NJCJI President Anthony Anastasio recently authored an opinion piece questioning the efficacy of consolidating mass tort claims for trial. “Underpinning our legal system is the principle that every person’s claim rises or falls on its own merits,” Anastasio stated. “Anyone who alleges harm needs to prove it.”
Anastasio noted that some New Jersey attorneys filing talc suits have sought to consolidate multiple plaintiffs' cases for trial, which he argues masks the weaknesses of individual claims. “The lawyers highlight certain aspects from each plaintiff’s case and ignore their individual deficiencies to build their case around a composite ‘perfect plaintiff,’” Anastasio commented. He contends this approach jeopardizes the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial by leveraging jury confusion and anger to advance unmeritorious claims and inflate damage awards.
“Judges and other legal experts agree this tactic confuses juries and distorts the search for truth,” Anastasio said. He added that social science experts have found juries in such consolidated cases are more likely to rule against defendants, become angry, and issue higher awards, including punitive damages. According to him, this results in a distortion of justice throughout the case.
Anastasio also pointed out that federal appellate courts across the country have warned that consolidating these cases could undermine a fair civil justice system.
Additionally, Anastasio argued that the "batch-and-blend" method favored by plaintiffs’ attorneys in mass tort claims not only threatens individual justice but also harms consumers and workers. He remarked, “In the face of ballooning, outsized verdicts companies must set aside greater reserves to defend themselves and prevent financial ruin. This in turn raises the cost of doing business, limits innovation and hiring, and encourages migration to other states with more equitable justice systems.”
