The purpose of class action lawsuits is to give the common man the ability to take on the largest corporate or private entities, who can afford the very best legal services, and have a chance of redressing the wrong done by these entities (Clark, sec. 1). Without class action lawsuits, ordinary citizens acting individually would not have the means to challenge corporate and governmental wrongdoers.

A Civil Action provides an in depth account of the life of one class action suit. It explores the role of the lawyer in litigating situations, focusing on the critical factor of proving causality. It brings to light numerous pitfalls encountered by both the prosecution

In a civil case, as opposed to a criminal case, winning is determined by the preponderance of evidence. In other words, the majority of the evidence must suggest finding for the plaintiff. Of course, the burden of proof remains on the plaintiffs, but as Professor Nesson explained in the book, the plaintiffs must prove only “that it is ‘more than likely true than not’ – a standard often taken to mean by 51 percent or better” (Harr 236). Although this is easier to achieve than proving beyond a reasonable doubt, it still has its difficulties. The harm must be linked to the behavior of the defendant, a factor often hard to prove.

Even though the motivating factors behind the lawsuit may have been different, the Woburn families and the lawyers arguing their case shared a common goal, to win. Eventually they realized that what constitutes a win according to the Woburn families may not be considered a win for the case’s lawyers. In any event, the case inevitably came to a close. Although it may not have ended ideally for the plaintiffs, it did was it was designed to do.

Harr, Jonathan. A Civil Action. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

Thanks to the American legal system, the class action lawsuit gave the common families of Woburn the ability to take on large, wealthy corporations and have a chance of redressing the wrong done by these corporations. Without the existence of class action lawsuits, these ordinary citizens would have been acting individually would not have had the means to challenge the corporate wrongdoers. That is something to be thankful for, even if they didn’t end up with $25 million.

The judge’s overestimation related to the four questions that he expected the jurors to answer. “The questions had the quality of a text that had been translated from English into Japanese and back again… These questions were all but impossible to understand” (Harr 369). By overestimating the jurors and creating indecipherable questions, the judge caused complications not only for the jurors, but for the prosecution and defense as well.

Some topics in this essay:
Civil Action, Ritz Carlton, Professor Nesson, Unfortunately Schlichtmann, English Japanese, Grace Co, Anne Anderson, Facher Keating, Thanks American, Nesson Schlichtmann, class action, civil action, class action lawsuit, action lawsuit, class action lawsuits, action lawsuits, individually means challenge, schlichtmann team, proving causality, means challenge, prosecution defense, challenge corporate, means challenge corporate, acting individually, citizens acting individually,