Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Harmful effects of pollution
Harmful effects of pollution
Pollution and its effects on human health
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
A Civil Action portrays a fictional account of the real legal case pertaining to the hazardous waste site in Woburn, Mass. The waste site affected its surroundings, and in particular, Woburn, Mass. The waste site contaminated the river in which the community of Woburn used to drink from. Due to the water contamination, the children in Woburn have been dying of Leukemia. Although we are still ignorant of the exact cause of Leukemia, the contaminated water did affect people. W.R. Grace, the company that contaminated the water, is guilty of negligence. The company failed to take reasonable care to protect the community of Woburn from harm. I personally see three main elements of negligence in this court case. The elements are duty, proximate cause, and damages. …show more content…
First of all, every company is responsible to provide a presence of a duty of care.
A presence of care can be as simple as a mother feeding her child, teacher protecting his or her students from an intruder, or making sure the passengers in your car are wearing seatbelts. W.R. Grace failed to provide a presence of care to the community of Woburn. The way W.R. Grace waterproofed their leather was unsafe to the environment and affected the Woburn community tremendously. They simply poured hazardous chemicals, in particular trichloroethylene, on hanging leather. Just like if you poured water on a table, the trichloroethylene spilled and went onto the ground. Eventually, the trichloroethylene contaminated the water. As well as the barrels and excess debri the company threw into the river. W.R. Grace fails to provide care for contaminating water or even fails to prevent this in the first
place. Moreover, every company is legally obligated to recognize responsibility and be held for the cause of an injury. The contaminated water was most likely the cause of why so many children obtained leukemia and a couple died from leukemia. W.R. Grace argued that they were not the cause of the river being contaminated, thus meaning they were not responsible to the occurrence in Woburn community. Finally, the court requires every company to compensate for any damages. Although they were mandated to do this once the Environmental Protection Agency was involved, W.R. Grace did not compensate beforehand. The company ignored the responsibility to provide funds and simply apologize, which is all they wanted, to the families who lost or were affected by the contaminated water. A defence W.R. Grace attorneys attempted to use was rule 11. Rule 11 “provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose or that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support.” The attorney for W.R. Grace attempted to convince the judge that Mr. Schlichtmann and his firm did not find proper evidence for the court case to be valid. However, the judge overturned this immediately. Justice has a price. That statement is shown in the movie when Mr. Shlichtmann and a small firm attempted to sue a company long term. The small firm eventually went bankrupt and did not reach a settlement with the company W.R. Grace. Justice was served when the Environmental Protection Agency stepped in. I believe Anne Anderson has a huge role to the meaning of this movie. She said, “it’s not about the money.” The whole movie shows that companies and the people who work in these companies can easily be corrupted by money. At the beginning, Mr. Schlichtmann was not in it to provide justice to for the people of Woburn; Mr. Schlichtmann saw the case would be a “gold mine” if they won the case. W.R. Grace did everything they could to protect their company from being shut down because if they were shut down, they would lose their net gain of about 600mil dollars per year. Mr. Schlichtmann eventually went bankrupt trying to win the case for the people of Woburn. W.R. Grace was “won” until finally the Environmental Protection Agency got involved. But both the small firm of Mr. Schlichtmann and the major company or W.R. Grace, at one point or another, did not see that the people of Woburn just wanted an apology. They would have been okay with the water contamination if W.R. Grace simply had someone apologize for their negligence.
Rule: During the legal proceedings, it was established that it was a clear case of duty negligence and dereliction on references of the evidences. The resort company is responsible for the maintenance and establishment of safe environment for all the visitors, which was not in this case. During the whole trial the main focus was on the maintainability issues of the resort and the derelictions of the authority of the resort, was held accountable for this accident. It was established that Mr. Watters had a record of minimal attentions to corporate formalities and he had consistently been skipping all of the corporate meetings. The break down in the boat that led to the deaths of Jared and William Geringer correspond to negligence and ignorance for the duty of
Arnold & Porter chose to sue Pittston rather than the Buffalo Mining Company because the value of the corporation allowed for adequate compensation to the victims. Author and head lawyer for the plaintiffs, Gerald M. Stern, writes that the original goal was sue to sue for $21 million for the disaster to have a material effect on the cooperation (51). To avoid responsibility Pittston attempted to prove that the Buffalo Mining Company was an independent corporation with its own board of directors. The lawyers for the plaintiffs disproved this claim by arguing the Buffalo Mining Company never held formal meetings of the board of directors and was not independent of the parent company. During this case Pittston’s Oil division had applied to build an oil refinery in Maine. The ...
Cases have been widely used in medical ethics and law. In both fields, numerous books and articles about cases have appeared, including book-length catalogs of cases. What I propose to do in this paper is to discuss whether environmental ethics should be case-based as in law and medicine.
The movie “A Civil Action” released on January 8, 1999 provides viewers with an extraordinary story of the nightmare that occurred in Woburn Massachusetts in the late 1970’s. The people of this small town at the time had no idea what was going on until there were various cases of Leukemia in small children that ultimately resulted in the early passing of them. The people eventually had gone to find out that the drinking water in this small town was contaminated and there were many women that stepped in to get answers. This movie is a tremendously jaw dropping, eye opening account of a heartbreaking true story incident. There are various elements of negligence in this movie including, duty, legal cause, proximate cause and damages.
A dentist fits several children with braces. The children are regular patients of the dentist. The results for some of the patients turn out to be unacceptable and damaging. There are children who have developed gum infections due to improperly tightened braces. Some mistakenly had their permanent teeth removed, while others have misaligned bites. A local attorney becomes aware of these incidences, looks further into it, and realizes the dentist has not been properly trained and holds no legal license to practice dentistry or orthodontics. The attorney decides to act on behalf of the displeased patients and files a class action lawsuit. The attorney plans to prove the dentist negligent and guilty of dental malpractice by providing proof using the four D’s of negligence. The four D’s of negligence are duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages.
On Thursday, 11/12/2015, at 17:01 hours, I, Deputy Stacy Stark #1815 was dispatched to a domestic disturbance in progress located at 66 Paper Lane, Murphysboro, IL 62966. It was reported that a 15 year old female juvenile was busting out windows on her mother’s vehicle. Deputy Sergeant Ken Lindsey #2406 and Deputy John Huffman #2903 responded as well.
Before the jury decides a verdict, the last step in the trial process is the closing arguments. There were no closing arguments because the parties had to settle on nine million dollars. They did this because the plaintiff’s attorneys went bankrupt due to this case and they couldn’t afford to invest any more money into the case. Beatrice Foods ended up being not liable for the deaths of children so they were allowed to leave the case. Due to this, only W.R. Grace had to settle with the plaintiff. Later on in 1988, Jan Schlichtmann brought this case to the EPA’s attention and the EPA decided to bring lawsuits against the companies. W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods ended up having to pay for their huge mistake. They had to pay for the largest chemical cleanup in the Northeastern which cost sixty- four million dollars.
There are many ethical issues in the movie Erin Brockovich. This movie is about a mother of three who uncovers a water poisoning case by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) in southern California. Once it was proved that the company had knowingly dumped hexavalent chromium into the ground water, the utility company was found liable for a $330 million dollar verdict.
If DuPont had informed the workers about the side effects of exposing themselves directly to the chemical, I believe that a safety measure could have been enforced. This could have prevented many workers from being infected with diseases. A worker like Sue Bailey was demotivated ever since she knew that her son’s deformity was a result of her being exposed to the chemical. DuPont could have attempted to pay her son’s hospital bills as it investigated. These gestures could have motivated the employees even after such misfortune had occurred. DuPont further created a rift between its workers since it strived to justify that its chemicals were not the cause of this deformity. Instead, DuPont carried out suspicious investigations that protected the company’s image while sidelining the interests of its
Within the Gilbane Gold case, the major problem is the contribution of water pollution by dumping chemicals to speed production for Z CORP. However, there is doubt as to what extent the company violated city regulations. Tom Richards believes that Z-CORP broke regulations repeatedly but Professor Massin believes that it is not solid evidence. Part of the problem is that two different tests are involved: an older and a less sensitive test which does not break regulations but there is also the newer and more sensitive one which does. The newer test was said that the company just broke city regulations, but not by a large amount.
Tom defamed Allen through intentional publication. Under section 41-1-6-9 of the state statutes defines defamation as the intentional publication of a false statement about a person. The statue also defines publication as communication to a third person and includes publication that occurs as a result of gross negligence as intentional publication. The mere fact that Tom leaves the defaming letter with Allen’s friend is gross negligence. Add to Tom’s gross negligence is the fact that the letter was folded and seal with a piece of tape. Tom did not instructed the friend on the importance of not opening the letter. Tom’s letter was is personal believes. Writing a letter that accuses your business associate of stealing should have never been giving
Ernst & Young was the auditing firm of HealthSouth from 1984 to 2002. Due to financial hardship Healthshore grew desperate and developed a scheme to deceive not only shareholders but Ernst and Young. Inevitably whistleblowers came forth and a lawsuit ensued. The shareholder’s lawsuit against Ernst and Young never went to trial. However, the lawsuit against Healthshore ended in settlement. Though a travesty to the shareholders and employees not involved with the fraud, this fraudulent activity was necessary for it forced the SEC to hinder these types of events to occur in the future. There may still be cases similar to HealthShore going on today had it not been for the Sarbanes Oxley act enforcing stricter requirements for auditing firms.
Love Canal is one of the most infamous toxic waste disaster in history. The Love Canal site began its life as a project linking “the upper and lower Niagara Rivers” in western New York, in order to provide power to the homes and industry that William T. Love intended to build (Beck, 1979, para. 5). In 1910 William T. Love Rn out of funding for this project, and the land was subsequently sold to Hooker Chemical Company. The Hooker Chemical Company purchased this land for the specific reason of dumping their toxic waste. At one-time process of dumping toxic waste directly into the ground was legal, as long as it was your land. However, we did not understand the future problems it would cause. Around
up to the claimant to prove. The rule for this is sic utere tuo ut
Professional negligence litigation can be involved against many professional professions such as medical officers, solicitors and technical group of people works as engineers, architects and quantity surveyors. The technical group can be found in many industries in Malaysia especially the construction industry. The professional negligence litigation involves claims against the specifics of discipline of professional and also can be from more than one discipline. For example, in construction disputes among the technical group such as an engineer, architect and quantity surveyor may all be sued together. In other cases, a professional negligence claim can be an alternative to another charge such as to the commercial claim. For instance, in mane insurance disputes where insurers have refused to indemnify a claimant, both the insurance company and insurance broker are likely to be sued in the first instances.