Alternative Dispute Resolution

Alternative dispute resolution techniques, such as mediation and arbitration, have typically been used in commercial and labor disputes. Their use in products liability disputes has not been widespread and many of the techniques have limited usefulness in this context. Certain techniques, however, can be useful in certain situations and their use has been advocated by segments of state and the federal government. It should be noted that cases which are resolved through the use of these techniques do not reach appellate judicial review and are therefore not reported.

Proponents of the use of ADR techniques in product liability argue the need for swift and efficient systems of compensation. They claim that it is fairer to both sides to reduce the transaction costs of disputes, fairer to the plaintiff to provide faster compensation, and fairer to the defendant have the damages capped in order to lend some predictability to awards. It is apparent, then, that these proponents have focused on the backlog of cases in the court system, with the consequent delays in resolving disputes, and the unpredictability of awards by juries. Thus, they have focused on techniques which not only expedite the resolution process but also involve third parties who would not be likely to succumb to the emotional aspects of the case nor the tactical "artistry" of counsel. In addition, these third parties would include experts able to comprehend t

. . .
ffered to the states for approval on an individual basis. The criteria used in drafting the arbitration provision of the Model Act included: 1) ensuring reasonable compensation; 2) ensuring the availability of affordable liability insurance and adequate coverage; 3) giving incentives for loss prevention on the part of parties best able to accomplish the goal; 4) expediting the reparations process; and 5) minimizing accident, prevention, and transaction costs. Prior to the final drafting of the Model Act, it was suggested that the best way to accomplish these goals was to draft a provision requiring mandatory non-binding arbitration. This would mean that parties would be required to submit to the arbitration process, but that the resulting decision would not be binding on the parties (not enforceable as a judicial decision). Alternatively, voluntary binding arbitration would not require the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration but would give the arbitration decision the same effect as a judicial decision. In the end, however, Section 116 of the Act did not follow these recommendations; instead, it provides for voluntary non-binding arbitration, with the possibility of being assessed the costs of the other side's litigat
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Proponents ADR, Third ADR, Model Act, Liability Alternative, Law Journal, product liability, Dalkon Shield, Department Commerce, adr techniques, Product Liability, dispute resolution, Law Commerce, alternative dispute, Liability Act, alternative dispute resolution, law journal, adr product liability, judicial decision, resolving disputes, canada-united law, liability 17 canada-united, jury trial, 17 canada-united, 17 canada-united law, uniform product liability,
Approximate Word count = 1346
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Alternative Dispute Resolution