Anderson v. Cryovac (1986): When Environmental Contamination Becomes a Civil Action
In 1982, families in Woburn, Massachusetts, grappling with a childhood leukemia cluster, filed a lawsuit that would become a landmark case in environmental law: Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc. (1986). This legal battle, alleging that industrial pollution had contaminated the town’s water supply, gained national attention and later inspired the book and movie “A Civil Action.” The case highlights the devastating consequences of toxic chemical exposure and the complex legal challenges faced by communities seeking justice against corporate polluters.
The Woburn Tragedy: A Town Plagued by Illness
The story of Anderson v. Cryovac begins in Woburn, Massachusetts, where residents noticed an alarming number of childhood leukemia cases in the late 1970s. A Massachusetts Department of Public Health study revealed a disturbing statistic: between 1969 and 1985, Woburn experienced 19 cases of childhood leukemia when only six were statistically expected. Concerned citizens began to suspect a link between the illnesses and the town’s water supply, specifically two municipal wells, known as Wells G and H.
These wells, essential sources of drinking water for East Woburn, were found to be contaminated with industrial solvents, primarily trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). These chemicals, used in various industrial processes, including metal degreasing and dry cleaning, are known to pose significant health risks.
The Lawsuit: Seeking Accountability for Toxic Exposure
In May 1982, eight Woburn families, led by Anne Anderson, filed a lawsuit against W.R. Grace & Co. (owner of Cryovac) and Beatrice Foods, Inc., alleging that the companies had contaminated Wells G and H by improperly disposing of toxic chemicals on their properties. The families claimed that exposure to the contaminated water caused the leukemia cluster and other health problems, including cardiac arrhythmias and disorders of the immune and neurological systems. UniFirst Corporation was later sued in Middlesex Superior Court in Cambridge.
The plaintiffs were represented by Jan Richard Schlichtmann, a young lawyer specializing in medical malpractice cases. Schlichtmann initially saw the case as a potentially lucrative opportunity for his firm. However, as he delved deeper into the evidence, he became increasingly committed to the families’ cause, a transformation famously depicted in “A Civil Action.”
The Trial: A Battle of Experts and Evidence
The trial, presided over by U.S. District Judge Walter Jay Skinner, was divided into phases. The first phase focused on whether the defendants had contaminated the wells. The complex scientific evidence related to hydrology, geology, and epidemiology became a central point of contention.
After a 78-day trial, the jury found W.R. Grace liable for negligently contaminating the wells with TCE and PCE. However, Beatrice Foods was found not liable. Judge Skinner later set aside the verdict against Grace, citing inconsistencies in the jury’s findings regarding when the wells became contaminated.
Settlement and Aftermath: A Partial Victory
Despite the setback, W.R. Grace and the plaintiffs reached an $8 million settlement in September 1986, just before a retrial was scheduled to begin. While the settlement provided some financial relief to the families, it did not include an admission of wrongdoing from W.R. Grace. UniFirst settled prior to trial in 1985 for $1.05 million without admitting responsibility.
The Anderson v. Cryovac case had a lasting impact. It brought attention to the dangers of environmental contamination and the challenges faced by communities seeking justice against powerful corporations. The case also raised important questions about corporate responsibility, the role of scientific evidence in legal proceedings, and the ethical obligations of lawyers.
The Chemicals: TCE and PCE and Their Impact on Health
Trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) are industrial solvents that have been linked to a range of adverse health effects. Exposure to these chemicals can occur through contaminated drinking water, air, or soil.
Health effects associated with TCE exposure include:
- Kidney cancer
- Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
- Cardiac defects
- Leukemia
- Liver cancer
- Multiple myeloma
- Parkinson’s disease
- Scleroderma
- Immune system dysfunction
- Developmental effects (based on animal studies)
Health effects associated with PCE exposure include:
- Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
- End-stage renal disease
- Visual system damage
- Cancer
The Movie: “A Civil Action” and Its Depiction of the Case
“A Civil Action,” the 1998 film starring John Travolta and Robert Duvall, brought the story of Anderson v. Cryovac to a wider audience. While the movie took some creative liberties with the facts, it accurately portrayed the key events of the case, the scientific complexities, and the emotional toll on the families involved.
The film also highlighted the ethical dilemmas faced by Schlichtmann, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, as he became increasingly invested in the case, risking his firm’s financial stability and his own well-being.
Lessons Learned: Preventing Future Environmental Tragedies
Anderson v. Cryovac serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of responsible environmental practices and the need for strong regulations to protect public health. The case underscores the following key lessons:
- Prevention is paramount: Industries must prioritize the safe handling and disposal of toxic chemicals to prevent contamination of water supplies and other environmental resources.
- Early detection is crucial: Regular monitoring of water quality and soil can help detect contamination early, allowing for prompt remediation and minimizing exposure risks.
- Transparency and communication are essential: Companies should be transparent about their use of toxic chemicals and communicate openly with communities about potential risks.
- Access to justice is vital: Communities affected by environmental contamination must have access to legal resources and the ability to hold polluters accountable.
Seeking Legal Assistance in Environmental Contamination Cases
If you or a loved one has been affected by environmental contamination, it is essential to seek legal assistance from an experienced personal injury attorney. A lawyer can help you understand your rights, investigate the source of the contamination, and pursue compensation for your injuries and losses.
Personal injury cases involving environmental contamination can be complex and require specialized knowledge of environmental law, toxicology, and litigation. An attorney can guide you through the legal process, negotiate with responsible parties, and represent you in court if necessary.
Conclusion
Anderson v. Cryovac remains a significant case in environmental law, highlighting the devastating consequences of toxic chemical exposure and the challenges faced by communities seeking justice. By learning from this case and implementing preventive measures, we can work to protect public health and prevent future environmental tragedies. If you believe you have been harmed by environmental contamination, consulting with a personal injury lawyer is a crucial step in protecting your rights and seeking the compensation you deserve.