Paper Example on Anderson et al. v Cryovac: The Woburn Case and Its Impact

Introduction

Anderson et al. v Cryovac, Inc (1986) or the "Woburn Case" is a landmark case that illustrates the systemic role that tort law plays in addressing tortious acts by large corporations in an eco-system that includes federal and state legislation as well as subsidiary regulation from regulatory agencies.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Timeline

1979 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state environmental agency, and the local health board react by instituting legal actions after groundwater tests around two municipal wells (G and H) reveal that the water is contaminated. They also engage in an investigation to know who are the potentially responsible parties (PRPs).

1980 Superfund process starts: The EPA exercises the discretionary power given to it by a federal statute to identify how to decontaminate (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,1980). Three area residents die due to leukaemia related complications (i.e. Robbie Robbins, Jimmie Anderson, and Jarrod Aufiero).

1981 The Center for Disease Control (CDC) enters the picture to investigate if there is an abnormal leukaemia cluster among the residents of Woburn. The CDC confirmed that the leukaemia cluster in the area is extraordinary.

1982 In response to the CDC findings, the EPA put the company Wells G & H on the National Priorities List (NPL) per CERCLA as a hazardous waste site.

A group of eight families living in a section of Woburn served by the two contaminated wells filed a civil suit against two defendants.

1983 The EPA completes its Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RIFS). Because WR Grace & Co Ltd accept culpability, the EPA issues an Administrative Order for it to remove buried drums filled with TCE and put in place groundwater monitoring wells on its Cryovac Plant.

1984 CERCLA implementation process continues. WR Grace & Co. Ltd finishes executing the 1983 Administrative Order on its Cryovac Plant.

1986 Anderson et al. v Cryovac, Inc (1986) begins in February. Beatrice Foods Ltd retained legal liability for any lawsuits even after selling the tannery back to the Riley family in 1983. Hence it was Beatrice Foods and WR Grace that were identified as joint-tortfeasors on the suit. The jury rendered its verdict in July. It found that WR Grace was liable, but Beatrice Foods was not. Hence, in the second phase of the trial, the lawsuit went forward against W.R. Grace. In September, the defence filed a motion for a mistrial, but an out of court settlement was reached with the plaintiffs before Judge Skinner's official ruling on the defence motion was rendered.

1987 The plaintiffs' legal team discovers the "Yankee Report" in EPA custody that showed that the tannery site that Beatrice Foods was legally liable for had contaminated the wells supplying the plaintiffs' with drinking water.

1988 The plaintiffs appeal the 1986 verdict and attempt to get a new trial because the Yankee Report had been illegally withheld by Beatrice Foods' legal team during the discovery phase. (Anderson v. Beatrice Foods Co., 1988). The First Circuit accepted the appeal and directs the court of the first instance to review its judgment based on the information in the Yankee Report.

The Judge invoked a federal statute to prevent claims that lack proof of causation needed for civil liability but instead rely on circumstantial logic or novel scientific theories ( Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 ).

1990 United States Court of Appeal denied plaintiffs' request to overturn Judge Skinner's refusal to grant them a retrial.

1991 EPA finalizes a $ 69.5-million-dollar settlement with the five responsible companies for the cleanup of the two contaminated wells (i.e. Beatrice Foods Ltd, WR Grace, UniFirst, Hemingway Trucking, and New England Plastics).

Liability Analysis

The tort of negligence requires an alleged tortfeasor to have a legal duty of care owed to a claimant and that the defendant violated this duty of care. The violation may be through refusing to act when there is a legal obligation to act or refusing not to act when there is a legal obligation not to act. Furthermore, the claimant must submit proof that but for the conduct of the defendant, they would not have suffered the tortious damage that became the cause of action. The plaintiffs' legal team had the burden to tender evidence that showed that the defendants had a legal obligation not to contaminate the municipal wells that supplied them with water, the defendants violated this legal obligation, and the violation resulted in actionable damage.

There is a statutory legal obligation not to harm the environment that was breached that resulted in two municipal wells getting contaminated by industrial waste that was established by the CDC as the cause of abnormal leukaemia clusters in the community served by the two wells. The fact that WR Grace accepted culpability for the damage caused by their Cryovac Plant to the EPA made proving their negligence easy. However, the plaintiffs' legal team made a fatal mistake by suing Beatrice Foods instead of the company that ran operations on the tannery plant responsible for contaminating the wells. The plaintiff's legal team should have first established that the employees at the tannery had violated their legal obligations concerning industrial waste so that their employers become vicariously liable. Beatrice Foods would have to pay damages to the plaintiffs.

Attorney Duties

In the State of Massachusetts, attorneys can represent multiple non-adverse clients in a suit, subject to each of these clients giving a law firm their consent. At all times, the lawyer must have a reasonable belief engaging in multiple representations will not damage the lawyer's capacity to provide each client with effective representation. The ethical issues that attorneys must guard against during multiple representation civil suits are:

• Minimizing potential conflicts between the interests of multiple clients;
• Minimizing potential conflicts between clients during the joint settlement phase; and
• Abiding by the rules of professional ethics when conflicts eventually arise during multiple representations.

From the foregoing, a prudent lawyer fully discloses the existence of potential conflicts when prospective clients table an offer for multiple representations in a civil suit. The full disclosure means that multiple representations are contracted using informed consent. Hence the lawyer pre-empts any one of the multiple clients causing problems in the future during the various stages of the trial. Secondly, a prudent lawyer should obtain a prospective waiver of future conflicts that would allow the attorney to continue to represent one party.

In summary, multiple representations in civil cases make access to justice cheaper, but attorneys must comply with professional ethics and take steps to mitigate potential conflicts.

References

Anderson, et.al. v Cryovac, Inc (1986)

Anderson v. Beatrice Foods Co (1988)

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (1980).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11