the land that the tannery is on. This is a very expensive process as he must hire many scientists to get the evidence needed to build a persuasive argument. At the tannery one day Fatcher comes to see Mr. Schlichtmann to talk about settling the case, Fatcher offers to cover all of the expenses that the firm has undergone though at the end of the conversation Fatcher throws out a slight threat. The next scene they are meeting for a formal settlement with Mr. Cheeseman and the other associates present, but again the settlement attempt is un successful as the asking settlement number is 320 million dollars. Trial starts, it begins with the opening statements where they state a brief summary of the facts. They proceed to call witnesses to the stand and question them. At this point in the trial we return to Fatcher’s threat of not allowing those families to testify in
In this case, the following tests are the most relevant for this disaster: harm test, colleague test, and publicity test. The harm test consists on analyzing if the options perform less harm than the alternatives (Davis, 1999). In other words, this test implies that the benefits need to prevail over the harm, which will minimize the harm and maximizing the benefits. In the Love Canal case, this test failed since it was clear that the well-being of the public was affected due to the birth defects, miscarriages, and health issues that the community exhibited. Similarly, the colleague test consists on asking yourself what your colleagues would say when suggesting this option as the solution (Davis, 1999). When making decisions, engineers and companies should take actions on activities that would look appropriate for the general population to accept and for a panel of peers. With this in mind, Hooker’s engineers and the company itself did not care about how chemically polluting the environment will be judged or looked like in front of publics eyes and the community; therefore, the Hooker’s engineers and the company failed this test due their lack of public awareness. Additionally, when considering the publicity test, everyone should ask themselves if they want their “choice of this option published in the newspaper” (Davis, 1999). In this country, journalism plays a crucial role in our society, so when engineers and companies ends up in the news, it means that their actions had a social or environmental repercussion; consequently, because of Hooker’s lack of professionalism, an entire community was exposed to carcinogens that ended up affecting the locals and the unborn; as a result, by 1978, many newspapers and TV news reported
In Woburn, Massachusetts, 8 children died of leukaemia and 12 of them got sick. 8 out of 12 of them lived within a half-mile radius of each other. Residents claimed that the water smelled "foul and ill-smelling" after a well was opened in 1964 near the industrial park, causing the city to shut it down. In 1979, Trichloroethylene (TCE) and silicone were found in the contaminated well water. The families, Toomey, Auferius, Andersons, Robbins, and Keynes, contacted Jan Schichtman, a personal injury lawyer from Boston. He has a personal testimony of a former employee of Grace who witnessed dumping chemicals in the water. Significant toxic pollution was found in 2 of the city's waterwells. Jan wanted a settlement of $25 million to clean up the contamination,
In the film A Civil Action by John Travolta, several families sued two important companies for the death of their children. The plaintiffs alleged that two companies; Beatrice foods and WR grace, were the source of the deaths due to discarding toxic waste in a river where the town of Woburn gets their water supply. While watching this movie, I watched with astonishment and convinced with the determinations on the plaintiff's behalf to win the case. First, I thought the plaintiff's motive was to win the case for the money, but as the movie transitioned along I perceived that the families only wanted forgiveness from the companies. One of the mothers Mrs. Anderson stated, “Now, I want to be clear. I’m not interested in money, none of us are.
In the case Burnie Port Authority vs. General Jones, Jones sued the Port Authority for negligence when conflagration destroyed his produce. Burnie Port Authority took action to start plan two of their proposed development. General Jones had three cool rooms worth of frozen vegetables of which he owned which was kept stored in plan one of the Port Authorities development. For the construction of stage two there wasn’t a main contractor appointed. This led to the improper maintenance of stage two which caused the conflagration when welding sparks caught hold of stored flammable insulation. The flame carried through to the original stage one of the development which included the destruction of the three cool rooms belonging to General Jones.
Despite these labels, The Chinese students were concerned about the soon construction of the Molybdenum-copper alloy producing factory. If built, the factory would release various toxic chemicals that are directly related to cancer. In many cities
Due to the recent development in the field of environmental law, tort law has been increasingly turned down. Many of the new laws established legal remedies that didn’t exist under tort law system. However, laws those focus on the imposition of liability in case of any toxic discharge and disposal are meant for the corrective purpose and end up overlapping with the core of tort law principles.
[1] United States v. Ashland Oil and Transportation Company. Retrieved October 10, 2003 from the Environmental Law Reporter web site: http://www.elr.info/litigation/vol4/4.20185.htm
Alex Wright, 27 years old geologist, was employed by Cotswold Geotechnical. He was investigating soil conditions in a deep trench when it collapsed and killed him. The case here was that Mr. Wright was working in a dangerous trench because the company failed at taking reasonable measures to protect Mr. Wright. The jury found that the company’s was of work in digging trial pits was unnecessarily dangerous. Moreover, the company ignored the industry guideline that prohibits entry into excavations deeper than 1.2 meters. The company was fined £385,000 which was to be paid over a period of 10 years. This heavy fine, representing 250% of its turnover, ended the business. (The Telegraph,
In 1970, another keen case named Baker vs. Nelson occurred. In this particular incident, two students from the University of Minnesota, Richard John Baker and James Michael Mc...