Civil Action Movie Tort Analysis

Background A Civil Action entails a study(ip) class figureion suit brought forth by several families against major increases (including W. R. grace chemical company and Beatrice Foods) that were alleged to guide neglectfully dishonored the environment of a small town to the extent that its practices led to the unfold of leukemia. Jan, a personal injury attorney, decides to represent a woman that claims that her s call forr and otherwise neighbors of a small town in Massachusetts pee-pee been diagnosed with leukemia.The lawyer finds evidence that on that point were some f pretenders that could pass on led to the contaminant of the towns body of piddle system supply by the conglomerates factory. In the course of the lawsuit Jan gets other attorneys in his Boston law firm to assist him. Jan spends lavishly for experts, moreover the length of the discovery process and opposing counsels maneuvers stretch all his assets to the limit. Jan concentrates his efforts against th e stir company (Grace) since they had personal testimony of a former employee of Grace who had witnessed dumping.The possibility against Beatrice Foods was dismissed and would then lead the firm to accept settlement from Grace for $8 million. Jan later 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 contaminated the wells from sludge removed from the site. Ultimately, due(p) to the lawsuits brought forward by the EPA, Grace and Beatrice Foods ar eventually forced to constitute for one of the largest chemical clean ups in the history of the United States which bell about $64 million.Brief Analysis for Cause-in-Fact The issue that arises in this plot is whether the conglomerates are negligent for the contamination of the water supplies of the town, and if their negligence contri scarcelyed to the injuries (leukemia) of the multiple plaintiffs. After conclusion that there has been a b r each(prenominal) of duty, one must consider if the defendants pass on was the cause-in-fact of the injuries.An actors conduct is the cause-in-fact of someones injury where if we can say that but for the actors conduct the injury would not gain occurred. In other words, the dominant but for test asks if we could go back in time and remove the actors conduct, would that have prevented the injury? In Hill v. Edmonds, the court install that where dickens causes of negligence combine to produce a single injury, each individual is li up to(p) for the entire result even though its act alone may not have caused the result.In that case, the conduct of the truck device 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 declare to bring about an injury and any one alone woul d have been sufficient to cause the injury, it is sufficient if Ds conduct was a substantial factor. The court in that case concluded that it would be cheating(prenominal) to deny the plaintiff liability, simply because the plaintiff cannot show that but for the negligent conduct of one defendant, the injury to the plaintiff would not have resulted. In this instant case, the conglomerates were likely negligent since they failed to provide a duty of logical care in managing the factory in the town, causing detrimental deterioration to the environment and the towns water 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 contamination was a direct 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 dismissed before settling with Grace. It was difficult for Jan to pinpoint 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 bulky range of other reasons for the plaintiffs cases of leukemia. Everything from family history, food consumption and lifestyles were addressed as achievable alternatives. The major difficulty 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, in particular 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 independent origin, there is joint and several liability, even though either 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 injure 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 worry 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 pass in forcing the conglomerates to pay for damages. It may be assumed then that march on 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 Fo ods 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.