Movie Review: A Civil Action
The toxic tort case of Anderson v. Cryovac, as depicted in the film A Civil Action, shows the difficulty of litigating against powerful corporate defendants in environmental law cases, revealing the limits and challenges inherent in the American civil justice system. In the 1970s and early 1980s, several families in Woburn experienced a cluster of leukemia cases and other serious illnesses. The families suspected that the water supply was contaminated, leading them to investigate the nearby industrial facilities. They eventually discovered that two companies, W.R. Grace & Co. and Cryovac, Inc. (a subsidiary of Beatrice Foods), had improperly disposed of toxic chemicals, including trichloroethylene (TCE), which leaked into the groundwater.
In this case, the rules of civil procedure played a dual role, at times facilitating the search for truth while at other times impeding it. Discovery procedures allowed Schlichtmann and his team to gather evidence about the companies’ knowledge of chemical contamination. However, these same rules also allowed Cryovac’s legal team to delay proceedings, leveraging procedural tactics to wear down Schlichtmann’s resources. This is a double-edged nature of civil procedure; while it grants both sides equal opportunity to present their cases, it can be exploited by wealthier parties to outlast financially weaker opponents.
One key procedural issue was the requirement to prove causation. Plaintiffs had to establish a direct link between exposure to contaminants and specific health outcomes, a burden complicated by scientific uncertainties. Facher’s use of procedural strategy—requesting a bifurcated trial that separated the issues of liability and causation—was a legal maneuver that complicated Schlichtmann’s task of presenting a cohesive narrative. The trial was split into two phases. The liability phase determined whether the defendants caused the contamination of the wells and if that contamination harmed the plaintiffs. The damages phase assessed how much compensation should be awarded if liability was established. The bifurcation prevented Schlichtmann from presenting the emotional and devastating impacts of the contaminated water on the families during the liability phase. This hindered his ability to evoke the jury’s sympathy, as the focus was solely on whether the companies were responsible. It also increased the financial pressure as preparing for the liability phase requires extensive resources, including costly expert witnesses, scientific studies, and legal research.
The line in the film, “the courtroom isn’t a place to look for the truth,” reflects this procedural reality. Rather than illuminating the facts, civil procedures in this case obscured them, creating an environment where legal tactics, rather than truth, dictated outcomes. The need to prove causation in the absence of clear scientific evidence allowed Cryovac’s defense to cast doubt and raise barriers to the plaintiffs being able to truthfully and wholly tell their story.
Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, attorneys have a duty to advocate zealously for their clients within the bounds of the law. Initially, Schlichtmann was a standard injury lawyer motivated by profit driven incentives. That is why he hesitated to take the case as he was unsure of the financial payoff. However, after meeting the affected families and understanding the severity of the leukemia cases linked to water contamination, he committed to representing them. This decision marked the beginning of his zealous advocacy, driven by a desire to seek justice for the victims. Schlichtmann was certainly committed to his clients, but it was to the point that it obstructed his ability to make the best, objective decisions. For instance, he rejected substantial settlement offers, believing that a trial could yield a more favorable outcome for his clients. Thus, although his actions demonstrated zealous advocacy, they arguably placed his personal interests—his desire for a significant legal victory—above the immediate needs of his clients, who sought not even financial compensation but simply an apology.
Conversely, Cryovac’s legal time exemplified a traditional approach to zealous advocacy. His strategic choices, though frustrating for the plaintiffs, were legally sound and reflective of a commitment to defending his client as effectively as possible. Facher’s conduct did not breach boundaries; rather, it demonstrated how defense attorneys can navigate procedural rules to limit exposure to liability. His approach, while criticized for lacking empathy for the victims, was in line with his duty to advocate for his own client.
Judge Walter Skinner’s role in the Anderson case brings forth the question of judicial impartiality. As the presiding judge, Skinner was tasked with ensuring a fair trial while remaining neutral. There were several decisions he made that disproportionately favored the defense. First, the evidentiary rulings. Skinner excluded expert testimonies that the plaintiffs intended to present, ruling that they did not meet the necessary standards of scientific reliability. This limitation hindered the plaintiffs' ability to establish a direct link between the contaminated water and the health issues experienced by Woburn residents. This decision prevented the jury from seeing the full scope of the harm alleged. Skinner also restricted the introduction of historical evidence related to the defendants past environmental practices, determining that such information was not directly relevant to the case at hand. This narrowed the scope of evidence the plaintiffs could use to demonstrate a pattern of negligent behavior by the defendants. Secondly, the handling of the discovery. It was revealed that Beatrice Foods failed to disclose a critical environmental report during discovery, which contained information potentially supportive of the plaintiffs' claims. Judge Skinner acknowledged this oversight but denied the plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment, concluding that the nondisclosure did not warrant a new trial. These decisions complicated the fairness of the trial.
The use of special interrogatories—specific questions posed to the jury to ascertain detailed factual findings—played an important role in the trial's outcome. It helped the jury focus on specific factual determinations, such as whether certain chemicals were disposed of at the defendants' sites and whether these chemicals contributed to the contamination of Wells G and H. By breaking down the case into specific questions, the interrogatories provided a structured framework for the jury's deliberations, in theory leading to more precise and reasoned verdicts.
