Movie Review 1Movie Review: Erin BrockovichYour nameADJ/235Due dateInstructors nameMovie Review 2Movie Review: Erin BrockovichIntroduction Hexavalent chromium. To many individuals, these two words hold little meaning. To the residents of Hinkley, California, those two words were the center of their lives, the cause of their suffering, and the metal that led to the largest direct-action lawsuit in history. Hexavalent chromium is a naturally occurring metal that is often used in the manufacturing process (Brockovich, 2008). In trace amounts it is not harmful to the body, but in large concentrations it can be deadly. Toxicologists report that ingesting or inhaling significant levels of chromium can lead to respiratory problems, nose bleeds, gastrointestinal cancers, immune deficiencies, and uterine and breast cancers in females (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2009).The Plot Erin Brockovich is a movie that is based on the true events of the woman by the same name and her fight to bring justice to the residents of Hinkley, California. Erin is a single mother who is trying to support her three children. After being injured in an automobile accident, she finds herself looking for work. Erin turns to Ed Masry, the lawyer that represented her after her accident, and asks for a job filing papers in his office. Mr. Masry agrees to hire Erin and one daywhile she was filing paperwork a specific case catches her eye: a real estate issue between the Jensen family and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). This seemingly minor case turns into a large arbitration case with 634 plaintiffs accusing PG&E of poisoning their water with hexavalent chromium and knowingly covering it up. These 634 residents of Hinkley have allMovie Review 3had health issues due to their ingestion of the water contaminated by PG&E. The movie follows Erin as she seeks to bring justice to these individuals and their families.Dilemmas Within this movie, several minor issues are presented. One such instance takes place in the Water Board’s office. Erin confronts Scott, a clerk, to examine records held there. Scott has to decide whether or not to let Erin have access to the files, which he does. Scott knowing about the contamination and not seeking legal action is another instance of an ethical dilemma. A thirdethical issue arises when Erin discusses the case with her boss, Ed Masry. Ed needs to decide if he is willing to take on a case of such significance so close to his retirement or if he should let it go, all along knowing that PG&E is in the wrong. But, the main ethical issue in the movie regards PG&E’s actions. PG&E executives knew that their negligence was causing hexavalent chromium to leech into the ground water in Hinkley, causing residents ailments such as nose bleeds, breathing issues, and cancers.The Characters’ Dilemmas The main dilemma within the movie, PG&E’s cover-up, affects all of the main characters: Erin, Ed Masry, PG&E, and the residents of Hinkley. Erin knows that the leeching of chromium is causing health problems, some of which can be fatal, and she knows that she cannot let this issue go unchallenged. Erin is a mother of three, and this impacts her decision to seek justice forthese families. Ed Masry is also affected by the ethical issue at hand. Ed is close to retirement and is the owner of a small firm that is lacking funds to pursue such a large case. The residents of Hinkley need to decide if they are willing to participate in such a large lawsuit. Doing so isMovie Review 4going to take time, and although they will gain financially from it, some residents to not believe that it is worth a fight. This changes when Erin shows how dedicated she is to the case and how much she believes that the residents can come out victorious. PG&E is obviously affected by the situation as well. Employees in lower-level jobs have no knowledge of the chromium that is being leaked. PG&E also has employees that are well aware of the contamination and the health problems that it poses. For a $28 billion corporation (Brockovich, 2008) an out of court settlement for a few millions would be ideal. Erin and Ed arenot going to let this happen. PG&E stands to lose business, employees, and the company could end up having to file bankruptcy after a lawsuit of this nature. Surely the management of a company with such blatant disregard for a population and the environment deserve bankruptcy; however, another ethical consideration would be the loss of jobs experienced by those unknowing employees lowest on the totem pole.The Resolution When PG&E’s claims department first learns that Ed Masry and Erin are investigating an issue at their Hinkley plant, they sent a representative to the law firm to try and settle the case outof court. This offer was laughable and it was refused by the firm and their clients. Ed’s small law firm cannot financially handle large case as this, so he takes on a partner, a larger firm. The head of this firm, Kurt Potter, suggests that the residents of Hinkley to not pursue a jury trial. A trial such as this could take 10 to 20 years to settle, and some of the residents of Hinkley will not ever live to see justice being served. Kurt and his firm convinced Erin and Ed to pursue arbitration. During arbitration, the case is heard by a judge whose decision is final. TheMovie Review 5residents of Hinkley do not take well to this, and it takes Erin’s hard work and dedication to the case to change their opinions. In the end, the judge orders PG&E to pay $333 million to the residents of Hinkley, the largest direct-action settlement in history.Ethical Framework The ethical issue presented in Erin Brockovich is an example of the teleological way of thinking. Teleological thinking states that only the consequences of an action are judged, not just the act itself (About, 2009). Specifically, the utilitarianism framework suggests that the morality of a situation should be judged by how much the situation affects the majority. In this ethical framework, society prevails over an individual. The consequences of PG&E’s actions arejudged to determine morality of this situation. The negligence of PG&E executives led to hundreds of individuals suffering from health problems, while nothing good resulted from the situation. Building a water treatment plant was a relatively good action, but the intentional