This paper uses the case discussed in Jonathon Harr's book "A Civil Action" to explain the system of Anglo/American tort
law--the workings and limitations of the system and the intended goals as opposed to real life actualities. It follows case facts and describes the outcome, while explaining all the ensuing legal factors. Also included is an account of the historical divergence of civil obligations and tort law. From the paper: "Harr's book relates the story of a type of case that is all too sadly familiar: A large
corporation (in this case actually two large
corporations) contaminate the environment because it is cheaper dump solvents than to dispose of them legally. The reason that corporations are supposed to be restrained from such cheap but illegal dumping is the threat of either criminal charges being made or of civil litigation. In other words, corporations are supposed to behave themselves because if they don't then they will get sued. But the important catch to this argument, as this book shows, is that corporations do not in fact have a great deal to fear from civil litigation. All too often, the person who wins civil litigation is the person (or corporation) who can continue to pay for a lawyer longer than the other side. The results of civil litigation have less to do with right and wrong than with whose pockets were the deepest to begin with."