skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 64688 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: TORT CASES IN JUDICIAL AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS
Author(s): R E KEETON
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 99
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
US Dept of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
Contract Number: JADAG-79-M-1948
Publication Number: FJRP-79/002
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Document: PDF
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: JUDICIAL SYSTEMS FOR RESOLVING TORT DISPUTES ARE COMPARED WITH ALTERNATIVE TORT DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS.
Abstract: OVER THREE-QUARTERS OF TORT CASES ARE CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTAL INJURY TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY, USUALLY BASED ON NEGLIGENCE. ANGLO-AMERICAN RULES AND PRACTICES ARE BASED ON THREE PRINCIPLES: FAULT, STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY, AND WELFARE. CLAIMS ARE COMMONLY PRESENTED IN BIPOLAR FORM, INVOLVING ONE CLAIMANT AND ONE DEFENDANT. DISPUTES USUALLY CONCERN BOTH FACTS AND EVALUATIONS AND RELATE TO PAST ACTIONS. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS' EFFECTIVENESS INCLUDE PROCEDURAL EFFECTIVENESS AND NONPROCEDURAL CRITERIA. JURY TRIALS OFFER PROCEDURAL BENEFITS BUT ARE OFTEN DELAYED AND COSTLY. THEY ARE THEREFORE LIKELY TO BECOME INCREASINGLY LESS ACCEPTABLE AS A TORT DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM. NONJURY TRIALS ARE MORE TIMELY, ACCESSIBLE, AND AFFORDABLE THAN JURY TRIALS, BUT MAY NOT BE AS IMPARTIAL, ACCURATE, OR CONSISTENT. NONPROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION INCLUDE SENSITIVITY TO ALL INTERESTS, CONSISTENCY WITH DECLARED PRINCIPLES, EFFECT ON CONSISTENCY WITH DECLARED PRINCIPLES, EFFECT ON CONTINUING RELATIONSHIPS, THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE LAW STANDARDS AND BURDENS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION, AND ADAPTABILITY TO DIFFERENT KINDS OF DISPUTES. ALTERNATIVES TO JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS INCLUDE (1) STRUCTURING INCENTIVES FOR SETTLEMENT THROUGH THE USE OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCES INITIATED BY COURTS AND BY REQUIRING ARBITRATION AS A PREREQUISITE TO JURY TRIALS AND (2) A PROGRAM OF INSTITUTIONALLY SPONSORED SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES WITH INCENTIVES FOR MAKING GENUINE BEST OFFERS EARLY. ANALYSIS OF THE POSSIBLE SYSTEMS SUGGESTS THAT SYSTEMS CURRENTLY IN USE SHOULD BE ASSESSED. THE MOST DESIRABLE SYSTEM IS THE OPTIONAL LOW-COST DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM; SECOND WOULD BE PROCEDURES MANDATED AS CONDITIONS BUT NOT SUBSTITUTES FOR JURY TRIALS. LEAST DESIRABLE WOULD BE MANDATORY SUBSTITUTES FOR JURY TRIALS. EXTENSIVE FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED.
Index Term(s): Alternative dispute settlement; Arbitration; Civil proceedings; Civil remedies; Comparative analysis; Evaluative research; Negotiation; Torts
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=64688

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.