Erin Brockovich & Flash of Genius: Business Law Analysis

Introduction to Business Law and Film

Business or commercial law is a branch of law dealing with the relations, rights, and conduct of businesses and persons engaged in sales, trade, commerce, and merchandising (Emerson, 2009). The business arena is marked by numerous developments ranging from ethical to unethical, and business law serves to ensure that all such developments remain within the confines of the law. The films Flash of Genius and Erin Brockovich provide compelling illustrations of the typical events that characterize the business world and how they are addressed through commercial law. This paper reviews the two films, analyzing their differences and similarities, as well as the insights they offer about commercial law. Before embarking on the main discussion, however, it is useful to provide a brief overview of what each film is about.

Overview of Erin Brockovich (2000)

The story revolves around a single mother who, acting as a legal assistant, brings suit against a large utility company, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), for its illegal dumping practices. The film opens with a car accident involving Erin Brockovich — then an unemployed single mother — and another speeding vehicle at an intersection. She hires a lawyer and brings suit against the owner of the speeding car; however, her conduct during court proceedings causes her to lose to the defendant. She then approaches the same lawyer and pleads with him to give her a job at his law firm. With no formal legal training, she is hired as a file clerk, and it is in the course of this work that she discovers PG&E's illegal dumping practices.

Specifically, she observes that PG&E's branch in Hinkley, California, was indiscriminately releasing the toxic and carcinogenic substance chromium into the community's main water supply. As a result, members of the community were experiencing serious health complications, including gastrointestinal cancer, miscarriages, and headaches. Bringing suit against a multimillion-dollar corporation was no easy task; however, her lawyer succeeded, and PG&E was ordered to pay $333 million to the Hinkley community in damages.

Overview of Flash of Genius (2008)

The film is based on engineer Bob Kearns' real-life story. In 1967, he and his business partner invented the intermittent windshield wiper and received patent rights for the device. The invention significantly increased vehicles' ability to maneuver in drizzly and misty conditions. Kearns presented the device to Ford Motor Company, which showed considerable enthusiasm at first, only to withdraw for unspecified reasons. Two years after Ford's refusal to purchase the device, Kearns discovered that the company was offering variable-speed intermittent wipers on its own vehicles.

He brought suit against Ford for what he believed was a violation of his intellectual property rights — specifically, the use of his patented invention without giving him due credit or compensation. After years of legal battle, the court found Ford guilty of patent infringement and ordered it to pay $10.1 million to Kearns for using his invention.

Differences and Similarities Between the Two Films

This analysis focuses less on the cinematic structure of the films and pays greater attention to the legal issues each one presents. The most significant difference between the two is the body of law from which each one flows. Whereas Erin Brockovich is rooted in environmental law, Flash of Genius belongs more squarely to intellectual property law.

Environmental law is a branch of law that addresses the effects of business activity on the natural environment. For environmental law to apply, health consequences are typically involved — in this case, the gastrointestinal cancer, miscarriages, and headaches suffered by the Hinkley community as a direct result of PG&E's dumping activities. Intellectual property law, on the other hand, deals with issues of property ownership and the enforcement of legal rights over artistic works, designs, and inventions. It is designed to protect inventors by granting them patent, copyright, and trademark rights, and by requiring any party wishing to use a protected invention to seek permission from the rights holder. Kearns brought suit against Ford because he believed the company had intentionally used his patented device to develop its own intermittent wipers without crediting or compensating him as the original inventor.

Despite this major difference, the two films share a significant number of similarities. To begin with, both present a classic David vs. Goliath situation in the legal world — that is, both ask whether an ordinary individual can emerge victorious in a legal battle against a powerful, established corporation with the resources to bribe witnesses and manipulate outcomes. Both Kearns and Brockovich are principled individuals fighting for what is right in a system that historically favors those with money. Yet in both cases, the "David" prevails. In Erin Brockovich, PG&E attempts to use its financial power to bribe witnesses in the Hinkley community into testifying that their health complications were unrelated to the company's activities; at one point, a company official offers $250,000 to a family whose member had developed cancer in order to persuade them to drop their claims. Despite these tactics, the case was decided in favor of the community. These outcomes reflect changing dynamics in the legal arena — people are becoming more aware of their rights, and financial status is becoming a less decisive factor in legal battles.

A second similarity is that both films apply the law from a utilitarian perspective — that is, on the basis of the greater good (Mill, 2012). Kearns, for instance, had the option of accepting Ford's offer of an out-of-court settlement, which would have spared him enormous expenditure of time and resources; however, he rejected it because he felt that doing so would set a damaging precedent for inventors around the world. Brockovich faced a similar situation — she lacked financial resources and the safety of her children was under threat — yet she continued to fight for the people of Hinkley, who represented the larger public interest. Both individuals used the law as a vehicle for maximizing the greater good, demonstrating that law should serve as a unifying force for the weak and the strong alike. Its application should be grounded in fairness rather than status and should always strive to maximize the well-being of the majority (Carper & McKinsey, 2011).

Conclusion

Film is one way through which the public is educated and made aware of what is expected of them by society. Through film, audiences learn what the law considers right or wrong. Flash of Genius and Erin Brockovich do a compelling job of illustrating what business law entails in practice. Despite drawing from different branches of law, both films demonstrate how a David vs. Goliath dynamic unfolds in the legal setting and underscore the importance of utilitarian ethics in the application of commercial law. They illustrate clearly that the law should always be applied in a manner that maximizes the greater good — that its enforcement should be grounded in fairness rather than financial power, and that it should consistently strive to maximize the well-being of the majority.

References

Carper, D. & McKinsey, J. (2011). Understanding the Law (6th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Emerson, R. W. (2009). Business Law (5th ed.). Hauppauge, NY: Barron's Educational Series Inc.

Mill, J. S. (2012). Utilitarianism. New York, NY: Dover Publications.