In A Civil Action, the small city of Woburn, Massachusetts is plagued by water contamination that leads to higher instances of leukemia in its children. When one child is diagnosed, the mother, Anne Anderson, investigates this correlation, eventually bringing in a lawyer to deal with the myriad companies who are allegedly responsible for these contaminants. Over the course of the case and the book, these high-powered companies attempt to crush this small, grassroots rebellion against their corporate might, but are thwarted by an increasingly dedicated lawyer and his convictions. In this paper, we will examine a number of subjects related to the case around which A Civil Action is based, including its facts, outcome, and the decision making processes that led to that outcome. In addition to that, an examination of the book itself and the quality of the reading will be provided.
The lawyer brought into investigate the case, Jan Schlichtman, is at first daunted by the lack of evidence, but soon is able to link the tainted water supply to levels of TCE, also known as trichloroethylene, in the water, which were provided by Riley Tannery, W.R. Grace and Unifirst, both powerful corporations or subsidiaries of them. Jan then embarks on a lawsuit against all of the companies, spending millions of dollars in the process. This lawsuit was known as Anderson vs. Cryovac, whose decision was first reported as a denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss (96 F.R.D. 431).
What was at first an expensive and long-winded lawsuit again these companies in order to enlighten people with the truth of their misconduct turned into a fight to recoup the extreme legal costs that were incurred by Jan and Anderson in order to continue the case. High-powered corporate attorneys from both Grace and Beatrice managed to hold up the case in courts long enough that Jan et al. started to run out of money.
While Unifirst settles, Jan and the defendants go after the remaining companies, including Grace and Beatrice Foods, the company of which Riley was a subsidiary. Their evidence against Grace involved personal testimony from someone who used to work for Grace, substantiating their story, as well as a process of elimination that helped to absolve the other possible candidate, Beatrice Foods, from guilt. (There was a river that ran between the tannery and the wells that had been contaminated.)
Eventually, Jan and his associates dismissed the case against Beatrice and went solely after Grace. The outcome of the case was settled out of court. Due to the law firm’s increasingly desperate financial situation, they hastily accepted an $8 million settlement from W.R. Grace in order to cover their expenses. The remained went to the families who were affected by the contaminated water. According to the book, a later EPA report showcased the contamination that the wells experienced was caused by both Grace and Beatrice. There was a failed attempt to reopen the case by Jan in 1988, which was shut down due to Beatrice-provided testimony that disproved his case.
There are two primary models of legal decision making. Adversarial decisions deal with high consequence outcomes based on low-probability events, usually on the topic of what to do about a threat to either a livelihood or the future of a business. The best strategies are developed against adversaries who can adapt to those strategies and levy their own against you. In the legal version of the adversarial model, two advocates plead their cases before a jury and a judge, pitting their cases against each other in the hopes of swaying the impartial parties of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The ultimate goal in this is to have an impartial third party make the decision for you, based on the evidence that you present.
The organizational maintenance model, on the other hand, is a process in which a decision is made to maintain the status quo or not to do so, making changes to the fabric of an organization, such as changes in leadership, etc. The dilemma most with this model face is how to keep members in the group, even when it seems like leaving would be ideal for them. Other types include the rational actor, which maximize the organization’s benefits; bureaucratic, which follow the standard operating procedure; political, in which bargaining and competition occurs between key groups, and a “garbage scan” model, where solutions happen at random, and the organization is not performed in a rational way.
Between these two specific decision making models, the adversarial model is the one used for the dispute detailed in A Civil Action. The decision is not to change the overall way of doing business with Grace or Beatrice, merely to bring compensation for Anderson and her family. The adversaries involved are the big companies Grace and Beatrice, and the plaintiff Anne Anderson. They must prove to each other that the company is either responsible or not responsible, depending on the side. The entire argument is between these two opposing forces, and the decisions made are related to how to hurt Grace and Beatrice as much as possible for what was done to Anderson and the other families in Woburn.
Both Jan and the companies constantly reevaluate their strategies to combat the new conditions and methods used by their adversary – for example, once Unifirst settles, that money is put towards the legal fees of continuing the case against the other possible culprits of the water contamination. Also, due to its status as a legal case, and the burden of proof placed upon the parties involved, especially the plaintiff in order to prove their case, it fits in well with this model.
In terms of the quality of the book and its overall reading value, I rather enjoyed A Civil Action. The struggle of Jan and his fight to defend a small town against big business was very compelling, as well as his personal sacrifices and charisma which led him to this point. The book is written very matter-of-factly, being presented as an accurate representation of the facts of the case. At the same time, it is presented as a character study of Schlichtmann, a dedicated, tireless lawyer who sticks up for causes that are nearly impossible to successfully defend, going out of his way to spend millions in order to win the case.
Despite his outward confidence, he is a very insecure character, and seems to want to prove something with this case – for example, in the beginning of the book he dreams about a young woman he had worked with before. He was shy around her; “in five months Schlichtmann had not uttered a single word directly to her” (p. 2). It is interesting that this kind of person would then go on to handle a large case such as this, standing up for his principles in the face of rampant corporate antagonism.
The subject matter of A Civil Action has fascinated me for years. I have always been fascinated by corporate pollution, and the motives behind it. One thing of interest to me in particular is the casual dismissal of the needs of the people in order to continue to operate a business in a profitable way, regardless of the consequences. With lawyers such as Jan Schlichtmann, who are totally willing to bankrupt themselves in order to fund an expensive lawsuit to bring down these companies, it would be possible to hold more big businesses accountable for their own actions, and perhaps make changes.
Reflecting upon the reading, I am compelled by the convictions of those who fight for what they believe in against incredible odds. Jan and Anne Anderson are fighting for the children of Woburn against an uncaring and unfeeling corporate system, and in a way, they win. Despite not meeting total victory, they shed enough light on these problems through the publicity of the case to discredit Grace and Beatrice, holding them accountable for the pollution of the water in their town.
From a sociological standpoint, it is just interesting to see the depths to which people will go to defend their communities, and people they do not even know. Jan is an outsider, not a part of the community of this small town in Massachusetts, and yet he comes to believe in the cause that has been placed before him, placing his own principles and goals ahead of money. He even offers money from his fee after the final settlement in the face of accusations of overcharging his clients. This demonstrates an incredible strength of character, and one that is interesting to see in an uncharacteristic portrayal of a lawyer. While it is somewhat dramatized in the book, it also carries that truth of Schlichtmann’s real journey to bring justice (or at least restitution) to Anne Anderson and her family, as well as the families of those who were afflicted with leukemia as the result of these companies’ wrongdoing.
Works Cited
Harr, Jonathan. A Civil Action. Vintage, 1996.
