Civil Action Movie Tort Analysis

primer A Civil Action entails a major(ip) class bearion befit brought forth by several families against major conglomerates (including W. R. modify chemical comp any and Beatrice Foods) that were so-called to shake up remissly damaged the milieu of a little(a) town to the design that its practices led to the spread of leukemia. Jan, a ain injury attorney, decides to represent a cleaning woman that claims that her child and other neighbors of a small town in Massachusetts collect been diagnosed with leukemia.The lawyer finds evidence that there were somewhat factors that could hold up led to the contaminant of the towns urine supply by the conglomerates factory. In the quarrel of the lawsuit Jan gets other attorneys in his capital of Massachusetts law firm to assist him. Jan spends lavishly for honests, but the length of the discovery extremity and opposing counsels maneuvers stretch all his assets to the limit. Jan concentrates his efforts against the nourish co mpany (Grace) since they had personal tryoutimony of a former employee of Grace who had witnessed dumping.The case against Beatrice Foods was reject and would then lead the firm to take aim settlement from Grace for $8 million. Jan later on files for bankruptcy, and the firm is dismantled. Jan then submits the case to the EPA after it concludes, in a report, that both companies had pollute the well from sludge removed from the site. Ultimately, payable to the lawsuits brought forward by the EPA, Grace and Beatrice Foods atomic number 18 yettually forced to pay for unrivaled of the largest chemical clean ups in the account statement of the United States which cost about $64 million.Brief Analysis for Cause-in-Fact The issue that arises in this plot is whether the conglomerates are absent for the contamination of the wet supplies of the town, and if their negligence contributed to the injuries (leukemia) of the multiple plaintiffs. After determination that there has bee n a br to severally one of duty, unmatched must consider if the defendants give was the cause-in-fact of the injuries.An actors conduct is the cause-in-fact of someones injury where if we house say that but for the actors conduct the injury would not take over occurred. In other words, the dominant but for test asks if we could go back in time and remove the actors conduct, would that pull in prevented the injury? In hill v. Edmonds, the hail found that where two causes of negligence combine to produce a private injury, each individual is liable for the immaculate result even though its act alone may not welcome caused the result.In that case, the conduct of the transport driver was a but for cause of Hills injuries. If Bragoli (D) would not have left his truck in the middle of the road, Edmonds (D) probably would not have hit the truck. The minority test was molded in the Anderson case, where it was held that where several causes take to bring about an injury and an y one alone would have been suitable to cause the injury, it is sufficient if Ds conduct was a substantial factor. The court in that case concluded that it would be unfair to deny the plaintiff liability, but because the plaintiff cannot show that but for the derelict conduct of one defendant, the injury to the plaintiff would not have resulted. In this here and now case, the conglomerates were likely negligent since they failed to provide a duty of reasonable care in managing the factory in the town, causing unwholesome damage to the environment and the towns irrigate supply.The question of whether the conglomerates were liable to the families lies on the causation of the leukemia, and whether it can be shown that the water supply supply contamination was a post cause-in-fact of the leukemia. Jan was unable to promptly show this causal connection, and his cases against the other two entities involved were chivyd before settling with Grace. It was difficult for Jan to ti nge the conglomerates negligence as a cause-in-fact for the plaintiffs leukemia.In fact, in the deposition the defendants council articulated that there may have been a wide function of other reasons for the plaintiffs cases of leukemia. Everything from family history, food consumption and lifestyles were address as possible alternatives. The major barrier in Jans case against the conglomerates lies on causation. The water contamination may have been caused by all the entities involved in the factory near the towns river. First, it must be shown that the dumped chemicals, especially the industrial TCE, had gotten into the wells.In Anderson, the court reasoned that if a fire set by the Railways (D) negligence unites with a fire of an single-handed origin, there is joint and several liability, even though all fire would have independently destroyed the property. Likewise, even if the wells could have been contaminated by either defendant, the Anderson test will provide that where a plaintiff is injured by the negligent conduct of more than one tortfeasor, each is independently liable if they are each a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiffs injury.Grace and Beatrice Foods were both substantial factors to the water contamination. Their negligent management of the factory was evident by the former employees testimony that they had dumped materials unto the river. Hence, Grace and the others negligence could have all contributed to the ensuing injuries. The problem here lies in whether the water contamination was the cause-in-fact of the leukemia and second, if it had, whether the pollutants killed the leukemia patients.As shown in the movie, the EPA would ultimately execute in forcing the conglomerates to pay for damages. It may be assumed then that further expert testimony and findings uncovered that the water contamination was indeed a cause-in-fact of the leukemia. If , however, it were not for the EPAs extensive resources, Grace and Beatrice Foods may have been able to escape liability on the lack of evidence showing that the water contamination was the cause-in-fact of the widespread leukemia.