ASSIGNMENT QUESTION:

Class action lawsuits are beneficial to the justice system in several ways and in
addition, they have social policy objectives. You are required to prepare a paper
with the following elements:

Part A
Explain what a class action lawsuit is, explain how they are beneficial to the
justice system and explain their social policy objectives. [10 marks]
A Class Action lawsuit is a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of many people who
have been harmed in a similar manner. In a class action lawsuit, a number of
people suffer the same or similar harm and an attorney is hired by one of the
harmed individuals. The attorney does some research and files a suit for one or
more parties. The attorney asks that the court certify the case as a "class action"
where all people in the class can get legal redress (Clinics Class Action Small
Claims, 2016). The defendant in a class action lawsuit cannot be prosecuted
unless at least one person harmed by the conduct is willing to serve as a class
representative (Lead Plaintiff).
To have the case certified, the Lead Plaintiff and class action attorneys must
show that the case meets several criteria:

There is a legal claim against the defendant.

There is a significantly large group of people who have been injured in a
similar way and the cases of members of the class involve similar issues of
fact and law as the case of the Lead Plaintiff.
The Lead Plaintiff is typical of the class members and has a reasonable
plan and the ability to adequately represent the class.
The Lead Plaintiff must also have no conflict with other class members.

Class certification might be denied, for example, if people have suffered different
kinds of side effects from a defective drug. The differences in injury would
require different evidence for many class members (Clinics Class Action Small
Claims, 2016).
Class action lawsuits are beneficial to the justice system in several ways. Some
of the ways have been listed below.
Greater Consistency
Class actions are determined by one judge in one court, so inconsistent verdicts
do not become an issue and decisions are made with greater efficiency.
Less Time and Availability of Court space
One claim will generally take less time than many similar claims tried at different
times. Class Action Lawsuits also help to free up clogged court schedules,
making it easier for other individuals to receive their day in court.

More Experienced Legal Representation

It is no small feat for a lawyer to take on a class action lawsuit. The case may
involve thousands of pages of documents, expensive expert witness fees and
years of time to develop the case. Class action lawsuits may be handled by more
experienced and competent lawyers who have gone through similar cases in the
past. This allows plaintiffs to be able to have such representation that they may
not have had if they pursued the claim on their own thus improving the quality of
the justice system.
Class Actions Lawsuits have three main underlying social policy objectives.
Greater Access to Justice
The first, and most important objective, is to afford greater access to justice.
Litigation has become so expensive that claims of modest amounts, and even
those of significant amounts, are not economically feasible to pursue on an
individual basis. In class action terminology, these are referred to as "individually
non-viable claims." Generally, in a Class Action Lawsuit, there is no payment or
risk of legal fees if the class wins, the lawyer gets a contingency fee; if the
class loses, the lawyer generally gets nothing (Watson, 2001).
Improving Judicial Efficiency
The second policy objective is to improve judicial efficiency. Where the
alternative to a class action is repetitive litigation relating to the same events,
the result is judicial inefficiency. For example, when class action certification was
refused for claims against Canada's blood system relating to transfusion-related
AIDS transmission, more than eighty such cases were filed in Ontario alone. The
filing of individual claims resulted in three very long trials without significant
plaintiff-wide settlements Such individual actions often cover the same ground
time and again; they are not only inefficient, but can lead to inconsistent
decisions (Watson, 2001). It is noteworthy that the judicial efficiency rationale
really only comes into play where the claims asserted are individually viable.
Behavioural Modification
The third policy objective is to achieve behavioral modification. When
manufacturers and other entities can inflict small amounts of damage on a large
number of people who cannot afford to litigate individual claims, the deterrent
function of the law, such as tort law, is lost. Hopefully, subjecting potential
defendants to the risk of a class action will modify their behavior.
Courts refer to the above social policy objectives constantly when interpreting
class action legislation

PART B
Research and present a case study of a class action lawsuit. You must: (i) Set out
the relevant facts (ii) Identify the legal issues involved in this case, (iii) explain
how you think this class action lawsuit was beneficial to the justice system and
what social policy objectives were achieved. [15 marks]
For more than forty years, Californias largest utility company, PG&E, had
dumped the lethal chemical Hexavalent Chromium (Chrome 6) in the unlined
ponds in Hinkley, California. The companys malfeasance was exposed by a
young woman, Erin Brockovich, a formerly unemployed, single mother of three
who worked in a small Los Angeles law firm, who wanted to know what medical
records had to do with a real estate file. Her discoveries led to the largest
settlement for a civil class action lawsuit.

Facts
1. The people and animals of the desert town of Hinkley, California, had been
getting sick and dying for decades from respiratory illnesses and different kinds
of cancer.
2. PG&E, like other utilities, had used hexavalent chromium as an anti-corrosion
agent in their cooling towers. The contaminated overflow water was collected in
unlined ponds where it seeped into the groundwater unhindered. Water also
evaporated, leaving the soil saturated with Chrome 6, with the wind making the
poison airborne.
3. In 1987, PG&E formally advised the state of California, that they had found
high levels of Hexavalent Chromium (Chrome 6) in a groundwater monitoring
well near Hinkley (Anderson, 2001). Chrome 6 is a horrifically effective
carcinogen that can enter the body by ingestion (drinking water, inhalation
(airborne particles), and even by absorption (swimming in polluted swimming
pools).
4. PG&E started buying local real estate properties, in an attempt to get
residents off the land they knew was polluted. By the time Erin Brockovich
arrived in Hinkley, PG&E owned 70% of the land and had bulldozed the homes on
it (Anderson, 2001).
5. Erin Brockovich started snooping around the public records at the local water
board. She found multiple documents showing the company knew of the
pollution and failed to advise local residents.
Evidence

1. Plaintiffs had to prove medical causation.

2. PG&E was aware of the contamination as early as 1965, a whopping 22 years
before advising the state and local residents. Chrome 6 levels were 400 times
the EPAs current safety standard (Anderson, 2001). Erin Brockovich found the
one witness who produced an internal PG&E memorandum, revealing this
smoking gun.
3. PG&E distributed flyers to local residents claiming small amounts had been
used. In fact, local water board records showed that Chrome 6 levels reached
peak levels of 1000 to 5000 times the safe level for inhalation.
4. Geological surveys revealed that contaminated wastewater reached the
Hinkley aquifer through normal rainfall and erosion.

Legal Issues
1. Failure by PG&E to act in 1965 when it first knew of lethal amounts of Chrome
6 (Anderson, 2001).
2. Failure by PG&E to line the overflow ponds until 1972 to contain the poison
and dispose of it properly and in accordance with EPA regulations. For another 6
years, the company sent more polluted wastewater into the unlined ponds
(Anderson, 2001).
3. Attempt to further cover up the pollution by quietly buying local real estate.
4. Intentional misstatements to residents, omitting the poisonous nature of
Chrome 6. PG&E went as far as telling the people of Hinkley that Chromium was
actually good for the body.
5. PG&E practiced deception when they lied to residents claiming it was okay to
swim in a pool where Chrome 6 concentrations were higher than EPA limits fine
to swim in the pools because chlorine and other pool chemicals kill any
contaminants in the pool, including chromium. The water supply was completely
safe and there were no toxic problems with their well water.
Outcome
In 1994, the class action lawsuit against PG&E went to binding arbitration.
Initially, the 600 plaintiffs had wanted a trial by jury, but Erin Brockovich
convinced them to go the route of binding arbitration (Anderson, 2001). A trial
could languish for years, whereas arbitration could provide relief relatively
quickly; however, the judges decision would be binding and could not be
appealed. It was the right decision. The judges decided against the defendant
and ordered PG&E to pay $333 Milliona record amount in damages, required
PG&E to clean up the polluted site, and ordered PG&E to stop using Chrome 6
(Anderson, 2001).
Benefits

The PG&E Class action lawsuit was beneficial to the justice system in several
ways. Some of the ways have been listed below.
More anti pollution Lawsuits
One claim of anti pollution now began to take less time than many similar claims
tried at different times. Many other individuals gathered courage to stand up
against big companies in anti pollution cases.
More consistency in anti pollution Lawsuits
The PG&E Class actions lawsuit served as an example for other judges to follow,
so inconsistent verdicts were eliminated and decisions were made with greater
efficiency.
The PG&E Class Actions Lawsuit achieved the following social policy objectives.
Greater Access to Justice
600 plaintiffs were granted justice with the PG&E Class Actions Lawsuits. As a
result, many people from the desert town of Hinkley benefitted from this lawsuit
in receiving justice.
Behavioural Modification
The PG&E Class Actions Lawsuit discouraged other companies from polluting the
environment as they realised that they could not bully residents of the area
anymore.
PART C
If the Plaintiffs in the case that you selected were successful (or if the litigation in
the case has not yet been completed, assume that the Plaintiffs will be
successful) explain at least three ways in which the judgment of the court can be
enforced against the Defendant. [10 marks]
If the judgment is for the plaintiff, then the defendant must comply under
penalty of law with the judgment, which is usually a monetary award. If the
defendant fails to pay, the court has various ways to enforce the judgement. In
the above PG&E Case the judgement of the court can be enforced against the
company in the following ways:

Writ of execution
Bank account/Monthly income garnishment
Liens

A writ of execution (also known as an execution) is a court order granted to put

in force a judgment of possession obtained by a plaintiff from a court. The court
can issue a writ of execution against PG&E, and order a sheriff or other similar
official to take possession of property owned by the defendant. Such property will
often then be sold in a sheriff's sale and the proceeds remunerated to the
plaintiff in partial or full satisfaction of the judgment.
Garnishment, is the process of deducting money from an employee's or
companys monetary compensation The court can enforce Garnishment of the
PG&Es bank account or order the company to pay garnishment from its monthly

income. Garnishments continue until the entire debt is paid or arrangements are
made to pay off the debt.
A lien is a form of security interest granted over an item of property to secure the
payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation. The court can
enforce PG&E to pay the security interest to the plaintiff if the company fails to
pay $333 million.
If all assets are located elsewhere, the plaintiff must file another suit in the
appropriate court to seek enforcement of the other court's previous judgment.
This can be a difficult task when crossing from a court in one state or nation to
another, however, courts tend to grant each other respect when there is not a
clear legal rule to the contrary .

References
Anderson, A. (2001). Environmental Law Case Study.
Clinics Class Action Small Claims. (2016, 02 07). Retrieved
www.law.washington.edu:
https://www.law.washington.edu/ClinicsClassActionSmallClaims

from

Watson, G. D. (2001). Class Actions: The Canadian Experience. Duke Journal of

Comparative and International Law .