Problem Based Learning Task - Movie Review Example

ASSESSMENT 2: PROBLEM BASED LEARNING TASK The film, Action” by Michael Apted (1991) is a legal/law –themed movie that is concerned with injuries that a defective automobile causes. The lawsuit takes a rather interesting dimension when it becomes apparent that the defence attorney and the plaintiff’s attorney have a personal relationship; that of an estranged daughter and father. The plaintiff’s attorney Jedediah Tucker Ward is the father of Maggie Ward, the defence, automobile manufacturer’s attorney. The main theme of the Class Action, is more like that of the controversy the surrounded the “Pinto Litigation”. The plaintiff’s attorney, Jed Ward is a liberal lawyer whose career is based on protecting the civil rights of people, so that they are not taken for granted by the powerful and the rich. Jed pursues this principle regardless of whatever he gets monetarily,; however, he does not follow up on his clients once he has settled a case; a very bad habit on his part. Maggie Ward on the other hand, has also made herself a career in law; however, her principle is the direct opposite of her father’s, she represents the high and mighty, and has a self-interest agenda (Apted, 1991). In the film, she works for a large corporate law firm. She and Jed have a rather tense relationship; she hates her father because, apparently her father cheated on her mother. The lawsuit that is the focus of the film is a class action against a large automobile manufacturer whose car, supposedly has a dangerous propensity to explode on impact when it makes a left turn. Jed, the plaintiff’s attorney is supposed to make a case against the large automobile manufacturer, whose car had exploded after collision and killed a woman, the plaintiff’s wife. Jed believes, based on his research, that he has covered all the bases and that the case against the large automobile manufacturer is water tight (Apted, 1991). The case however, becomes complicated when he realizes that her estranged daughter will be representing the large automobile manufacturer; he is going to face her in court. This movie raises a myriad of issues ranging from valuable materials for a discussion on business/professional ethics. Scenes in the film offer a platform for discussing the discovery obligations of the litigant; areas where conflicts of interest arises, issues of evidence destruction, fairness to opposing counsel and party, honesty to the court and issues of confidentiality (Griseri & Seppala, 2010). These issues are closely related to concepts of Corporate Social Responsibility and thus can be used to discuss, at the client’s firm, or at the lawyer’s firm, CSR issues such as business economics, ethics, client-attorney relationship, obligations to the society, fairness, identifying, avoiding, identifying, and handling complaint, both external and internal, as well as setting standards for professional, personal, and social responsibility (McBarnet, Voiculescu, & Campbell, 2009). According to the film, as the lawsuit progressed, Maggie uncovered a damaging report that was supposedly documented by one of the engineers of the large automobile manufacturer, Argos Automobiles. The engineer had allegedly previously informed and warned the management of Argos Automobile that there was a likelihood of the cars they manufactured to explode in the event that they were struck while flashing the left turn signal. Michael Grazier, Maggie’s supervising attorney was also aware of the damning evidence; in fact, he was made aware of this defect while the vehicles were still in production (Apted, 1991). This is because Michael Grazier was an in-house attorney and was responsible of minimizing the effects of the damning and damaging report by the engineer; Michael Grazier, as a matter of fact, participated in the formulation of a legal strategy, which asserted that dealing with any fallouts as a result of the design issues will be less costly for Argos as compared to the cost that would otherwise be incurred if the cars were to be recalled or if design improvements were to be made (Apted, 1991). During the lawsuit’s discovery, the film shows that the plaintiffs requested, specifically for the contact information and names of those that were involved in the designing of the car, Argos’ Meridian model; this was a disaster in the offing akin to the notorious Ford Pinto. On realizing that producing the requested information would adversely affect the chances of Argos Automotive in the case and that of retaining Argos as their single-most largest client; as such, Maggie opted to seek direction from her supervisor, Michael Grazier on the way forward. On receiving the directions from Michael Grazier, which Maggie knows very well that are not in the true spirit of justice and fair play, which her father Jedediah had taught her, she reluctantly went ahead with the instructions given by Michael Grazier. She did produce the report but accompanied it with an avalanche of responses from discovery (Apted, 1991). She also changes the title or mislabels the engineer’s report in a way the plaintiffs cannot easily located it, in addition to making it clear for them to run afoul of the set discovery rules. Thus, all she did was to play along. However, Maggie was not aware that prior to her production of the requested names and contacts, her supervisor, Michael Grazier, had actually destroyed the engineer’s report. Maggie makes many unwise ethical decisions, some of which in the end were in potential breach of her duty of loyalty and confidentiality to the client, and she also breaches her duty of fairness to the opposing attorney, as well as the plaintiff (Apted, 1991). In this situation, Maggie and her supervisor, Michael Grazier, and their entire law firm are in breach of their ethical responsibilities with result to discovery; they specifically unlawfully obstruct and infringe on the rights of the plaintiffs with regard to access to evidence when they unlawfully destroyed, altered, and in some instances altered the engineer’s report. The actions by Maggie and her firm, as well as those of Argo Automobile raise issues of discussion with respect to corporate social responsibility CSR, theories. Such theories include the approaches and group of theories that focus on ethical requirements that forms the basis of the relationship between the society and a business (Garriga & Mele, 2004). These are principles that define the necessity to achieve the best for the society as well as the right thing to do. Particularly it raises discussion about corporate responsibility with regards to universal human rights. This theory has the objective of ensuring support for social, economic, and political justice by corporates for people and places where they do their business. Ethical responsibility requires that business and professionals do what is right even when the law does not require so (Beauchamp, 2009). Even though there is no definitive law obligating the automobile manufacturer, Argos, to redesign the Meridian Model to ensure that they are safe, the ethical responsibility theory demands and expects Argos to have done so. It terms of pure profits, it might not be the best thing for Argos to do, but from a perspective that puts the welfare of everyone in the society into consideration, it is recommendable for Argos to change the designs. This always applies to Maggie, Michael, and their firm; the right thing for them to do was to make available all the evidence that the plaintiff had requested for in the right format and in a timely manner, without destroying, concealing or altering anything, instead of taking the direction they took for the sake of maintaining their client (Griseri & Seppala, 2010). Additionally, this film, particularly scenes that show the adverse breach of ethical duties and responsibilities by the Maggie, her supervisor, Michael, and their entire firm also raise discussion with regards to the principle or theory of common good approach. This principle asserts that the common good of the society is the referential value for corporate social responsibility, CSR. Business must contribute, just like any other individual or group in society, to the common good of the society, since it is part of the society (Garriga & Mele, 2004; McBarnet et al., 2009). Argos Automobiles in making the decision to continuing manufacturing the Meridian model even after being informed by their engineers of the danger they posed to the society, failed in their corporate social responsibility as envisaged in the theory of common good. Similarly, Maggie’s law firm, and its employees, particularly Maggie and Michael also failed in their CSR duty of contributing to the common good of their society. This, they did with their actions of destroying, altering, and concealing crucial evidence that were important in ensuring that Argos changed the design of the cars, compensated the affected persons, and made their cars safe for the society. Further, this film also raised another CSR theory for discussion; the triple bottom line theory. This theory dictates that corporate managers calculate bottom-line results in terms of the effects of the company decisions to the social realm as well, instead of doing so only in economic and financial terms (Garriga & Mele, 2004; Griseri & Seppala, 2010; McBarnet et al., 2009). Thus, with regards to this film, both the law firm and the automobile manufacturer failed in their CSR duty on the basis of this theory when the former opted to avoid incurring additional costs by not closing production to allow for redesign of the defective models, while the latter chose to destroy and conceal crucial evidence so that they could maintain their largest client. If this case was heard in the UK under the English law, it would be based under the principles of tort law, which considers civil wrongs as a breach of legal duty that affects the right of an individual to the degree that is considered under the law as sufficient enough for such an individual to complain. The tort system aims at vindicating distributive, retributive and corrective justice principles; it protects the autonomy of individuals (Harpwood, 2009). In this class action suit, the principles of the tort of negligence are applicable, as offered by English common law. In order to prove the tort of negligence, then, it must be shown that there existed “a duty of care” situation; a situation where the law attaches liability to carelessness. Additionally, the must exist a situation where the defendant breaches his/her duty of care; this implies that a situation must exist where the defendant fails to measure up to the standard measured by the law. Further, there must exist a casual connection between the careless conduct of the dependant and the damage cause; the damage must also be foreseeable (Edwards, Edwards, & Wells, 2011; Harpwood, 2009). Therefore, my advice to Argos with regards to their legal liability to the car will be based on certain requirements for foreseeability and reasonableness, as well as to the connection to damage. Argos will be considered legally liable to the car if they were in breach of their duty of care; or in other words, if their conduct fell below the standard set by law. The stand set by law is that of prudence and reasonableness. According to the common law, the level of reasonableness in any situation is generally objective; it does not consider the defendant’s weakness as well as inexperience (Edwards et al., 2011; Pinto & Evans, 2008). Therefore, Argos must strive to prove that they were not in breach of their duty of care in terms of prudence and reasonableness. English common law also requires that the court caries out a cost-benefits analysis, to determine whether or not it is fair or reasonable to bear the cost of any given form of a precautionary conduct with regards to the level of benefit and protection it will confer on others, such as the plaintiff. Therefore, Argos should endeavour to prove that bearing the cost of redesigning the Meridian Model would be higher that the benefits and protection it will offer the plaintiffs. References Apted, M. (1991). Class Action. 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment. Beauchamp, B. (2009). Ethical Theory and Business. (Arnold, Ed.) (8th ed.). New York: Pearson Int.l Edition. Edwards, L., Edwards, J. S., & Wells, P. (2011). Tort Law (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71. Griseri, P., & Seppala, G. (2010). Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility. Boston, MA: South Western. Harpwood, V. H. (2009). Modern Tort Law 7/e (7th ed.). New York: Rout. McBarnet, D., Voiculescu, A., & Campbell, T. (2009). The New Corporate Accountability, Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Pinto, A., & Evans, M. (2008). Corporate Criminal Liability (2nd ed.). London: Sweet and Maxwell. Read More