This is an opinion editorial written by Post South newspaper in Iberville Parish. This was originally published in the Thursday July 17, 2003 edition of the newspaper.

Foster punts rather than lead

Governor Mike Foster has said on occasion he is not a big football fan. However, he sure knows football strategy because he made one heck of a punt this week.

Foster, the part-time law student/governor, vetoed a bill aimed at reducing frivolous lawsuits. The bill, which was sponsored by Sen. Rob Marionneaux of Grosse Tete, would have required the losing parties or legal defenses to pay court costs and attorney fees to the other side if the action was deemed frivolous.

Even though the measure has gained easy approval from both houses before arriving on the Governor's desk for signing, Gov. Foster punted the ball into the laps of judges. Foster said the courts have the authority to assess costs on those who file lawsuits or legal defenses that courts determine are baseless.

While that may be true, the likelihood of a judge issuing such a ruling is a rarity. Remember judges are elected and contributions to their candidacy are predominantly from lawyers and law firms that appear before them. Foster knows that he darted away from a solution like a child playing dodge ball. He had a perfect opportunity to score a touchdown for the people...and he punted. After all, he's in the final months of his term as governor and is immune from retaliation.

In his veto message, the governor also contended the bill did not adequately define a frivolous lawsuit or provide any guidance on how that and other terms should be interpreted. Foster is taking the same approach to explaining a frivolous suit as those who define pornography. They know what it is when they see it but they can't or won't define it.

The governor doesn't have a problem shielding the state from lawsuits or by setting limits on awards. He just has a big problem protecting you from frivolous lawsuits. If you've ever dealt with the state's office of Risk Management on damage to you car by a fault of te state's highway system you know how sheltered the state is.

The bill's author believes the veto was issued because insurance companies did not like the fact the law would apply to both the plaintiff and the defendant.

This was a good concept and should have made it into law. We hope someone comes back in the next session with another attempt with a different governor. Maybe they will take measures to improves the bill. One such way would be to curb the suit happy population by either elimination or reducing the ability of lawyers to take cases on a contingency.

We hope this bill is re-worked and submitted again. It's a needed step for out justice system.