The case of Anderson and the companies depicted in the film "A Civil Action" set the tone for toxic cleanup. The Environmental Protection Agency continues to take remarkable steps to ensure that a failure like the one in Woburn, Massachusetts, never happens again. For 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 for seeking help from a personal injury attorney. The evidence against the responsible companies, WR Grace and Beatrice Foods, was substantial, but Jan Schlichtmann could not defeat the expert lawyers hired by the companies. Although WR Grace and Beatrice Foods were found innocent, they should have been charged with negligence resulting in wrongful deaths. Numerous investigations concluded that Woburn's water was unsafe. State investigators also proved the same thing. The preponderance of evidence was against big business. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayA motion of the film was the shocking story of twelve children who died due to leukemia in Woburn, Massachusetts. First of all, Jan Schlichtmann was a brilliant personal injury lawyer. He helped families of deceased children sue a giant food conglomerate for harming their children and causing them to die from cancer. As many people wanted to know the answer to the pollution and the deaths of their children, Jan represented all of these families as one, with the plaintiffs and defendants being the lawyers united so that there would be no different trial in the same case. subject being tested. Thus, Jan and his company now become the agents of these families. It is worth mentioning that the plaintiffs were Anne Anderson and other families. The families ultimately coveted the cleaned premises and the apology from a reliable person. On the other hand, the accused were Riley Tannery (Beatrice Foods) and WR Grace. The fact is that they had carried out construction work near the polluted pits. Yet Schichtlmann had the difficult task of discovering that the defendants actually and directly caused their injuries. A lawsuit was filed by the plaintiffs because the families wanted an apology, an admission of guilt. In general, the plaintiff sought evidence in the lawsuit suggesting trichlorethylene (TCE) contamination of the city's water supply by Riley Tannery and W.R. Grace. The plaintiffs in the Woburn case filed suit against the defendants who caused the plaintiff to poison the chemicals. In this case, the toxic tort plaintiffs successfully pursued the public nuisance action. For example, Judge Walter Jay Skinner awarded the Woburn plaintiffs a public nuisance because their various illnesses were, by their characteristics, personal and unique injuries. Victims of toxic torts have often asserted a cause of action based on negligence when seeking compensation. A toxic tort plaintiff often disputes that the defendant's release of hazardous materials amounts to negligent conduct. However, negligence is difficult to prove because injuries often come to light years after the charging records were hidden or destroyed by the defendant in the Woburn case. For example, Schlichtmann discovered a hidden file showing that Beatrice knew her operations were damaging the watersunderground areas of the property after the jury absolved Béatrice of any negligence. Jan Schlichtmann therefore 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 efforts to obtain a guilty verdict from a jury, the trial illustrates how difficult it is to demonstrate negligence in a civil case. Additionally, the first element of negligence is the duty of care. Schlichtmann successfully demonstrated that the plaintiffs had the right to drinking water and that Beatrice and Grace had a duty not to infringe on these rights. In other words, Beatrice and Grace had a duty to ensure that they did not release toxic chemicals into the water, which could pollute drinking water and destroy wildlife. Breach of duty is the next element of negligence and is proven in this case. One example is that the man witnessed his colleagues draining toxic waste into ditches which filled the earth and began to contaminate drinking water. Thus, Schlichtmann demonstrates this by emphasizing that other companies would have had this waste eliminated by experts. Rule 11 was designed to control superficial and negligent actions, but it was so poorly experienced and accessible to circumvent it that few lawyers ever devoted the time to it. invoking him. The source of Cheeseman's motion regarding Rule 11 is that Cheeseman discovered that the rule was being updated to make it stronger. Its central debate was that the Woburn families' lawyers had no room for accusations and would make them by pointing out that nothing helped the relationship between the included chemicals, such as TCE or perc, and leukemia. Rule 11 was intended to make Schlichtmann testify against his clients and he refused to do so. However, Schlichtmann intended to anger Judge Skinner by continuously speaking once he entered the courtroom and would not stay until he had called the judge's attention to care of barratry and departs from Rule 11. Judge Skinner's final verdict on the Rule 11 application was that the application was dismissed. Later, the crime occurs when Barbas cleans the oily film using TCE, which he purchased in a 55-gallon drum. During construction, a pit was discovered for waste and construction waste administration. This pit matured the “pool”. Al Love was asked to empty the containers (of TCE mixed with perforating oils and paint sludge) into the pit. The amount is unknown. Since the Schlichtmann firm suffered a financial burden, the Woburn plaintiffs have spent approximately $4.8 million to try the first half of the trial. The cost of the lawsuit consumed all of the company's support and may have caused the plaintiffs to settle for a much lower gross amount than they had tried. The current trial is proving more effective because the plaintiffs' case against Grace was significantly stronger for two reasons. First, Schlichtmann had specific evidence from a former Grace employee who observed a spill, and a river between Beatrice's tannery and the contaminated wells exposed their supply to pollution. Yet the case against Beatrice was thrown out by Judge Skinner. In the Woburn lawsuit, the plaintiffs investigated documents indicating that the defendants were aware of the groundwater infection, the result of the TCE they had drained, and the term that they had dropped TCE on the ground. The plaintiffs took a small part of this report because the defendants allegedly got rid of their old ones.