法网边缘

   Civil Action is, I think, one of the best movies about how American law really works. The movie is based on a book (the same name)—and the book is based on a true story. The movie tells the story of pollution in a small town in Massachusetts. In this town young children get sick and die of cancer. The mothers and fathers think that maybe they are dying because a factory’s polluting the water in the town. A young lawyer (played by the actor John Travolta) becomes the lawyer for the families. The lawyer brings a lawsuit to ask a U.S. court to order that companies that were responsible for the pollution stop the pollution and pay the families damages. The kind of lawsuit is called a “toxic tort” lawsuit—because the plaintiffs say that they were harmed (tort) by poisonous chemicals (you du de).There are many interesting and important things that we can learn about and discuss from the movie. These things include:(1) Career Model: “Plaintiffs” John Travolta is a “plaintiffs lawyer.” He represents people who do not have the money to pay for lawyers. He spends his own (and his small law firm’s) money to do the work. In exchange he hopes to get paid well if the lawsuit is won.  In watching the movie, think about: (1) why is John Travolta being a plaintiffs lawyer (to become rich or famous, to help people, both?) (2) what strategy do the lawyers for the defendant companies use to oppose John Travolta? (3) what are the moral issues John Travolta has when the lawsuit becomes very expensive and John Travolta’s law firm has little money left? (2) Tool: Discovery.  As we have discussed, one of the most important and special features in American law is “discovery.” The American rules of civil procedure (Federal and state) provide that before the parties go to trial, they should be able to get all the information they need about the case. In many cases, including probably the most complicated civil cases , the parties do not go to trial—they settle the case after they take discovery and find out how strong (or weak) their case is, and how strong (or weak) the case for the other side is. Basically, in discovery, a party can get information from the other side in three ways: a) Deposition. In a deposition a party gets to ask questions of people. The people can be the defendant (including officials of a company or of the government, if the defendant is company or government) or a “third party.” The testimony is like court testimony—the witness has to tell the truth, and a record is kept. But there is no judge or jury present.   Depositions can be very very useful and powerful. The court can order that even the most important people (government or companies) have to make themselves available for deposition. (As you may recall, when he was being sued by a woman, President Bill Clinton had to testify at a deposition). In depositions about environmental pollution by a company, a plaintiff’s lawyer can find out things that the government (or the newspapers or public) do not know. b) Documents. In addition to asking questions of witnesses, parties conduct “documentary” discovery. They can ask the other side (or a third party, though court approval may be needed)) for documents that may be related to the case. (Today, of course, documents include emails and other “e-documents.”) c) “Interrogatories.” Finally, in discovery parties can ask each other to answer—in writing-written questions.  In the movie we will see how depositions work. You will see how John Travolta tries to get information from the company witnesses, and how the company lawyers try to depose the families of the children who died. This is an example of the way it really is. (3) Tool: Expert witnesses.                 The families live near polluted water. The children die. The families and John Travolta have a simple argument-- the companies polluted the water, the children drank the water, the children died. The companies have lots of money for lawyers and experts. They argue that it is much more complicated. The companies did not pollute the water. If they polluted the water, the children did not get sick and die from the water –the children had many other reasons to get sick.(4) Strategy. I will not tell you how the movie ends, but the movie—again based on a true story—shows that in real life sometimes things work out differently than what lawyers plan for.  (5) Settlement and settlement strategy. As the Movie explains, most cases do not go trial—but are settled before the judge or jury has to decide. In many cases this is because in discovery the parties can learn about each other’s case, and see how strong or weak the cases are. A good part of the movie is about the way in which both sides go about trying to settle the case. Watch carefully (6) Lawyer personalities. A great part of the movie is watching the differences between the key lawyers-“Jan,” “Mr. Cheeseman” and Mr. Facher. In America lawyers have many different styles. Watch these different styles-see what you like and what you don’t. Is what you like most effective-or maybe what you don’t like? (7) Moral Questions   The movie presents very good examples of moral questions. They include:~~What kind of methods can or should lawyers who oppose “public interest” lawyers use?~~What should a “public interest” lawyer do when his/her interest in survival (having enough money) comes in conflict with client interest?~~What should public interest lawyers and clients do when the defendant offers to settle the case—and the settlement may help lawyer or client, but maybe not the larger public interest.

《法网边缘》，又译《公民行动》、《民事诉讼》。7分。 斯蒂文·泽里安导演，约翰·特拉沃尔塔、罗伯特·杜瓦尔主演作品。 很长一段时间，我特别喜欢约翰·特拉沃尔塔，也很喜爱法律类题材的影片，略遗憾的是，这一部稍显冗长而沉闷，其中也包括关于片名翻译的争论。 我个人更倾向于《民事诉讼》。 影片根据真实事件改编。上个世纪80年，马萨诸塞州的一个小镇在15年内有8个孩子死于血癌，有家长坚持认为，这个事情和当地两家工厂排放污水有关。但当时的美国并没有环境保护法之类的法律，无法从法律的层面对这两家工厂进行调查。他们找到了年少多金甚至嚣张的律师，约翰·特拉沃尔塔饰演的简斯里特曼，希望他可以为自己的受害进行辩护。对于简来说，这可能是个扬名立万甚至赚大钱的机会。 然而事实并非他想的那么简单，他面对的是法律前面的一片荒漠，而穿越荒漠的似乎只有他自己。 所有人都希望可以迎来正义。 但正义不像第二天早上的太阳，一定会到。 事实上，负责这个案件诉讼的律师最后几乎身败名裂，申请了破产保护，远居他乡。