It’s called Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR), and we’d like our followers to know more about how “Arbitration” and “Mediation” (the two types of ADRs) can be better options, in particular cases, than bringing personal injury cases to trial.
Arbitration is an ADR to trial. When two parties at dispute cannot come close to an agreeable resolution, arbitration may present a better means of resolution as opposed to trial, and we’ll list exactly why.
“Binding” arbitration is when an unbiased third-party of authority meets with two at-dispute parties to come to a resolution outside of trial. The arbitrator acts somewhat like a judge and jury. They will listen to witness testimony, review evidence such as documents and photographs and make a final resolution. Since this type of arbitration is “binding”, the decision is final and both parties must abide by it. “Non-binding” arbitration does not require either side to abide to the arbitrator’s decision, but is moreover used as a guideline.
Mediation is another form of ADR. Mediation is a “non-binding” discussion wherein a mediator listens to each party’s position and makes recommendations as to how the case should be resolved. “Non-binding”, in other words, means that parties do not have to agree to the mediator’s recommendations. Mediation occurs mostly between two parties who understand that compromise is necessary to bring their case to a close. It’s the mediator’s job to help both parties come to an agreement, whereas in arbitration, the agreement is made by the arbitrator. A mediation is more of a negotiation whereas arbitration is more akin to a trial.