A water contamination case in Woburn, the American Camelford ?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

This article is about the novel. For the film, see A Civil Action (film).
A Civil Action

Author Jonathan Harr
Country United States
Language English
Genre(s) Non-Fiction
Publisher Vintage
Publication date August 27, 1996
Media type Print (Hardcover and Paperback)
ISBN ISBN 0-679-77267-7
OCLC Number 35587711
LC Classification KF228.A667 H37 1996
Followed by The Lost Painting: The Quest for a Caravaggio Masterpiece
A Civil Action is a 1996 work of non-fiction by Jonathan Harr depicting a water contamination case in Woburn, Massachusetts in the 1980s. The book became a best-seller and won the National Book Critics Circle Award for nonfiction.
The case is Anderson v. Cryovac. The first reported decision in the case is at 96 F.R.D. 431 (denial of defendants' motion to dismiss).
A film by the same name based on the book was produced in 1998, starring John Travolta as Jan Schlichtmann and Robert Duvall as Jerome Facher.
Plot summary

After finding her child is diagnosed with leukemia, Anne Anderson begins to notice a high incidence of leukemia, which should be a relatively rare disease, in her city. Eventually she gathers other families and seeks a lawyer, eventually Jan Schlichtmann, to consider their options.
Though Schlichtmann originally agrees to take the case, the lack of evidence and a clear defendant results in it being ignored. Later picking up the case, Schlichtmann finds evidence suggesting trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination of the town's water supply by Riley Tannery, a subsidiary of Beatrice Foods; a chemical company W.R. Grace; and another company named Unifirst.
In the course of the lawsuit, Schlichtmann gets other attorneys to assist him. He spends lavishly as he had in his prior lawsuits, but the length of the discovery process and trial soon stretch his assets to their limit.
Though Unifirst settles for a little over $1 million, the money is immediately invested in the remaining case against Grace and Beatrice. The plaintiff's case against Grace was far stronger for two reasons: (1) Schlichtmann had personal testimony of a former employee of Grace who had witnessed dumping, and (2) a river between Beatrice's tannery and the contaminated wells made their contribution to the contamination less plausible. The case against Beatrice was dismissed. Though Schlichtmann's firm had anticipated a much higher settlement, the dire state of their finances forced the firm to accept settlement from W.R. Grace for $8 million.
Schlichtmann disbursed the settlement to the families, excluding expenses and attorney's fees. When some of the families thought Schlichtmann had overbilled expenses, he acquiesced and surrendered more of his fee. Schlichtmann would later file for bankruptcy after losing his condo and car and living in his office for a time.

A report from the Environmental Protection Agency later concluded that both companies had contaminated the wells based on new evidence from the sludge that had been removed from the site. Schlichtmann attempted in 1988 to reraise the case against Beatrice. The judge dismissed the case, citing testimony from Beatrice's soil chemist.


Medical Expert Witnesses:

Coffin, Dr. John: (hired by defense) said TCE would not hurt humans