Book Review #2

A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr

Being on the verge of entering law school, I figured it was high time to start learning a little something about the law. I remember in undergrad I had a judicial process teacher who swore by the movie My Cousin Vinny as an accurate representation of courtroom procedures. I sat and watched this movie and thought to myself “law isn’t so hard. . .at least not when you’ve got Joe Pesci, Marissa Tomei, and the Karate Kid teaching it.”

And then it all made sense. All too often, we are made to think that we have the option between entertaining ourselves or educating ourselves. What a false choice. It is the wise man that finds a way to do both things simultaneously. I call this the Colbert Report method of enlightenment. It was while using this same basic principle that I started to read the non-fiction thriller “A Civil Action.”

What a story.

The basic plot is that two large companies, W.B. Grace and Beatrice had been dumping chemicals (mostly TCE and perc) onto their land throughout the 60’s and 70’s. The company land, dangerously close to municipal water supplies, had become contaminated and the contaminants were ultimately sucked into the water supply, causing a cluster of leukemia and all sorts of other disorders for many of the town’s citizens.

I finished it last night and I’m still reworking the details in my head: the depositions, the hydro-geology tests, rule 11, summary judgment requests, judicial deception and dishonesty, the testimony, the negotiations, the objections, and of course, the expert witnesses.

The expert witness testimony was by far the most fascinating aspect of the book, giving a unique glimpse into the blurry, unsubstantiated set of opinions that the court eventually calls “facts.”

In one instance George Guswa, a distinguished ground water expert with years of experience, claims that contaminants couldn’t have gotten to the water supply because the soil was not porous enough. He explained the equation that he had used (Darcy’s Law) and then offered a computer generated model of the land as evidence.

This testimony was in direct contradiction to another expert witness, Dr. Pinder, a professor at Princeton (or some other equally prestigious establishment, I’m too lazy to look it up), and one of the preeminent hydro-geologists in the world. The two were friends and had worked together in the past, but were in complete disagreement on this point.

What to do? Does the jury just call this a push? One guy says it’s possible, the other says it isn’t, let’s call it a draw?

The attorney for the cancer-stricken plaintiffs, Jan Schlichtmann was sure that Guswa was mistaken andthat something was wrong with his calculation. However, Schlichtmann was not a scientist and actually, not even very competent at mathematics. Dr Pinder, unfortunately, was out of town and unreachable.

It was at this point that Schlichtmann and his associates could have backed down. They could have said “this guy has a computer generated model. . .we’re screwed.”

Instead they grabbed some geology textbooks and took them home to study. In two days time one of his colleagues had, using simple high school algebra, identified the flaw in the Guswa’s equation.

The next day at cross-examination, Schlichtmann asked Guswa to redo his calculation on the blackboard. Ultimately, Guswa was forced to state to the jury that, using his own figures and the foundational equation of hydro-geology, Darcy’s Law, the city of Woburn is currently lying at the bottom of 10 feet of water. Though the jury had not been to Woburn recently, they assumed that this was not the case.

After being given another day to rework his hypothesis, Guswa returned with an alternate testimony: not only was it possible that the contaminants had reached the water supply, but that it was probable.

That’s pretty inspiring stuff. And it actually begs certain questions. The first of which is:

Why am I always so concerned about not dotting an i or crossing a t? I’ve never claimed to be an expert in dotting i’s or crossing t’s, but somehow feel bad when I make a minor spelling or grammatical mistake.

This man, a respected ground water expert messes up one of the easiest equations in hydrology in a case affecting hundreds of people and concerning, potentially, billions of dollars. How could he show his face in the office ever again? It’s as if Gary Kasparov absent-mindedly got checkmated in 6 moves. . . by a 7 year old who’s moving the pieces around haphazardly. If Jan Schlichtmann, a non-expert wouldn’t have questioned his testimony, no one would have and the jury would have weighed it in exactly the same kind of light that they weighed Dr. Pinder’s testimony.

There are lots of other great bits that will make you put down the book, stare into space, and say “Wow, I can’t believe how flawed and arbitrary our justice system is.” Or “Does this Judge Skinner have no accountability whatsoever?” Or more importantly “Does this Judge Skinner have no soul or understanding of fair play?”

In fact, there were times that I put down the book because I was too angry to continue. I think that was mostly due to the writing of Jonathan Harr, whose ability as a storyteller is obvious and impressive. Bravo Mr. Harr, for educating and entertaining. I’m proud to say that your book, along with the film “My Cousin Vinny” will form the bedrock of my legal education for years to come.

Speaking of which, I hear that A Civil Action has been made into a film starring John Travolta. I haven’t seen it yet because I’m waiting for a different take on the story: karate master Ralph Machio and wilcat mechanic Marisa Tomei file a suit against the two evil corporations in what could be the biggest, and funniest decisions ever. Let the education begin.