Residents of Flint, Michigan face an uphill battle as they begin to address the implications of a lead contaminated water supply that may have caused serious and long lasting damage to their health. While those exposed to the toxic metal are demanding clean water, they are also starting to raise legal questions. How successful will their legal claims be? In this Q&A, Professor Nora Freeman Engstrom discusses the legal issues involved in this complicated health crisis.

Many Americans have been following the unfolding water crisis in Flint, Michigan with growing alarm and have wondered whether those affected will be able to get some relief in the courts. What’s your perspective?

On the face of it, the lead scandal in Flint, Michigan looks like it has all the makings of a blockbuster mass tort. Every mass tort needs a villain, and here, you have a group of purported public servants, charged with ensuring the welfare and safety of the people of Michigan, who look like they were indifferent, even as poison flowed out of residents’ taps. Every mass tort benefits when there is a sympathetic plaintiff community that didn’t voluntarily accept the risk or contribute to its own harm (by smoking, driving too fast, or eating too much, say). Here, you have tens of thousands of vulnerable victims, many of whom are children, who did no more than take baths and drink glasses of water. Further, an action is more attractive when injuries are serious. That box is checked: Some of Flint’s residents will, no doubt, sustain lasting physical and cognitive impairments. And, finally, some mass torts flounder when there is disagreement concerning whether the alleged toxic substance really is capable of causing physical harm. But again, that is not an issue here. Lead’s danger is conclusively established and has been recognized for decades.

That sounds positive. What’s the catch?

Despite everything I just said, Flint residents will have a very hard time obtaining fair compensation through the tort liability system.