05/13/2004: 
Stuff That Doesn't Suck
First Annual Gatekeeper Awards
from The Common Good
The awards highlight the often overlooked role of judges in determining who can sue for what.
In today's legal climate, not enough judges are acting as gatekeepers. Anyone can sue for almost anything. Legal fear is transforming America from a can-do nation into one where people are nervous about even ordinary daily activities.
The Gatekeeper Awards honor judges whose decisions restore public confidence that reasonable actions will be supported by the courts, even when they result in unintended consequences.
Chief Justice Ralph J. CappyTo Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy and the other four honorees, for showing that the American legal system is not yet a complete write-off, I salute you.
(Carl R. Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., No. 43 WAP 2002, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District, December 31, 2003.)
"Junk Science" excluded in claim that Doritos are inherently dangerous. In April of 1995, Carl and Diana Grady sued Frito Lay claiming that Dorito chips stuck in Charles Grady's throat and tore his esophagus. The Gradys wanted to present "expert" testimony of Dr. Charles Beroes to support their claim that Doritos are inherently dangerous. Beroes' research included pressing Doritos onto a pad-covered gram scale until the tip snapped off, and measuring the amount of time it took saliva to soften the Doritos. None of Beroes' tests involved chewing. The trial court excluded Beroes' testimony and dismissed the case. That would have been the end of it, but the mid-level Superior Court of Pennsylvania reinstated the case and Dr. Beroes' testimony. Fortunately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw it out again, noting that Dr. Beroes' tests "smacked of a high school science fair project." Honorable mention goes to Justice Saylor whose concurring opinion pointed out "the common sense notion that it is necessary to properly chew hard foodstuffs prior to swallowing."
