A Civil Action: Witness Evaluation

In the book, A Civil Action, by Jonathan Harr, a complainants lawyer is called upon to prove that a cluster of cancer deaths in a township called Woburn were bowel movementd by the pollution of urban center water soundlys by factories owed by two corporate entities, Beatrice, and forgiveness.The liability phase of the trial, separate from the proximate cause trial entailed testimony presented to prove or disprove that the factories in enquiry were responsible for the presence of carcinogenic chemicals in the citys well water. Thus, the witnesses were all presented to prove or disprove this allegation.The tannery owned by Beatrice and the pulverization owned by Grace two were in proximity to the wells, and both are alleged to have illegally and irresponsibly dumped a parlous chemical, TCE on the premises, leading to the defilement of the wells.While the plaintiffs witnesses were not entirely convincing, they, along with the cross-examination of the defendants witnesses, pro vided sufficient proof by preponderance of the recount to find both companies liable.The plaintiff began by establishing the fact of illegal fling on both sites. He called numerous long-time residents of Woburn, who testified to witnessing the dumping or show of whitish-grey powder, barrels, and foul-smelling sludge on the grounds around the city by the factories.(305) Coupled with photographs of abandoned barrels and neutralize piles on the acres in question, the plaintiff established to a reasonable degree of conclusion that the tannery was dumping chemicals on the land. As a hostile witness, the plaintiff in like manner called John Reiley, the manager of the Tannery.(306)He vehemently denied any dumping, but was unable to rationalize the destruction of records for a 10-year period relevant to the case.(313) Despite documentation that proved separatewise, he denied being warned well-nigh dumping by the state wellness agent, A.C. Bolde. (306).Rileys demeanor and denial of evidence before him made him exceedingly hard to believe. It was his testimony, in the manner rendered, that most hurt Beatrice.The Plaintiff in like manner called several dependables on domain and groundwater behavior. The first of these was a soil expert named Mr. Drobinski. (303) He testified to the presence of the TCE in the soil.The defense established on cross-examination that Drobinski had misreported the date his Masters Degree was conferred. (304)Since they did not attack the substance of his testimony, unless his credibility in an oblique manner, his word that the TCE did enter the soil stood undisputed.The second expert that the plaintiff called, a hydrologist named Dr. Pinder (325) fared less well in the area of credibility. He did testify to the manner in which the toxins got from the factories property to the citys wells, but was caught out as incorrect on his supposition as to why the Aberjona River did not cause the contamination.The substance of his testimony was rendered unbiased by the constant back-and-forth on cross examination. (327-337) Only his testimony that the contamination could have reached the wells from the factory properties survived intact. Given what the other witnesses had to say, this assertion went mostly unchallenged in any case.In their case against Grace in particular, the plaintiff called Frank McCann, an employee who admitted that the Grace factory used TCE in quantities of about a half-gallon a day. (317) Though he vehemently denied dumping the waste, he could provide no alternative explanation for its disappearance.Tom Barbas, another Grace employee, admitted to placing waste on the ground outside the factory (318). He further admitted witnessing other employees dumping buckets of unknown material on the land. These witnesses effectively established that Grace was dumping waste on the land, and that it was probable that TCE was part of that waste.Despite the plaintiffs witnesses, they were still left with a weak case in terms of connecting the poisoned well water to the factories in question. Having established that both companies dumped the waste, the plaintiffs did not satisfactorily explain the transfer of the toxins from the land to the urban centers wells.Cross-examination of the defenses witnesses brought that topic to light, and strengthened the Plaintiffs case more than that of the defendants. Beatrice called Thomas Mernin, the Wobern City engineer, to dispute the presence of toxins in the wells. (342)He ended up convincing the control panel that he had incompetently left the wells open despite their danger, and point recommending a new well in the same area. His testimony did aught to ease the allegation that the wells were poisoned. (343)