The case of Anderson and the companies represented in the film “A Civil Action”, established the pattern in toxic cleanup. The Environmental Protection Agency takes extraordinary measures to ensure that a failure like the one that occurred in Woburn, Massachusetts, never happens again. For more than ten years, children in Woburn, Massachusetts, were dying of leukemia. The parents of these unfortunate children filed a lawsuit against the people they believed were responsible, enlisting the help of a personal injury lawyer. The evidence against the responsible companies, WR Grace and Beatrice Foods, was strong, but Jan Schlichtmann was unable to defeat the experienced defense lawyers hired by the companies. Although WR Grace and Beatrice Foods were found innocent, they should have been charged with negligence leading to wrongful deaths. Many investigations concluded that the water in Woburn was unsafe. State investigators also proved the same thing. The preponderance of evidence is against large multinationals. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay A theme of the film was the shocking story of twelve children who died of leukemia in Woburn, Massachusetts. First of all, Jan Schlichtmann was a successful personal injury lawyer. He helped the families of deceased children sue a giant food conglomerate for harming their children and fatally suffering from cancer. Since many people wanted to know the answer to the pollution and death of their children, Jan represented all those families as one person as the plaintiffs and defendants were the lawyers coming together so that there was no different trial on the same topic under test. Therefore, Jan and his company now become agents of those families. To quote, the plaintiffs were Anne Anderson and other families. Ultimately the families wanted the place cleaned up and an apology from someone trustworthy. On the other hand, the defendants were Riley Tannery (Beatrice Foods) and WR Grace. The fact is that they had carried out work near the polluted wells. However, Schichtlmann faced the difficult burden of finding that the defendants truly and indirectly caused their injuries. The plaintiffs filed suit because the families wanted an apology, a confession of guilt. Overall, what the plaintiff wanted from the lawsuit was evidence suggesting trichlorethylene (TCE) contamination of the city's water supply by Riley Tannery and W.R. Grace. The plaintiffs in the Woburn case brought suit against the defendants who had given the plaintiff poisonous chemicals. In this case, the toxic tort plaintiffs successfully applied the public nuisance action. For example, Judge Walter Jay Skinner granted public nuisance to the Woburn plaintiffs because their numerous illnesses were, by their characteristics, personal and unique injuries. Victims of toxic torts have often asserted a negligence claim when seeking compensation. A toxic injury plaintiff often disputes that the defendant's release of hazardous materials constitutes negligent conduct. However, negligence is difficult to prove because injuries often reveal themselves years after charging documents were hidden or destroyed by the defendant in the Woburn case. For example, Schlichtmann discovered a hidden document showing that Beatrice knew its operations were damaging the property's groundwater after the jury acquitted Beatrice of negligence. JanSchlichtmann, accordingly, used the Elements of Negligence to try to prove his case against Grace Industries (Grace) and Beatrice Foods (Beatrice). Although he was defeated in his attempt to reach a guilty verdict by a jury, the lawsuit serves to illustrate how difficult it is to show negligence in a civil case. Furthermore, the first element of negligence is the duty of care. Schlichtmann was able to demonstrate that the plaintiffs had a right to drinking water and that Beatrice and Grace had a duty not to violate these rights. In other words, Beatrice and Grace had a duty to be careful not to discharge toxic chemicals into the water, which could pollute drinking water and destroy wildlife. Breach of duty is the next element of negligence and is demonstrated in this case. One example is that the man saw his colleagues dumping toxic waste into ditches that filled the earth and began contaminating drinking water. Then, Schlichtmann proves this by pointing out that other companies would have had this waste disposed of by experts. Rule 11 was designed to control superficial and negligent actions, but was so weak in terms of experience and access to circumvention that few lawyers ever devoted their time to summons. The source of Cheeseman's Rule 11 motion is that Cheeseman found the rule being updated to make it stronger. Its central argument was that the Woburn families' lawyers had no room for the charges and would argue that nothing helped the relationship between included chemicals like TCE or perc and leukemia. Rule 11 aimed to have Schlichtmann testify against his clients and he refused to do so. However, Schlichtmann intended to anger Judge Skinner by speaking continuously once he began the courtroom and would not stay until he drew the judge's attention to the care of the barter and away from Rule 11. Judge Skinner's final verdict on the motion relating to Rule 11 is that the motion was denied. Next, the tort occurs when Barbas cleans the oily film using TCE, which he purchased from a 55-gallon drum. During construction, a pit for waste and construction waste management was discovered. This pit matured the "pool". Al Love was told to empty the containers (of TCE mixed with drilling oils and paint sludge) into the pit. The amount is unknown. Due to a financial burden placed on Schlichtmann's company, the Woburn plaintiffs spent approximately $4.8 million attempting the first half of the trial. The cost of the trial consumed all of the company's support and may have pushed the plaintiffs to settle for a much lower gross amount than they proved. The current case proves more successful because the plaintiffs' case against Grace was significantly stronger for two reasons. First, Schlichtmann had particular evidence from a previous Grace employee who had observed the discharge, and a river between the Beatrice tannery and the contaminated wells presented its supply to the pollution. However, the case against Beatrice was dismissed by Judge Skinner. In Woburn, the plaintiffs investigated documentation regarding the defendants' awareness of the groundwater infection, the outcome of the TCE they drained, and the timeframe in which they dropped the TCE onto the ground. The plaintiffs took a small portion of this report because the defendants would dispose of their old documents. Schlichtmann found a mysterious sixty-page hydrogeological document that the defendant had committed a few years before the trial after the.