-- Let us handle the financial burden of pursuing your claim

Since the 1960s unreasonable, ridiculous and frivolous lawsuits have clogged the courts in the US and these cases have often created injustice to the civil society as a whole. When a singular individual is granted a settlement for such lawsuits, the jury and sometimes even the judge does not take into account the full ramifications of how it affects others in the local, state or federal communities.

This is seen in the diminishing choices and overly utilized safety and political correctness of the current society.

Fortunately in 2005 the Congress passed new class action reform laws that are expected to greatly reduce the amount of unreasonable lawsuits in courts. At present, there is an atmosphere of distrust for the US judicial system in which teachers are threatened by students that they will sue them over rights violations, physicians fear long litigation if they turn in inefficient colleagues, schools have banned many playground icons such as jungle gyms and seesaws, and this has led to over half of all American children being grossly overweight.

The UK, with a trial bar with little to no political influence, no juries in most civil cases, no punitive damages or limits on pain and suffering, without any contingency fees and the loser having to pay, is having its own issues in that it is fast becoming a culture of compensation.

Judges in America have the authority to stop frivolous, ridiculous and unreasonable lawsuits, but have not been fully exercising this area of their authority since the 1960s. In essence, judges can throw such cases out of court before they are underway. They have a duty not only to decide arguments, but also to set up guidelines that clearly convey right and wrong.

Although citizens do have the right to bring others into court, this should be done with discretion and while paying mindful attention to the fact that their case may not only affect themselves and those being sued, but the whole of the civil society. Lord Hobhouse inquired, "Doest the law require that all trees be cut down because some youths may climb them and fall?" Lord Scott added, "Of course there is some risk of accidents...But that is no reason for imposing a grey and dull safety regime on everyone."

Many individuals insist that it is their right to sue and that a having a jury indicates they will receive a fair verdict, while seeing judges not as precedent setters but as sit-ins on the overall process. Judges have the actual authority to make final decisions and interpret law. Juries are selected to hear the facts of a case and should never interpret law.

In today's society individuals see lawsuits as lottery tickets for their race from rags to riches, but they are eroding the freedom of their fellow citizens, and it is up to the judges to draw the line by establishing reasonable boundaries and guidelines that still allow citizens the right to sue, but also protect the rights to the pursuit of happiness for the other people living in the free society. Without those boundaries and guidelines there would be no end to what limits could be set on individuals in the name of safety and in fear of long drawn out, frivolous, ridiculous or unreasonable lawsuits.