Imagine a normal day at home, maybe watching television or making dinner, then something smashes against the side out the house, ripping it away from its foundation. It’s all a blur at first, until the black sludge starts to sweep into your house, it becomes clear immediately, this is West Virginia after all. The dam had broken, sending refuse and water borrowing down the valley, wiping away everything in its path. Somehow, you make it to the roof, revealing for the first the true depth of the destruction. Everything you know destroyed, the town where you live, work and raise your family, washed away by the very thing that provides you with those same things. But you survived, and now are tasked with rebuilding your life, but with what? It’s all gone. Then a hotshot, Washington, D.C. lawyer comes to town saying he wants to help. Skeptical at first, his persistence shows the
…show more content…
This colorful description is getting at the bigger picture, that as plaintiffs’ lawyer, the author would obviously have some kind of bias toward himself. However, he often paints Pittston a more of an enemy than perhaps is needed, this could have been partly out of the emotional distress claims as a main point of the claim, or it could have been in an attempt to sell books. Because naturally, having a villain to root against is more fun. And what’s better than the hero winning in the end,
This colorful description is getting at the bigger picture, that as plaintiffs’ lawyer, the author would obviously have some kind of bias toward himself. However, he often paints Pittston a more of an enemy than perhaps is needed, this could have been partly out of the emotional distress claims as a main point of the claim, or it could have been in an attempt to sell books. Because naturally, having a villain to root against is more fun. And what’s better than the hero winning in the end,