The final settlement in the landmark environmental tort case that inspired "A Civil Action" totaled $9.05 million, a sum negotiated and agreed upon by the plaintiffs and the primary corporate defendants to resolve the complex dispute and prevent further litigation.
Understanding the Settlement in Anderson v. Cryovac
The case, officially known as Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc. (later Anderson v. W.R. Grace & Co. and Beatrice Foods), involved families in Woburn, Massachusetts, who alleged that their illnesses, including childhood leukemia, were caused by contaminated drinking water. This contamination was linked to hazardous chemicals discharged by two companies: W.R. Grace & Co. and Beatrice Foods. A final settlement represents a negotiated agreement between parties to resolve a dispute and halt further legal proceedings, with the specific terms varying significantly based on what the parties negotiate.
Breakdown of the Settlements
The final settlement was reached in two distinct phases, involving separate agreements with each major defendant:
- W.R. Grace & Co.: This company settled with the plaintiffs for $8 million. This agreement was reached relatively early in the protracted legal battle.
- Beatrice Foods: Initially, Beatrice Foods was found not liable. However, this verdict was later overturned on appeal. Before a new trial could take place, Beatrice Foods agreed to a separate settlement with the plaintiffs for $1.05 million.
| Defendant | Settlement Amount | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| W.R. Grace & Co. | $8,000,000 | Settled during the initial stages of the litigation, addressing claims related to their alleged contamination. |
| Beatrice Foods | $1,050,000 | Settled after the initial verdict was overturned on appeal, avoiding a new trial. |
| Total Settlement | $9,050,000 | The combined amount received by the plaintiffs from both primary defendants, representing the resolution of their claims for damages due to water contamination in Woburn. |
The Significance of the Settlement
While the total settlement of $9.05 million was substantial, it barely covered the extensive legal fees and costs incurred by the plaintiffs' attorney, Jan Schlichtmann, and his firm. This particular outcome highlighted the immense financial burden of large-scale environmental litigation on plaintiffs and their legal representatives, even when a settlement is achieved. The case remains a poignant example in environmental law, illustrating the complex challenges of proving causation in toxic torts and the high stakes involved in seeking justice for environmental contamination.
For more detailed information on the case, you can refer to legal analyses and historical accounts of Anderson v. Cryovac.
