A Civil Action 1982 – Jan Richard Schlichtmann, a lawyer specialized in medical malpractice cases, filed a lawsuit against two multinational corporations.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Civil & criminal law Civil Law.
Advertisements

– Forensic Geology The Woburn Toxics Case A Civil Action.
Q3 LAW NOTES 1 TORTS.
What You’ll Learn How to define negligence (p. 88)
A Civil Action 1982 – Jan Richard Schlichtmann, a lawyer specialized in medical malpractice cases, filed a lawsuit against two multinational corporations.
{ Chapter 10 TORTS: Negligence and Strict Liability.
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Common Law II: Nuisance and The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Limitations of the Common Law.
Chapter 18: Torts A Civil Wrong
Law I Chapter 18.
Tort Law Part 2 Negligence and Liability. Negligence Most common tort Accidental or Unintentional Tort Failure to show a degree of care that a “reasonable”
Chapter 18 Torts.
Chapter 3 Tort Law.
Private Wrongs: Torts Negligence and Strict Liability Chapter 14.
Tort Law – Unintentional torts
Strict Liability and Torts and Public Policy Mrs. Weigl.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 Chapter 45 Environmental Law Chapter 45 Environmental Law.
Chapter 7.1 – An introduction to civil law
RISK Risk management is a critical component in the successful operation of a student organization and in maintaining a healthy relationship between the.
 A body of rights, obligations, and remedies that is applied by courts in civil proceedings to provide relief for persons who have suffered harm from.
Copyright © 2004 McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited 1 PART 8 – SPECIAL LEGAL RIGHTS AND RELATIONSHIPS  Chapter 35 – Environmental Law Prepared by Douglas H.
Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. © 2007 Prentice Hall, Business Law, sixth edition, Henry R. Cheeseman Chapter 5 Intentional Torts.
Chapter 18.  Criminal Law: crime against the state  Civil Law: person commits a wrong, not always a violation of law  Plaintiff-the harmed individual,
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Intentional Torts Section 4.1.
 1. Duty-The accused wrongdoer owed a duty of care to the injured person  2. Breach of Duty- the defendant’s conduct breached that duty  3. Causation-defendant’s.
© 2007 Prentice Hall, Business Law, sixth edition, Henry R. Cheeseman Insurance.
Legal Considerations Sports Med 2.
Unit 6 – Civil Law.
The Law Of Torts Chapter #4.
Products Liability “Liability for Defective Products”
Torts in a Health care setting. What is a Tort? A tort is an infringement of a person’s rights that constitutes grounds for a lawsuit. This may be in.
Civil Law. The Basics Plaintiff - The party bringing the lawsuit; can be either a private individual, a corporation or a government entity; Plaintiff.
CIVIL LAW - Torts and Other Fun Stuff Intro to Law Mr. Meyer.
Chapter 18 Intentional Torts. Intentionally With Purpose, done deliberately for a specific reason.
Torts A.K.A. civil law. What’s a Tort? Torts more or less means “wrongs” Refers to civil laws Based on both common law (decisions made by judges) and.
Negligence by Snježana Husinec. Negligence  failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances,
The Role of the Courts.
Unit 2 Chapter 5 Legal Environments of Business (LEB)
A CIVIL ACTION – It’s Debatable Movie Study and Gathering of Debate Evidence.
1 FOOD SAFETY MANAGING RISKS TO REDUCE LEGAL LIABLITY ELIZABETH HAWS CONNALLY,ESQ. Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing.
COMMON LAW CIVIL LIABILITY LAW OF TORTS 1 Environmental Law.
Categories of Law. The Law The broadest categories of law are International Law and Domestic Law.
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Intentional Torts Section 4.1.
Corporate and Business Law (ENG). 2 Designed to give you knowledge and application of: Section B: The Law of Obligations B1. Formation of contract B2.
TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Chapter 18. TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Under criminal law, wrongs committed are called crimes. Under civil law, wrongs committed are called.
CHAPTER 18 PART I Torts: A Civil Wrong. A Civil Wrong In criminal law, when someone commits a wrong, we call it a crime. In civil law, when someone commits.
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Negligence and Strict Liability Section 4.2.
Hazardous Waste.
Law-Related Ch Notes I. Torts: 1. A tort is a civil wrong.
Introduction to Environmental Law
Section 4.2.
The Law of Torts I’m going to sue you!.
What Kind of Lawsuit Can be Filed After a Construction Accident?
Business Law Chapter 3 Tort Law.
Negligence Mr. Lugo.
ESSENTIAL QUESTION Why does conflict develop?
Spinal Cord Injury Lawsuits
Standard of Care.
2.03 Civil Law.
Science in the Courtroom
Torts: A Civil Wrong.
Legal Options for Injured Construction Workers
Explain the nature of liability insurance
Torts “ Civil Wrongs” Chapter 17
Common Law Environmental Liability
Transformation by the legal system
Section Outline Unintentional Torts Negligence Strict Liability
Negligence Ms. Weigl.
Lesson 6-1 Civil Law (Tort Law).
Strict Liability and Torts and Public Policy
NEGLIGENCE Requirements:
Presentation transcript:

A Civil Action 1982 – Jan Richard Schlichtmann, a lawyer specialized in medical malpractice cases, filed a lawsuit against two multinational corporations in U.S. District Court in Boston

Plaintiffs 6 Woburn families, all of whom had a child who had died of leukemia or who was being treated for the illness. The case grew to involve eight families

Defendants W.R. Grace & Company, which owned and operated the Cryovac Division manufacturing plant at 369 Washington Street, about 2.400 feet northeast of the wells. The Cryovac plant manufactured equipment for the food packaging industry and used solvents to clean and cool tools, cut grease and dilute paint

Beatrice Foods Company, which, in 1978, purchased the John Riley Company Tannery, 228 Salem Street, and adjacent 15-acre undeveloped property, from John Riley Jr, and sold them back to him in 1983. As a stipulation of Beatrice’s agreement to resell the tannery to Riley in 1983, Beatrice retained legal liability for environmental matters. Northeast of the tannery was the 15 acre parcel, undeveloped land that the tannery had purchased in 1950s for its water supply. Schlichtmann charged that the groundwater beneath the 15 acres had become contaminated through activities at the tannery and by the dumping of chemicals on the surface of the 15 acres.

UniFirst Corporation, which operated and industrial dry-cleaning business at 15 Olympia Avenue, about 200 feet north of wells G and H. UniFirst used PCE as part of its business and tests on UniFirst Property revealed large quantities of PCE in the soil and groundwater.

The complaint

The site and surroundings Woburn is a city of 35.000 inhabitants located twelve miles north of Boston. Until 1979 the city’s entire municipal water supply was provided by a number of groundwater wells located within the city limits. Two wells of particular relevance in this proceeding, city Wells G and H were opened in East Woburn in 1964 and 1966, respectively. Wells G and H are located just off the banks of the Aberjona river

Contaminated water wells In May 1979, after water had been drawn from these wells over the course of fifteen years, wells G and H were tested for volatile organic contamination. They were found to have hazardous levels of contaminants and were immediately shut down. In tests for contaminants in 1979, and subsequent tests in 1980 and 1981, wells G and H showed consistently high concentrations of two contaminants: trichloroethylene was identified in concentrations as high as 400 ppb (parts per billion) and tetrachloroethylene was found at 43 ppb

Trichloroethylene TCE is a potent central nervous system depressant and can cause several neurological symptoms such as dizziness, loss of appetite and loss of motor coordination. It produces liver damage at certain exposure levels and causes cell mutations and cancer

Tetrachloroethylene Tetracholoethylene exhibits adverse effects on the central nervous system and is also a carcinogen. Its effects include depression, nausea, liver dysfunction, chronic bone marrow depression and leukemia

Causes of action Defendants owe plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ descendents a duty to refrain from action which causes plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ descendents to be unreasonably exposed to chemicals which can cause personal injury, economic harm, illness, or which increases the risk of contracting illnesses. The chemicals described above are ultrahazardous substances, and defendants knew or should have known of the dangerous nature of the substances. Defendants are liable for all harm caused to plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ descendents in the manufacture, use, control, and/or disposal of such chemicals

Defendants failed to exercise due care in the manufacture, use, control, and/or disposal of such chemicals. Defendants’ failure to exercise such care caused plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ descendents to suffer in mind and body, to contract illness and to suffer the increased risk of contracting illness in the future, emotional distress, and mental anguish, and to suffer the loss of use and enjoyment of the property, and economic and financial harm

Wrongful death Defendants’ conduct constituted gross negligence. Defendants’ failure to exercise such care and gross negligence caused plaintiffs’ descendents to die. Defendants’ failure to exercise such care and gross negligence caused plaintiffs who are entitled to receive such damage, to be deprived of the descendents’ reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society, companionship, comfort, guidance, counsel and advice.

Conscious pain and suffering Defendant’s failure to exercise such care caused plaintiffs’ descendents to consciously suffer pain and mental anguish prior to death

Nuisance The contamination in the ground water from which plaintiffs received their water and which was caused by defendants’ actions constitutes a nuisance which is inimical to plaintiffs’ health and restricts their access to and use of the ground water flowing beneath East Woburn and beneath their property. The continued disposal of hazardous substances on the ground and the continued presence of hazardous substances in the soil of defendants’ property in East Woburn constitutes a further threat to the ground water and is a nuisance which is inimical to plaintiffs’ health and restricts their access to and use of the ground water flowing beneath East Woburn and beneath their property.

RELIEF Wherefore, plaintiffs pray that court, upon trial and determination of their causes of action, award the following relief: Compensation as provided by law; Order defendants to halt all further disposal of hazardous substances on the ground of their property in East Woburn and to remove from the soil on/or adjacent to their property in East Woburn all hazardous substances placed there by them Order defendants to provide appropriate methods to remove all contamination from the ground water flowing beneath East Woburn and plaintiff’ property and return the ground water to the condition it would be in but for the contamination.