The Advantages and Disadvantages of Class Action Lawsuits
By: LawInfo
Class action lawsuits allow a class of plaintiffs to sue a defendant for injuries caused by common actions or inactions. As in any important litigation decision, there are advantages and disadvantages to class action lawsuits. It is important for potential class members to understand those advantages and disadvantages so that they can best protect their rights.
Common Advantages of Class Action Lawsuits
Some of the common advantages of class action lawsuits include:
· Lower litigation costs. Litigation costs will be divided among class members. Thus, the very number of class members in the plaintiff group can provide a shared expense benefit to each individual class member;
· The opportunity for plaintiffs to seek relief for small amounts of money. The lower litigation costs will allow plaintiffs to seek relief who would not have found it financially prudent to do so in a traditional lawsuit;
· Greater judicial efficiency. A class action lawsuit is decided by one judge in one court. Thus, the litigation will take up less cumulative court time and involve fewer judges.
· Greater uniformity of recoveries among similar plaintiffs. Since only one decision by one judge, or one settlement, will be made, plaintiffs’ recoveries should be consistent.
· Greater uniformity for defendants. The one decision or one settlement benefit also creates greater certainty for defendants. A defendant and others in situations similar to the defendant’s situation are not left wondering about how to follow the law because only one decision was issued.
· The opportunity for all plaintiffs to receive damages. If a defendant is facing multiple lawsuits then the defendant may not have the ability to pay all of the plaintiffs. That means that earlier filing plaintiffs generally receive greater compensation for similar injuries than do later filing plaintiffs. A class action lawsuit erases this risk and allows injured parties to recover damages at the same time and in proportion to their injuries.
Common Disadvantages of Class Action Lawsuits
Some of the common disadvantages of class action lawsuits include:
Lack of decision making control. Class action lawsuits are, by definition, representative rather than group litigation. That means that representatives of the affected class make the important litigation decisions – including when to settle. A plaintiff who is not a representative does not have a say in whether to settle or continue to litigation.
Cases almost always settle for financial compensation, coupons for future services or rebates only. If a plaintiff is seeking other types of compensation than this can be problematic.
If the plaintiff’s attorney does not argue effectively or the class representatives do not have strong claims then the legitimate claims of other class members can be hurt. If the class is unsuccessful in their lawsuit then individual class members likely do not have the right to bring individual lawsuits at a later date.
It can be difficult to decide whether or not to take part in a class action case. The advantages and disadvantages discussed above should be carefully considered by each class member prior to joining a class action lawsuit so that a class member has a realistic idea of the possible good and bad outcomes of joining a class action lawsuit.
The information on this page is meant to provide a general overview of the law. The laws in your state and/or city may deviate significantly from those described here. If you have specific questions related to your situation you should speak with a local attorney.
When you have a dispute with another person or business, you have the right to have that dispute resolved in a court of law. This is known as a civil lawsuit. When you file a lawsuit, you’re signaling to the other party that you want to solve the disagreement between you. But many civil lawsuits aresettled before they are ever heard by a judge or jury. Today’s article will demystify how civil lawsuits are settled.
Like this article? Share it with others using this link:http://bit.ly/qFGINY
Why Settle a Lawsuit
There are a few reasons why you would want to settle a civil lawsuit rather than having a judge or jury reach a verdict. The primary reasons are:
Litigation – a lawsuit – is expensive because legal fees can add up. Settling a case before trial will usually cost less in attorneys’ fees.
Litigation is slow. It can often take years from the time a case is filed until a verdict is reached.
Litigation is public. Except in certain circumstances, every court hearing and every document filed with the court is a matter of public record. This means your family, friends, strangers and even the media have the right to attend hearings, read these filings and share the information with other people. If you want to keep your case and information private, the resulting settlement can be sealed.
Questions to Ask When Deciding to Settle
As we said earlier, when you file a lawsuit, you’re sending the other party a signal that you are serious about the issue. But once you’ve filed the lawsuit, you don’t necessarily have to see it through to its conclusion.
It’s not uncommon to file a lawsuit when you have been unable to amicably resolve a dispute. But once that lawsuit is filed, both parties may feel new motivation to try to find some resolution that doesn’t require a trial.
How do you settle a lawsuit? Sometimes it’s as easy as picking up the telephone. But each dispute is unique, and you and your lawyer need to decide what’s right for you.
Let’s assume you’re the defendant in a lawsuit, meaning you’re the one being sued. You need to analyze the situation:
How much will you pay in legal fees and expenses to resolve the case in court?
How much do you think the other side (the plaintiff) will pay? Is the plaintiff paying his or her own legal expenses out of pocket, is an insurance company paying for the legal fees or is the attorney representing the plaintiff on contingency (meaning the lawyer is paid a percentage of any money that is won)?
What is the likelihood that a judge or jury will decide the case in your favor? What is the likelihood that the judge or jury will decide the case in the plaintiff’s favor?
If the plaintiff wins the case, how much money, if any, will you have to pay the plaintiff? What other action might you be forced to take? Can you afford to settle?
How long will it take to resolve the lawsuit if you go to trial? Is there value to you to resolving the case quickly? Is there value to the plaintiff?
Are there confidentiality or privacy issues involved? Does the media have any interest in the lawsuit? Would embarrassing information about you be revealed if it were made public?
After you’ve asked and answered those questions, you should have a better idea whether it makes sense to try to settle the lawsuit.
Making a Settlement Offer
Either you or your attorney should reach out to the other side to begin settlement negotiations. You’ll have to decide if the discussions are better handled lawyer-to-lawyer or one-on-one with the other side.
The first step is finding out whether the other side is open to negotiations. After you’ve established they are willing to discuss a settlement, you can then try to find out what resolution would make them happy.
You and your lawyer can then create a settlement offer. This is simply a list of things you’re willing to do, actions you’re willing to take or money you’re willing to pay to end the lawsuit. (It may be a combination of all three.) The other side will have a list as well.
Once you have developed a tentative settlement offer, you or your attorney will present it to the other side. There may be back-and-forth negotiations.
You need to remember that a settlement is often a give-and-get situation. There are trade-offs to be made when it comes to settling a lawsuit: You may not be getting the same results you’d get at trial, but you’re ending the dispute, saving legal fees and maintaining your privacy.
Once you’ve reached a tentative deal, your lawyer can write up a formal settlement agreement that both parties sign. After it’s been signed and the basic conditions have been met, your civil lawsuit can be dismissed.
In today's litigious society, more often than not cases end up being settled before going to court and getting a judgment. Settling means both parties resolve the issues outside of court without a trial.
Typically one offers a payment or award of some sort to the other, possibly less than the initial amount asked. Why do so many people choose to settle their cases instead of leaving their fate in the hands of a jury or judge? Is settling a case more beneficial?
Benefits of Settling a Case
There are many benefits to settlement rather than undergoing a full trial, for instance:
Expense. Trials involve attorneys, expert witnesses, extensive depositions during discovery, travel and time. If a case settles before going to trial, then most of these expenses can be reduced or eliminated
Stress. Settlement may reduce some stress that a trial creates. Sometimes it's hard for people to undergo the process of trial. They fear getting on the witness stand and telling their story to a judge and jury, then cross-examined
Privacy. Details of the case can be kept private when settled. When you take a case to trial, the court documents become a public record and anyone can look at them. When you settle a case, most of the details are kept out of the court documents, and aren't a public record. Many settlement agreements also have confidentiality agreements as part of the settlement, so the case won't be talked about in public
Predictability. A jury decision is very uncertain. A settlement is much more predictable than having to wait for a jury to reach a decision
Time. Many trials can last from 1-3 years, sometimes even longer if there's an appeal. Settlement shortens the time frame
Finality. The losing party can appeal a court (judge or jury) decision, dragging out the process even longer. Settlements can't be appealed and ensure the dispute is over
Flexibility. During trials, there are strict guidelines and rules about what can be said in court (for example, rules of evidence and procedural rules). When you settle a case, there's more flexibility during discussions and how topics are tackled. Furthermore, in a settlement, one party can even ask for an apology, which wouldn't be possible in court
No "Guilty" Verdict. In a trial, there's usually a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict, but in a settlement the defendant, person or party on the defensive, may not want a record of guilt. Settling a case is a way to pay for a mistake, but not admit wrongdoing
When It Doesn't Make Sense to Settle
Sometimes lawsuits are filed to make an important point that affects society. For cases challenging Constitutional limitations or other rights, settling wouldn't be a good option because it doesn't create precedent and won't affect public policy.
Also, sometimes the settlement terms are so unfair to one side that settling isn't the better option.
Who Decides?
When considering a settlement, lawyers need to examine if the settlement is actually in the client's best interest. Many times, a side offers settlement terms which don't fully compensate the other side's injuries and damages. However, lawyers seeking a quick finality to the case may pressure the client to accept it. The decision whether to settle or not belongs to the client.
Current Affairs: The Outback Settlement
You may have heard some talk of settlements in recent news. Outback Steakhouse has recently agreed to pay $19 million to settle a sex discrimination suit against it.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against the restaurant chain back in 2006. They claimed female workers were denied favorable jobs which prevented them from advancing to profit-sharing management positions.
While refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing, The Outback justified its settlement decision because the company decided it was better to settle than to spend time and money on litigation. The company also agreed to institute an online application system for managerial positions and hire a human resources executive.
It also agreed to hire a consultant to monitor its compliance with the settlement and report back to the EEOC on how it's doing every six months. The settlement terms offered the women both money and better working conditions.
Settling a case isn't always advantageous for both parties, and it may seem like an easy way out. However, it is an acceptable way to resolve a dispute.
Questions for Your Attorney
Do I have to sign a settlement on the spot or do I have time to bring it to an attorney?
I'm a female who was affected by the Outback's policies. How can I join the lawsuit against them?
While a settlement can be a good thing, it is not always a possibility and it doesn't always happen in every case. There are a few reasons why a settlement may not be agreed upon. For example:
1. Sometimes a defendant won't offer a settlement at all, which will leave the plaintiff no choice but to go to court in order to try to recover compensation.
2. Other times, a defendant will offer a settlement but it won't be considered reasonable by a plaintiff, or a plaintiff will make an unreasonable settlement demand.
3. In still other cases, a plaintiff wants to have his day in court and it is important to him to have the case go to trial.
4. When punitive damages are at stake, it may be especially attractive for a plaintiff to go to trial because the awards can sometimes be significantly larger than actual damages.
Settlement negotiations usually begin by someone making an initial offer or demand. Plaintiffs who want to have the best chance of getting a settlement they are happy with should consider being the one to get the ball rolling with a demand letter, so negotiations can begin on their terms. Once the initial offer is made, there is usually some back and forth negotiation that can go on for several months as the parties try to work out a settlement. All the components of the claim must be settled, including the payment of the plaintiff's legal fees, in order for a settlement to become final.
One thing the plaintiff should be aware of is that sometimes settlement negotiations can drag on for so long that they get near the statute of limitations for filing a claim. In such cases, plaintiffs should not hesitate to file their lawsuit, even if they are still involved in negotiations. Negotiations can always continue after the lawsuit is filed, but if the plaintiff doesn't get his or her case into the courts on time, the statute of limitations will bar him forever from making a claim. Insurance companies and defendants sometimes know this and try to drag things out, because once a plaintiff cannot sue, there is no reason for the insurer to give him anything.
Should a Plaintiff Ever Accept a Low Settlement?
While plaintiffs should always try to negotiate the best and most fair settlement possible, there are times when it might make sense to accept a settlement that is lower than what they believe they could potentially get in court. Some examples of times when a plaintiff may wish to consider accepting a low settlement include:
When the plaintiff's case is uncertain (i.e. if he or she is not confident about proving all elements of the claim in court)
When the injuries are small or insignificant. A settlement should be based on medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional distress and anything else applicable like wrongful death damages. If a plaintiff didn't really suffer any significant injuries, then a low settlement offer may be all that is appropriate.
When a settlement offer is at the max of the policy limits, even if it seems low. For example, if a defendant has a $25,000 liability insurance policy and the insurer offers a $25,000 settlement, the plaintiff may want to consider accepting the settlement because even if they won a larger verdict in court, it might not ever be collectable.
Plaintiffs who are offered a low settlement, or any settlement for that matter, must remember that this is their only recourse. If it later turns out that the plaintiff suffered injuries that are more serious than initially thought, there will be nothing that can be done once the settlement has been accepted.
Collections Issues for Larger Settlements
As mentioned above, a plaintiff who has received a settlement offer that is equal to the maximum an insurance policy will pay may wish to consider accepting it due to the potential difficulty of collecting any excess above and beyond the policy maximum. An insurance company is not going to pay out any money above and beyond what it's obligated to pay by the policy terms, so anything in excess is going to have to be paid by the defendant personally. If the defendant is a large corporation, then collecting this excess may not be a problem. However, if the defendant is a small business or a private person, the defendant may not have significant assets or any assets at all. The judgment the plaintiff gets, then, won't be able to be collected.
For example, assume a plaintiff wins a $150,000 verdict and the insurance policy only pays out to $50,000. The other $100,000 will have to come from somewhere. If the defendant is unemployed and owns no assets, he's not going to be able to pay the $100,000. The plaintiff can try to place liens on any assets the defendant does have, or can try to get the defendant's wages garnished, but all of these things will require additional court actions and may not even be effective if there really is no money to take.
Deciding on whether to settle a personal injury case and negotiating a settlement can be tricky. It is always in the best interests of any potential plaintiff to speak with a qualified lawyer for help with this process. A lawyer can assist in determining if a settlement offer is fair and, if it isn't, in either getting a better offer or going to court.
Understand the basics of personal injury settlements.
After an accident or injury, there are usually two ways to get compensation from those who are at fault: be offered and accept a settlement outside of court, or go through with acivil lawsuit in order to collect damages.
While a civil lawsuit might ultimately net a successful plaintiff more money than settlement would, the vast majority of personal injury cases settle well before trial, and often before a lawsuit is even filed. There are many reasons for this.
Understanding Settlement
Settlement occurs when an insurer or a defendant makes an offer of payment to an injured person.
1. The offer of settlement may be made before any lawsuit has ever been filed, after a potential claim arises.
2. It may be made after a case has gone to trial and a trial has begun, as long as no final verdict has come back.
3. Some settlements are made once a jury is deliberating, since one or both parties might become nervous as the jury debates their fate and decide that they prefer the sure thing of a settlement.
Once a settlement agreement is reached, the plaintiff must relinquish all potential claims against the defendant arising out of the accident or incident. The plaintiff does this by signing a full liability release. For example, in a car accident case, the car insurer may offer the plaintiff $50,000 to settle the case. The plaintiff, to receive that $50,000, would have to agree not to sue as a result of the car accident.
Settlement and Insurance Companies
Settlements are almost always offered when insurance companies are involved in a case, which happens in the vast majority of personal injury cases.
The fact that so many personal injury cases do involve insurance companies goes a long way towards explaining why so many cases settle; insurers have the money to pay out claims, expect to pay out some claims, and are risk averse and don't want to end up with no control over costs when they have to go to trial, pay legal fees and deal with a jury.
Why Do Most Cases Settle?
The fact that so many cases settle, especially when insurance companies are involved, naturally leads to the question of why? There are many reasons, including:
1. Settlement allows a defendant to control risks and avoid legal costs.
If the defendant knows he is going to be held responsible, he might not want the case to get in front of a sympathetic jury that could award large pain and suffering or punitive damage awards for the plaintiff. Instead, the defendant or insurer may prefer a settlement where it has control over how much to offer.
2. Settlement can allow a defendant to keep the cases out of the public eye or out of the paper.
This is especially important for larger companies with a public profile. For example, if a company produces a defective product and only a few people are injured by it, the company may want to try to arrange a quiet out-of-court settlement and avoid major publicity that might accompany a trial. When a settlement agreement is drafted, it gives a company (or any defendant for that matter) the opportunity to negotiate terms of that agreement that work for everyone. This can include a requirement of confidentiality.
3. Settlement allows a plaintiff to avoid a protracted trial.
Trials can extend for months, or even for years if there are appeals. A plaintiff who needs income and has medical expenses may not want to wait that long to get financial relief. A plaintiff also may not feel up to going through a long trial, putting on a case, presenting evidence and doing everything else necessary to win a legal battle
4. Settlement allows a plaintiff a guaranteed victory.
When a case is taken to court, there is always a chance (however small) that the plaintiff will lose the case and receive nothing.
What if Settlement Attempts Fail?
If the case can't be settled out of court, then a trial will be necessary (unless the claim is dropped). Learn more about what happens when settlement doesn't work.
Relatively few lawsuits ever go through the full range of procedures and all the way to trial. Most civil cases are settled by mutual agreement between the parties. A dispute can be settled even before a suit is filed. Once a suit is filed, it can be settled before the trial begins, during the trial, while the jury is deliberating, or even after a verdict is rendered.
A settlement doesn’t usually state that anyone was right or wrong in the case, nor does it have to settle the whole case. Part of a dispute can be settled, with the remaining issues left to be resolved by the judge or jury.
Criminal cases are not settled by the parties in quite the same way civil cases are. However, not every case goes to trial. The government may decide to dismiss a case, or be ordered to do so by a court. The defendant may decide to plead guilty, perhaps as a result of negotiations with the government that result in dismissing some of the charges or recommending leniency in sentencing. Plea bargains are a very important and efficient way to resolve criminal cases.
For questions or inquiries contact Taironda E. Phoenix, Esq., Chief, Civil Court Programs or Nanette L. Lind, Administrative Specialist 4 at (609) 292-8471 or e-mail questions to: CivilWebSites Mailbox/AOC/Courts
Mediation is a dispute resolution process in which an impartial third party - the mediator - facilitates negotiations among the parties to help them reach a mutually acceptable settlement. The major distinction between mediation and arbitration is that, unlike an arbitrator, a mediator does not make a decision about the outcome of the case. The parties, with the assistance of their attorneys, work toward a solution with which they are comfortable. The purpose of mediation is not to decide who is right or wrong. Rather, its goal is to give the parties the opportunity to (1) express feelings and diffuse anger, (2) clear up misunderstandings, (3) determine underlying interests or concerns, (4) find areas of agreement, and, ultimately, (5) incorporate these areas into solutions devised by the parties themselves.
Court Rule 1:40-4 & 6 govern the mediation program for Civil, General Equity and Probate Cases. Under R. 1:40-6, the court can refer any civil case to mediation at no charge for two hours.
Surveys have been developed by the Civil Practice Division to track the impact of Statewide Mediation in the settlement of cases. Data from the completed surveys may be used to enhance the Statewide Mediation program in the future. Mediators, attorneys and their clients are requested to complete the surveys found here at Civil Mediation Surveys. or select the individual link below.
The majority of legal claims filed in civil court do not reach the trial stage-- most are resolved earlier through a negotiated settlement among the parties. An informal settlement can even take place before any lawsuit is filed. Through settlement, the plaintiff in a civil case agrees to give up the right to pursue any further legal action in connection with his or her case, in exchange for the payment of an agreed-upon sum of money from the defendant (or the defendant's insurer). In rare cases, instead of paying money the defendant will agree to perform (or cease performing) a certain action.
If you are considering settling a legal claim in your civil case, or if you have received a settlement offer, you should talk to your attorney and receive his or her thorough assessment of the case and the prospects for settlement. Consider the following points:
Amount he or she thinks the case is worth in a range of dollar amounts.
Verdicts and settlements in similar cases.
Chances of winning at trial.
Unfavorable publicity for either side (civil court trials are open to the public and media scrutiny).
Amount of personal information that could be revealed at trial or through further discovery.
Possible disclosure of business information or trade secrets.
When the case is likely to be called for trial.
Practical difficulties in trying the case.
Weaknesses in your evidence.
Weaknesses in your opponent's evidence.
The amount of the defendant's insurance coverage.
The defendant's own monetary resources.
The defendant's lawyer's negotiation tactics (your lawyer may have negotiated with the lawyer before, or has talked to other lawyers to get an idea of what to expect).
The extent to which your opponent is likely to play "hardball."
If you are the plaintiff, ask how much of the settlement proceeds will be applied to your lawyer's fee and your expenses.
If you are the plaintiff, ask how the settlement payments will affect your federal and state income taxes.
Talk about what you're willing to concede in order to get the case settled.
Discuss the minimum amount you will accept.
Consider the possibility of a partial settlement, that is, settling the easy issues first while you continue to negotiate the more contentious issues.
If you are the plaintiff, consider accepting a remedy other than money.
Roadside memorials: Why mark the spot where a friend or loved one died?
A roadside memorial on Alps Road in Wayne. Family and friends often will leave mementos, religious items and photos at the scene of a loved one's death.
Sacred ground to some, eerie eyesores to others, memorials created at the sites where loved ones have died suddenly — often, though not always, in traffic accidents — continue to multiply on roadsides in North Jersey and around the country.
Are they a compelling expression of grief? An inappropriate use of public space? A reminder for motorists to slow down?
Festooned with flowers, candles, religious symbols, stuffed animals, photos and personal effects of the deceased, roadside memorials are now banned in some states and cities. In states such as New Jersey, where the shrines are allowed, secular groups have objected to seeing religious items — crosses, in particular — erected on public land.
Some North Jersey drivers complain that the often elaborate shrines are an unnecessary and potentially dangerous distraction to motorists, and may be just as dangerous to the friends and family members who regularly visit the sites to pray or pay their respects. Other motorists say they are simply confused by this increasingly popular ritual: Why mark the spot where a friend or loved one died?
"I just think they're creepy," said Patricia Lang of Mahwah, whose husband James died after being involved in a car accident in Hoboken in 1995. Lang said that, at the time, it never occurred to her to create a roadside memorial for her husband. "I never saw the car or went to the site," she said, "and probably never will."
Lang does pass one long-standing roadside memorial regularly in Bergen County and said that seeing it always disturbs her. "I know a teenager died there," she said. "And although I can understand how these things might comfort someone immediately after a death, I don't understand the point of leaving them there [indefinitely]. Passing something like this all the time ... how can that give you any peace?"
For Ginny Goerg of Fair Lawn, the matter is a bit more complicated. In July 2010, days before what would have been her husband Larry Goerg's 49th birthday, her three children asked to visit the spot on Route 17 in Paramus where he had died, seven months earlier, after suffering a massive heart attack while behind the wheel.
There, as motorists sped by them, the Goerg children, then aged 20, 14 and 10, left flowers, a card and some "Happy Birthday" balloons, which they attached to a nearby utility pole.
Their mother, who was in the car with her husband when he died on Dec. 23, 2009, reluctantly accompanied her children to the site. "It was the first time the kids asked me exactly what happened and where it happened," she said. "And this was very difficult, obviously. I didn't want to go back there. But the kids did, and they've been going ever since. In 2011, they left a teddy bear after we found out that my oldest son and his wife were expecting a daughter. At Christmas they decorated the pole with a wreath and Christmas garland. Another time they put a large stuffed panda there, but that was taken down by someone."
Goerg noted that her husband is buried in Bergenfield, "in a beautiful cemetery next to Cooper's Pond. But when I ask the kids about going there, they say 'Why?' And that's been hard for me to understand. When I replay the events of the day Larry died, in my head, it's so horrifying to me. That spot is the last place I want to go. But the kids feel differently about it. They want to go to the last place where their father was alive."
The practice of creating roadside memorials for lost loved ones began in Mexico — where the shrines are known as descansos — before becoming popular in the American Southwest and, eventually, the rest of the country.
Some believe that the extravagant public memorials for Princess Diana, who died in a car accident 1997, also helped to popularize the practice, after the tunnel in Paris where the accident took place and the grounds outside Diana's home at Kensington Palace in London were inundated with flowers for weeks after her death.
The desire to be at the place someone died is not unusual, according to trauma specialist and grief counselor Saadia Parvez of Rutherford, especially if the deceased person died in sudden, unexpected circumstances.
"Visiting these sites is about making a spiritual connection," Parvez said. "When the death was a car accident or some other unnatural way of dying, mourners want to be at the last place where that person was alive, to stand there and try to re-create what happened and how it happened. What did the person think in the moments before he died? It's how our brain works. We want to make sense of things."
The practice has become so widespread that some stores that deal in religious goods now sell items specifically for these memorials, including crosses and Stars of David.
Botanica San Santiago in Hackensack sells crucifixes suitable for outdoor display and owner Robert Settle, who is Catholic, notes that many of his customers also place white candles and glasses of water at the site of the death. "The candle is to lead the spirit to the light beyond the death site," Settle explained, "and the water is placed there to refresh the spirit, which is considered particularly important if the person died suddenly in an accident."
In 1999, the South Jersey Transportation Authority placed a 10-day limit on memorials erected along the Atlantic City Expressway. Other states have tried — with varying success — to limit the memorials or substitute plaques or small signs in place of the more elaborate displays.
Still, despite the restrictions, the memorials continue to go up and family members even post photos of them online, at sites such as roadsideamerica.com and descansos.org.
Although Parvez says that the period of grieving for most religions is 40 to 49 days, some of these memorials continue well beyond that, such as the one for Courtney Brightman and Jamie-Lynn Krautheim, who died in 1997 when the vehicle they were riding in crashed into a utility pole on Riverview Drive in Totowa. The driver, Patty Vaclavicek, and another friend Colleen Battersby, were also injured in the crash, but survived. All four were students at DePaul High School in Wayne.
Jennifer Greer, a longtime Wayne resident, knew both girls who died and had classes with them. "The three of us hung out in different groups, but we were always friendly with each other. Seventeen years later, the memorial is still there. I stop by whenever I can and make sure it's not looking run down and spruce it up a bit.
"The last time I was there, there was a white wooden cross that I believe has been there since the accident happened, a few candles and some flowers. Most of the items there are faded now."
But "faded" is a good thing to Ann Marie Miller of Franklin Lakes, whose son Bradley died in an accident on Route 80 in 1987. A year later, Miller joined a bereavement group called The Compassionate Friends, a support group for parents who have lost a child.
"For families, the roadside memorials are a statement that says 'It happened,' " Miller said. "We live in disbelief for a long time. That is the worst of it. When I pass a roadside memorial, I pray for those who are left behind. And when I see one fading away, melting into the surroundings, I know that the families have gone on [with their lives]. To me, the uglier and more faded the memorial gets, the better it is. It means their loved ones have moved to a better place."
Download article as a PDF