Mark Peterson\u27s and Molly Selvin\u27s interesting article, Mass Justice: TheLimited and Unlimited Power of Courts, I deals with the role of courts asparticipants in the resolution of mass tort cases. Peterson and Selvin claim, inparticular, that courts have interests in aggregating litigation, in part becausejudges wish to reduce the boredom and the imposition on their calendars thatthey would face if forced to adjudicate individually large numbers of similarclaims such as those involving asbestos and Bendectin. \u22Faced with mass tortlitigation,\u22 they write, \u22judges are not simply neutral arbiters; rather, theyhave strong personal incentives to speed the judicial process, save costs andlabor, and reduce redundancy.\u22 2 There is an obvious logic to their analysis,and the topic they have chosen is important and well deserving of theirattention. Here, I wish merely to note a few reservations about this articlewith which I, on the whole, largely agree. My reservations stem from mysuspicion that the issue of judicial interest in aggregation is a bit morecomplicated than Peterson and Selvin let on
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.