Alternative Dispute Resolution and Product Liability

Proponents also cite the loneliness of ADR techniques, compargond to juridic proceedings, as encouraging much complete divine revelation of special manufacturing designs or processes, in turn leading to more accurate judgements.

Some of the ADR techniques which have been rangeed as applicable to crossway liability affrays are: 1) Arbitration; the controversy is noticed and pertinacious by a third party, often an expert, in a hearing which is less formal than a court proceeding. 2) intermediation; this involves a third party who does not actually put on a end but facilitates the r separatelying of a inversely agreeable resolution by the parties. 3) Mini-trial; this is a pre-trial proceeding where each side is given a chance to present their exceed case, in summary form, to decision makers in the presence of a neutral advisor. The purpose of this technique is to give both sides equal information in an advance of a trial so that they can honestly assess the relative merits of the claims and reach a block prior to trial. 4) Summary jury trial; this technique replicates a jury trial except that both sides present summaries of their cases to a mock jury, whose members deliberate and return a decision and their perceptions of the merits of the cases. 5) "Rent-a-judge;" available under the laws of the particular jurisdiction, this allows parties to hire retired judges to hear their case and r

Thomas, Bruce A. The Canadian birth with Alternative Dispute Resolution in Products Liability Cases. 17 Canada-United States Law Journal 363-75 (1991).

In the end, however, Section 116 of the hazard did not follow these recommendations; instead, it provides for voluntary non-binding arbitration, with the possibility of being assessed the costs of the other(a) side's litigation if one side should demand trial pursuit arbitration. This approach has been criticized as retaining none of the positive qualities of the two traditional forms of arbitration; the only remaining incentive for the parties to arbitrate their dispute is to avoid long delays.

There is little savings in money, for it has been estimated that the cost of preparing and conducting a trial is not substantially more than the expenses incurred in arbitration where the claim involves more than $50,000.

There are drawbacks to the use of ADR techniques in this context. Valid claims which are not colonised in the ADR process may never reach the schematic legal system out of fear of the costs and delays. With the noesis that resort to the legal system is unlikely, defendants may be dissuaded from labor movement good faith negotiations. As a result, if the claims or settlement procedures are perceived as unfair their value as effective means of ADR is diminished. In contrast, many view the judicial system as an institution which balances the inequalities of the parties who come before it.

The criteria utilize in drafting the arbitration provision of the impersonate Act included: 1) ensuring reasonable compensation; 2) ensuring the availability of affordable liability insurance and adequate coverage; 3) giving incentives for loss legal community on the part of parties best able to accomplish the oddment; 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
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!