|
![]() |
|
CEH HOME ABOUT THE CENTER GENERAL INFORMATION LABORATORY CONFERENCES VIRTUAL CLASSROOM CRITICAL THINKING HOME SAFETY CONTACT & VISIT US HELPFUL LINKS |
Exercise 4December 30, 1998 To the editor: However, I am disturbed by Grace's current public-relations campaign aimed at discrediting the movie A Civil Action and the 1995 book by Jonathan Harr on which it was based. Grace, on both its Web site and in press materials, makes use of my "model citizen" soundbite as though it were some sort of blanket absolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in 1986 a US District Court jury found unanimously that Grace, through its own negligence, had contaminated two of Woburn's drinking-water wells with poisonous industrial solvents. Although Judge Walter Jay Skinner set that verdict aside, he did so only because the jury -- to no one's surprise -- provided contradictory answers to Skinner's convoluted, highly technical written instructions. Yet even those contradictory answers made it clear that the jury believed the families' lawyer, Jan Schlichtmann, had essentially proven his case against Grace. Unfortunately Schlichtmann, lacking the financial resources to move ahead with a retrial, was forced to settle for $8 million, with Grace refusing to concede any wrongdoing on its part. Thus the Woburn families Schlichtmann represented were denied the apology they had long said was one of their principal aims. Today Grace, by continuing to insist that chemicals dumped on its property never polluted the wells, does a disservice to the jury and to the families. I would not characterize Grace's current stance as that of a "model corporate citizen." Dan Kennedy (From What is a "model corporate citizen"? at http://home.earthlink.net/~dkennedy56/woburn_model.html) What is the issue that Dan Kennedy is addressing? What is the conclusion that he draws regarding this issue? What reasons does he give to support this conclusion? |
© 2005 Center for Environmental Health |