Jonathan Harr’s “A Civil Action” masterfully depicts the complexities of a legal battle between families seeking justice and powerful corporations. This guide provides thought-provoking questions and discussion topics to enhance your understanding of the book and the film adaptation. Dive into the moral ambiguities, legal strategies, and personal sacrifices that define this gripping narrative.
The story centers on a lawsuit filed by families in Woburn, Massachusetts, who believe that industrial waste from two corporations caused leukemia in their children. Facing them is Jan Schlichtmann, a lawyer known for his flashy style and lucrative medical malpractice cases. Unprepared for the challenges ahead, Schlichtmann becomes consumed by the case, risking everything he has.
Alt text: Jan Schlichtmann, portrayed in A Civil Action, standing confidently in the courtroom during the intense legal proceedings.
Discussion Questions:
-
Jack Riley claims his land and water are his lifeblood. How does this statement contrast with his actions throughout the case? Does your opinion of Riley change after his court appearance? Is Donna Robbins’s sympathy justified?
-
Contrast the attitudes and actions of Al Love, Tommy Barbas, Paul Shalline, and Joe Meola. How important is personal honor to each, considering the potential loss of their jobs? How do their individual senses of integrity impact their decisions?
-
Analyze Anne Anderson’s decision to stay in Woburn. Was it truly in Jimmy’s best interest? Was it wise to keep her non-contaminated children in the polluted area? Consider the ethical implications of her choices within the context of environmental hazards and family well-being.
-
Facher believes women with small children are too emotional to judge the case fairly. Do you agree? Is he correct about fathers finding it less difficult? Does Harr’s description of jury selection suggest a fair and impartial system? Consider the biases inherent in jury selection processes.
-
To what extent does money determine the outcome of a lawsuit? Does the party with deeper pockets generally win? Does the Woburn case support this? Can a case be presented well despite financial disadvantage?
-
Should Schlichtmann have informed the families about Jacobs’s settlement offer? Did the potential problems justify his secrecy?
-
Were Schlichtmann’s dealings with the Woburn families fair and honest? Did he take the case out of their hands, and was this necessary for efficient prosecution? Anne Anderson felt Schlichtmann patronized the families and used them for his ambition. Do you agree?
Alt text: The determined Woburn families unite outside the courthouse, seeking justice for the environmental damages affecting their children.
-
Judge Skinner believes lawsuits over children’s deaths are driven by guilt, not money. Is this an accurate portrayal of the Woburn parents’ motivations?
-
Was Judge Skinner biased toward the defense, as Schlichtmann suspected? Could there be truth to Schlichtmann’s conspiracy theories? Evaluate the evidence and consider the possibilities of judicial bias.
-
Judge Skinner’s questions asked jurors for essentially unknowable answers, creating a fiction for the truth. Did these questions demand too much from non-experts? Was the case one that the judicial system was ill-equipped to handle? How else could it have been resolved? Explore alternative dispute resolution methods.
-
How much does rhetoric play a role in a lawyer’s success? Are tactics like Facher’s objections fair? Do these courtroom tactics reveal or obscure the truth? Analyze the impact of legal rhetoric on the pursuit of justice.
-
Is res judicata, the principle that a judgment stands even with new evidence, reasonable?
-
After their decision, the jurors had misgivings but felt they did their best. Is that good enough? What could improve the situation? Reflect on the fallibility of the jury system.
-
Donna Robbins believes they taught corporate America a lesson; Reverend Young thinks Grace executives can celebrate. Who is right? Was the final settlement a victory, loss, or compromise?
-
Schlichtmann says greed is “our motivating factor,” driven by “pride, greed, ambition.” Is greed the primary driver for these lawyers? What other motivations drove Schlichtmann? Is he self-indulgent or self-abnegating? Selfish or honorable? Analyze Schlichtmann’s complex character and motivations.
Alt text: Jan Schlichtmann, lost in contemplation, grappling with the moral and professional dilemmas of the protracted legal battle in A Civil Action.
-
What are your reactions to Jan Schlichtmann as a lawyer and a person? Are his emotional reactions reasonable or extreme? Was he traumatized or does he thrive on chaos?
-
Does the court system reinforce social rules and deter contrary behavior, as Nesson suggests? Has reading “A Civil Action” changed your view of the American judiciary system? If so, how? Consider the role of the courts in shaping ethical and environmental responsibility.
Further Reading:
- Stephen J. Adler, The Jury
- Truman Capote, In Cold Blood
- Christopher Darden with Jess Walter, In Contempt
- Alan M. Dershowitz, The Best Defense
- Charles Dickens, Bleak House
- Mary Ann Glendon, A Nation Under Lawyers
- Melissa Fay Greene, The Temple Bombing
- John Grisham, The Firm
- Sister Helen Prejean, Dead Man Walking
- Robert Shapiro, The Search for Justice
- Rodney A. Smolla, Jerry Falwell v. Larry Flynt: The First Amendment on Trial
- Jeffrey Toobin, Opening Arguments: A Young Lawyer’s First Case: United States v. Oliver North
- Scott Turow, Presumed Innocent
- Abraham Verghese, My Own Country
- Steven Waldman, The Bill
“A Civil Action” prompts critical reflection on the pursuit of justice, the role of corporate responsibility, and the human cost of legal battles. These questions encourage a deeper exploration of the film and its underlying themes.
