A+Civil+Action+-+Movie+Analysis

media type="custom" key="17002700" width="120" height="120" align="left"

//**Synopsis**// The small town of East Woburn, Massachusetts, suffers from an unusually high rate of leukemia among its child population. The source of the epidemic is the solvents in the town’s water supply, suspected to be the doing of two large factories in the area. One of the mothers of a leukemia-stricken son decides it is time to bring these corporations to justice, but the defendants have no shortage of money, power and influence.

//**Questions**// • At the beginning of the film, Jan insists that his firm cannot take the case. What were his reasons against taking the case? What changed his mind? If you were the lawyer and you had the same information, would you have taken the case? Why or why not? • Throughout the film, glasses of water are shown repeatedly. Think about the specific times when this tactic was used. What was the point of using drinking water tactic? How did you feel as you watched people drinking water after you learned about the contamination? • When Jerry (Beatrice’s lawyer) met with the parents of the victims, why did he say to his team that the parents could never be allowed to testify? • Why is this considered a //civil// action and not a //criminal// action?

//**Do some research**// • Jan went on to become an environmental lawyer and began working a case in the Toms River area of New Jersey. Find out what happened in Toms River. Who were the players? What were the circumstances? Was there a settlement? Did the case ever go to trial? • The EPA passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 and then amended it in 1977. Find out why the Clean Water Act was passed. What lead to this legislation?

Share responses with jgrams@hlv.k12.ia.us