Price vs. Price: a Deserved End

Superior Court Judge Arthur W. Jones showed wisdom and common sense last week when he put a merciful end to the painful lawsuit filed by Laurence Price against his father, Sol Price.

Laurence Price had sought $100 million for emotional distress, which he said his father had caused him for years. But the statute of limitations for such suits is one year, so the case boiled down to whether Sol Price’s refusal to attend a bar mitzvah party for his grandson was “outrageous” conduct, one of the tests for emotional-distress suits.

Jones said it was not. He said Sol Price had a First Amendment right not to attend the party.

That seems so obvious that we question how such a case ever got to trial, especially in a court system bursting at the seams. The system is in such bad shape that a moratorium was imposed on civil trials for several weeks earlier this year in order to meet deadlines in criminal cases.

But the overcrowding itself may make it easier for marginal cases to reach trial, say some attorneys and judges. The judges assigned to handle pretrial motions hear 30 or more cases a day, leaving little time to analyze each case.

So, if a judge is unsure whether a case is worthy, he is likely to give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt in an attempt to be fair--and to avoid being overruled, which state appeals courts have often done. The reluctance of the state courts to impose monetary sanctions against attorneys and plaintiffs for bringing frivolous suits, as is done in federal court, has also exacerbated the problem.

Maybe there is a need for stricter sanctions. Maybe the Legislature needs to give judges stronger guidelines on what cases to dismiss. Maybe more disputes should be settled through mediation or arbitration, rather than by jury trials.

Clearly, the courts need more resources.

But as the Board of Supervisors and the state struggle to find that money, it’s also clear that a court of law is not the place to settle disputes such as Price vs. Price.