Legal Limits to a Sue-for-Anything Culture Peter G. Verniero
The Star-Ledger (NJ), June 27, 2005 Peter G. Verniero, a former justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, published an op-ed calling upon judges to act as gatekeepers and keep unreasonable cases from going to long and expensive jury trials. As doctors are quitting in droves because of the high cost of malpractice insurance and teachers are afraid to discipline an unruly student because of fear of lawsuits, Verniero recognizes the wider implications of allowing anyone to sue for anything.
"...[W]e as a society seem to be enamored of the notion that someone must be responsible for anything bad that happens to us. Although the precise consequences of that attitude are difficult to measure, the societal costs of our growing litigation culture appear to be significant....
"Unless the system can do a better job at defining reasonable limits to lawsuits, the current culture will make us so nervous about being sued that we will become paralyzed as a community."
Invoking many of the ideas discussed and Common Good's recent conference Lawsuits and Liberty, which explored the role of civil justice in today's society, Verniero argues that the time has come to re-examine the role of judges in determining who can sue for what.
"Despite their occasional critics (and even though the criticism is sometimes warranted), judges are widely respected. I see no reason why they cannot take on a larger role in allocating the risks of injury in an active society, so long as they are guided by established standards.
"To be sure, I do not advocate that judges be begin resolving relevant factual disputes, the traditional function of juries. Rather, we should consider giving judges the greatest possible leeway to decide whether a claim is sufficiently reasonable before allowing it to balloon into a full-scale jury trial."
While time has come to affirm the authority of judges to make decisions on the legitimacy of lawsuits, these measures, Verniero is quick to point out, are in no way meant to limit people's access to the court.
"Any person with a legitimate dispute should have full access to the court. But the opposite is also true. Claims that are frivolous, unreasonable or absurd should be dismissed swiftly.... Trial judges can be trusted in this gatekeeper role. If they occasionally fail (and, as humans, some of them inevitably will), our system of judicial review can correct their mistakes.
"Simply put, not all of life's disappointments should be turned into a trial. Invoking the state's power in the form of legal process should be reserved for those genuinely in need of redress. We trivialize that process when anybody can sue for anything and when those who are accused are forced to settle unwarranted claims merely to make them go away.
"Our civil justice system was intended for a higher purpose."
| 
