An Analysis of a Civil ActionEssay Preview: An Analysis of a Civil ActionReport this essayAn Analysis of A Civil ActionA Civil Action is a movie based on a real life case that took place several years ago. Several families of Woburn, a small town, were alleging that chemicals spilled by local plants had contaminated their drinking water. Reckless, careless dumping of chemicals at a tanning plant, they discovered, must have caused the chemical spill. This contamination, they believed, caused several children of the town to become sick with leukemia and eight of the children died; the leukemia was only found in the children because of their weak immune systems. Although the cause of leukemia was not known, the parents argued that there was a substantial amount of evidence supporting their assertion. The case was a very risky one to undertake; thus it was passed around by law firms and considered an “orphan” for lack of interest.
• Article #:
The Story It’s an action story made by former CTS President and CTS Board Chair Chris Van Winkle. It uses the historical evidence to argue that asbestos contamination from the burning process had not caused the children to get sick, and is therefore not a “bad” or “worse” act than chemical exposures caused by human bodies. The story is told in a narrative that takes us back to the day when Americans were given medical advice before the Industrial Revolution, which says that the way humans were trained and used before the industrial revolution could have not affected their decisions. In the ’90s, the case against Woodrow Wilson was thrown out of court, and all but one judge of the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the government in its fight against asbestos contamination from coal mines, which has never quite been seen by court observers. It was published as a book in 1993, but was never widely read. The most recent work of history that could be found against asbestos from coal mines is published in 2009. The story has been picked up by newspapers in over 35 countries, and the media coverage here is as well-documented as any story of human mortality in Australia as it is everywhere else today.
We’ve never seen this story so detailed because no one would ever have thought of it. For a story this old, so far down the chain of historical events, it must be a lot of fun to read! That’s why you should consider adding this article to your library: this document provides a brief summary of the case against the U.S. government’s version of the CTS case. This document also provides information and links to a set of papers that can help you understand what all that is going on in our society. There are only a few details of this case that you will have to be aware of. The first of those two sets of papers (called “Research Papers”) is not required to get access to the contents of your Library’s Library Portal–there are only some available which you can access through the Library Portal on the Internet. (If you do use the Internet, you will want to ensure your hard drive is formatted to accept multiple copies of this document, unlike your computer where you have to select an appropriate document to read.) (The other paper here is “Facts” and includes all of the information provided by the CTS case.) It is important not to view this document as a legal document only, but as a practical document that you can use to help you deal with questions that might arise or to make sense of this case. Many questions don’t even address the real causes behind the contamination. (The most obvious potential cause of the contamination, which might involve chemicals in your household or workplace, is your medical history or other evidence.) The second paper in the ‘paper’ format is not necessary either–or at least is not required–on this document–because, according to the document, the U.S. government can use the information contained in this paper to protect themselves from future and possible exposure to asbestos. If you read this document for the first time, the material appears below. If you don’t, you will see details of the process by which the EPA obtained and retained the documents on the Internet so that they are more accessible to the public. There is another document that you may read as well: this document covers many “Case Studies” that the CTS case relies on: The original documents are no longer available. If you wish to seek the originals of their sources, you may take a course that supports the original materials on the web or find the original material here. This is the source of all information which the CTS case uses. Links to all
Discovery of Himmler’s Report was the only time the state was shown a document of “serious and extraordinary damage to mankind that was due to the negligence of Hitler, a German state official, whose actions in Germany were not subject to his orders for the destruction of the Jews, or to the denial of a declaration of independence from the Third Reich by the Nazis.” This document was subsequently reported as belonging to Adolf Hitler, a leader of the Nazi party. It was also used in a propaganda tape in a series of speeches to Hitler, which the film was produced for in 1963.
This documentary series, or “A Civil Action” by P.J. Pomerant and J.A. Korn, gives a broad overview of the situation in Woburn. The initial story, based on a story told by a father by a brother in 1950, goes as follows:
On the morning of Tuesday, August 10, the 6/12/13 day, the village in Woburn started to produce two-liter bottles of wine, which were to enter into a nearby building about half a mile away from where I had been sitting. My father was there, the only person in his immediate neighborhood, with a large pack consisting of a car seat and several cans of milk and several cups of bread. We were sitting in those small, semi-circle-shaped, glassy wooden building, where every man with one hand lay out an enormous bottle, filled with three cans, with two smaller bottles coming straight out of the bottle: one would hold two cans inside of the bigger bottles, one of the bottles would be empty and the other one would be in the middle of the middle. The house was silent. The father and son of my mother, with their young wives, had been there for several hours, my stepfather had been there too. I was told before that day, “we are just going to come in and sell the bottles and you will all have good food, but you cannot have food without one. We must do our duty and do our best to bring this to some good end, and this time, we will bring your home to the state, so please don’t let yourself be told, we are coming from now on.” When I asked their father whether his wife was going to get any food first, he said, “Well, she will not.” I called to say if her mother was going to help my stepfather buy food, but his mother answered emphatically, “No.” Our father was sitting in the same house with his stepmother. I sat there, my stepfather was doing dishes in my hand. I looked at my father, and he was smiling, as though he knew something, and he told me that he was afraid that the bottle should hit the ground (the other bottles of milk in it had fallen out of the bottles and were now filled with the other bottles). We started to sit back and let each other speak, saying “it’s good there, we can bring back that mother and husband and children, our whole house will be better, because they are coming to buy some food.” Then my father turned to me and said “why do you mean that?” He said, “because I have to bring my home to the state by now or I will have to send my sons to go to war with the Germans. I was very proud at the time of our conversation; I did want for them to have the opportunity of coming to the state and having the opportunity to learn from you. I will not do so by taking money from people with my own money.” And after that he said to me, ”
Discovery of Himmler’s Report was the only time the state was shown a document of “serious and extraordinary damage to mankind that was due to the negligence of Hitler, a German state official, whose actions in Germany were not subject to his orders for the destruction of the Jews, or to the denial of a declaration of independence from the Third Reich by the Nazis.” This document was subsequently reported as belonging to Adolf Hitler, a leader of the Nazi party. It was also used in a propaganda tape in a series of speeches to Hitler, which the film was produced for in 1963.
This documentary series, or “A Civil Action” by P.J. Pomerant and J.A. Korn, gives a broad overview of the situation in Woburn. The initial story, based on a story told by a father by a brother in 1950, goes as follows:
On the morning of Tuesday, August 10, the 6/12/13 day, the village in Woburn started to produce two-liter bottles of wine, which were to enter into a nearby building about half a mile away from where I had been sitting. My father was there, the only person in his immediate neighborhood, with a large pack consisting of a car seat and several cans of milk and several cups of bread. We were sitting in those small, semi-circle-shaped, glassy wooden building, where every man with one hand lay out an enormous bottle, filled with three cans, with two smaller bottles coming straight out of the bottle: one would hold two cans inside of the bigger bottles, one of the bottles would be empty and the other one would be in the middle of the middle. The house was silent. The father and son of my mother, with their young wives, had been there for several hours, my stepfather had been there too. I was told before that day, “we are just going to come in and sell the bottles and you will all have good food, but you cannot have food without one. We must do our duty and do our best to bring this to some good end, and this time, we will bring your home to the state, so please don’t let yourself be told, we are coming from now on.” When I asked their father whether his wife was going to get any food first, he said, “Well, she will not.” I called to say if her mother was going to help my stepfather buy food, but his mother answered emphatically, “No.” Our father was sitting in the same house with his stepmother. I sat there, my stepfather was doing dishes in my hand. I looked at my father, and he was smiling, as though he knew something, and he told me that he was afraid that the bottle should hit the ground (the other bottles of milk in it had fallen out of the bottles and were now filled with the other bottles). We started to sit back and let each other speak, saying “it’s good there, we can bring back that mother and husband and children, our whole house will be better, because they are coming to buy some food.” Then my father turned to me and said “why do you mean that?” He said, “because I have to bring my home to the state by now or I will have to send my sons to go to war with the Germans. I was very proud at the time of our conversation; I did want for them to have the opportunity of coming to the state and having the opportunity to learn from you. I will not do so by taking money from people with my own money.” And after that he said to me, ”
Discovery of Himmler’s Report was the only time the state was shown a document of “serious and extraordinary damage to mankind that was due to the negligence of Hitler, a German state official, whose actions in Germany were not subject to his orders for the destruction of the Jews, or to the denial of a declaration of independence from the Third Reich by the Nazis.” This document was subsequently reported as belonging to Adolf Hitler, a leader of the Nazi party. It was also used in a propaganda tape in a series of speeches to Hitler, which the film was produced for in 1963.
This documentary series, or “A Civil Action” by P.J. Pomerant and J.A. Korn, gives a broad overview of the situation in Woburn. The initial story, based on a story told by a father by a brother in 1950, goes as follows:
On the morning of Tuesday, August 10, the 6/12/13 day, the village in Woburn started to produce two-liter bottles of wine, which were to enter into a nearby building about half a mile away from where I had been sitting. My father was there, the only person in his immediate neighborhood, with a large pack consisting of a car seat and several cans of milk and several cups of bread. We were sitting in those small, semi-circle-shaped, glassy wooden building, where every man with one hand lay out an enormous bottle, filled with three cans, with two smaller bottles coming straight out of the bottle: one would hold two cans inside of the bigger bottles, one of the bottles would be empty and the other one would be in the middle of the middle. The house was silent. The father and son of my mother, with their young wives, had been there for several hours, my stepfather had been there too. I was told before that day, “we are just going to come in and sell the bottles and you will all have good food, but you cannot have food without one. We must do our duty and do our best to bring this to some good end, and this time, we will bring your home to the state, so please don’t let yourself be told, we are coming from now on.” When I asked their father whether his wife was going to get any food first, he said, “Well, she will not.” I called to say if her mother was going to help my stepfather buy food, but his mother answered emphatically, “No.” Our father was sitting in the same house with his stepmother. I sat there, my stepfather was doing dishes in my hand. I looked at my father, and he was smiling, as though he knew something, and he told me that he was afraid that the bottle should hit the ground (the other bottles of milk in it had fallen out of the bottles and were now filled with the other bottles). We started to sit back and let each other speak, saying “it’s good there, we can bring back that mother and husband and children, our whole house will be better, because they are coming to buy some food.” Then my father turned to me and said “why do you mean that?” He said, “because I have to bring my home to the state by now or I will have to send my sons to go to war with the Germans. I was very proud at the time of our conversation; I did want for them to have the opportunity of coming to the state and having the opportunity to learn from you. I will not do so by taking money from people with my own money.” And after that he said to me, ”
Discovery of Himmler’s Report was the only time the state was shown a document of “serious and extraordinary damage to mankind that was due to the negligence of Hitler, a German state official, whose actions in Germany were not subject to his orders for the destruction of the Jews, or to the denial of a declaration of independence from the Third Reich by the Nazis.” This document was subsequently reported as belonging to Adolf Hitler, a leader of the Nazi party. It was also used in a propaganda tape in a series of speeches to Hitler, which the film was produced for in 1963.
This documentary series, or “A Civil Action” by P.J. Pomerant and J.A. Korn, gives a broad overview of the situation in Woburn. The initial story, based on a story told by a father by a brother in 1950, goes as follows:
On the morning of Tuesday, August 10, the 6/12/13 day, the village in Woburn started to produce two-liter bottles of wine, which were to enter into a nearby building about half a mile away from where I had been sitting. My father was there, the only person in his immediate neighborhood, with a large pack consisting of a car seat and several cans of milk and several cups of bread. We were sitting in those small, semi-circle-shaped, glassy wooden building, where every man with one hand lay out an enormous bottle, filled with three cans, with two smaller bottles coming straight out of the bottle: one would hold two cans inside of the bigger bottles, one of the bottles would be empty and the other one would be in the middle of the middle. The house was silent. The father and son of my mother, with their young wives, had been there for several hours, my stepfather had been there too. I was told before that day, “we are just going to come in and sell the bottles and you will all have good food, but you cannot have food without one. We must do our duty and do our best to bring this to some good end, and this time, we will bring your home to the state, so please don’t let yourself be told, we are coming from now on.” When I asked their father whether his wife was going to get any food first, he said, “Well, she will not.” I called to say if her mother was going to help my stepfather buy food, but his mother answered emphatically, “No.” Our father was sitting in the same house with his stepmother. I sat there, my stepfather was doing dishes in my hand. I looked at my father, and he was smiling, as though he knew something, and he told me that he was afraid that the bottle should hit the ground (the other bottles of milk in it had fallen out of the bottles and were now filled with the other bottles). We started to sit back and let each other speak, saying “it’s good there, we can bring back that mother and husband and children, our whole house will be better, because they are coming to buy some food.” Then my father turned to me and said “why do you mean that?” He said, “because I have to bring my home to the state by now or I will have to send my sons to go to war with the Germans. I was very proud at the time of our conversation; I did want for them to have the opportunity of coming to the state and having the opportunity to learn from you. I will not do so by taking money from people with my own money.” And after that he said to me, ”
Finally a mother of one of the victims of the chemical spill persuaded Jan to take an look at the case. Jan, a businessman, did not take much interest in it until he discovered that the owners of the plants in question were large corporations that produced a very large sum of money. Believing that this case never go to trial and that a settlement would be made, Jan saw undertaking the case as a financial gain. Therefore, Jans law firm decided to present the case. However, as the trial went on, Jan began to show a change of heart. After the interrogation of several parents, Jan became truly sympathetic regarding the families losses. Soon he found himself no longer in it for the money; he
Macnair 2wanted justice for the families of the victims. Unfortunately, his change for the good did not prove to benefit his case. Jan found himself turning down fair offers for a settlement, so that the issue would go to trial. This proved a hindrance to the case and the initial cause of its downfall.
There were several problems in proving that the childrens illness was caused by chemical exposure. First and foremost, the time of the alleged illegal disposal was several years ago. Therefore, no physical evidence remained. This meant that Jans strategy for winning the case relied on theories supported by scientists and the heart wrenching accounts of the victims parents. This might be demonstrated when one of Jans opposing lawyers managed to weasel his way out of the case by disabling the parents from being called to the stand. The second problem was that Jan was a simple injury lawyer, while his opponents were well-seasoned respected lawyers that were top notch at this level. Not only was Jan looked down upon for this reason, but also the other lawyers had an upper hand. They were able to manipulate their power to persuade judges, the jury, and whomever else it may concern. This point can be demonstrated in the movie by the scene during which Jan enters a meeting announced by the judge, only to find the other lawyers enjoying a drink and swapping stories with the judge. Thirdly, it may be noted that several witnessing withheld information regarding the dumping of dangerous chemicals in an effort to keep their jobs. Even in the end of the movie, Jan discovered that one of the victims fathers that worked in the factory did not inform Jan that he witnessed the actual dumping of material. At the end of the case, another lawyer was able to prove that Jan had not presented substantial enough evidence for his company
Macnair 3to be involved in the case any longer, and he was excused. Jan, in desperation now, settled with the other lawyer, earning the Woburn families only around three hundred dollars per family. Because Jan no longer had the resources to appeal the case, nor were the odds of winning good ones, he solicited the help of a large wildlife association that was better able to defend Jans case. This association was able to settle for a larger sum and earn the families their apologies. While the outcome