Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
A Civil Action (Main Characters (Anne Anderson is the woman who called…
A Civil Action
Main Characters
Anne Anderson is the woman who called Jan's office firm to talk about the water pollution in her town
-
-
Jerome Facher is the lawyer for Beatrice that ends up "winning" the lawsuit and not having to pay anything.
-
I'd recommend this movie to show that not only that even if you're right and others are wrong others can still find a way to win but also that polluting the water is bad and can cause death if serious enough.
-
-
He said that the parents could never testify because they had no proof that it was the water that caused their children to die.
-
The whistle blowers in the film were the employees that ended up telling Jan the truth about the companies. They felt bad about working for the companies and for the families that were hurt.
-
-
A lawyer is called to help a town with their water pollution problem caused by two companies. Jan first doesn't take the case but then is convinced to take it.
I think a big moment in the movie was when Jan saw that the companies were close to the water source of the town so he then takes up the case.
I think businesses are portrayed badly in the movie because they were saying that they had nothing to do with the water even though they had employees saying that they were the cause.
I think Lawyers are portrayed as some are "bad" and some are "good" I say bad because there will always be someone against you in a lawsuit and that lawyer is just doing their job and trying to make money. I say good because there are lawyers that want to help you but they also just want to make money so they'll say anything to help you so they make more money.
Mr. Loves dilemma is that he either has to stay loyal to his job and continue feeling bad for himself or to say the bad things that his job has done to feel better about himself. He made the decision by seeing his family drinking water and seeing that Anne is still upset that her child died.
Jan has to decide if he wants to keep fighting in the case or if he should end the case. He made his decision by thinking of all the families that have been hurt by the water and all the future families that could still get hurt.
Jan's reasons for not taking the case at first was that there wasn't enough evidence to make a case. He got pulled over on the bridge and saw the water, he followed the water until he found the companies that were polluting the water and so he thought he had enough evidence to take the case. I would've taken the case because as a lawyer you're supposed to help the people who need help.
The point of using water is that the water is what the case is about. I felt like I wouldn't drink the water but instead buy bottled water.
The Whistle-blower protection act was enacted in 1989 that protects federal government employees from retaliatory action for voluntarily disclosing information about dishonest or illegal activities
The clean water act was amended in 1972 and it established the basic structure fro regulating pollutant discharges into the waters
Another water contaminant lawsuit is the Camp Lejuene water contamination lawsuit. Two of eight water treatment facilities supplying water to the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base in North Carolina were contaminated with volatile organic compounds from 1957 through 1987. Those potentially at-risk for developing or illness as a result of the contamination include Marines, Sailors, their families and civilian employees who were on base anytime between 1957 and 1985.
