Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: ATV Accident Case Analysis

This case study examines the application of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods in a dispute between Pete, an individual injured in an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accident, and the ATV manufacturer. It highlights the initial steps in ADR, emphasizing the need for mutual agreement between parties to resolve the matter out of court and the selection of an appropriate ADR method, such as a settlement conference. The study analyzes Pete's argument, which centers on the ATV's poor design, and the manufacturer's counter-claim of careless driving, referencing the Ford Pinto case as an example of design-related liability. The resolution hinges on providing statistical evidence to support the design flaw claim, with compensation for injuries and medical costs dependent on proving fault. The study concludes that ADR offers a faster route to compensation and resolution, provided sufficient evidence is presented by both parties. Desklib is a great platform to find similar case studies and assignments.

Running Head: ADR CASE STUDY 1
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Case Study
Student’s Name:
Institution’s Name

ADR CASE STUDY 2
In the United States, every state has a liberty to operates its civil procedure in ligation and
alternative dispute resolution (ADR). ADR is increasingly promoted as it is cost effective and
time conscious. The federal and state laws resolving cases through litigation, however, it
provides options for alternative methods where the parties involved in a case mutually agree to
for an alternative method for resolution as opposed to the traditional trial system (Adamović,
2012; Şimşek & Bölten, 2010). Therefore, according to Mendoza (2018), the first step to ADR
for Pete and the all-terrain vehicle (ATV) manufacturer is for them to mutually agree to resolve
the matter out the court.
Secondly, with the advice from their lawyers where Pete should seek advisement from a
personal injury lawyer like ATV manufacture from the manufacturing should select the best
ADR method that they believe would effectively help the, resolve the matter (Mendoza, 2018;
Parker Layrisson Law Firm, 2014). Zimmer (2011) point out the different methods for ADR,
based on this case, the Pete and ATV manufacturer can opt for a settlement conference which
can either be voluntary or mandatory but at the discretion of the negotiating parties. This
settlement can either be before a judge or a neutral expertise with expertise in the matter under
question. The settlement officer helps the parties negotiate and discuss all the possible options
for settlement of the dispute thus applicable where settlement is an inevitable option.
The third step is for the parties to outline a strategy for the ADR process of their choice.
Pete’s basis for the argument focus of that ATV poor design while the manufacturer claims that
the rollover was as a result of Pete’s careless driving but not a design problem. Lee (1998)
indicate that bad design is not always a good basis for argument but can sometimes hold. Lee
(1998) discussed a case of Ford Pinto of Ford Motors that was accused of poorly designing the
vehicle resulting in unprecedented rates of collisions even at low speeds. The National Highway

ADR CASE STUDY 3
Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) launched an investigation into the matter under
safety regulation of automobiles which found Pinto to be defective. Therefore, in this argument,
a significant analysis basing of the rate of rollovers against purchased ATV among other
considerations shall be used to justify Pete’s claims. Carver and Vondra (1994) argue that most
manufacturer CEO’s would prefer out of the court settlement in cases they believe the accusation
by victim correct more often to cover up the problem. Nonetheless, the rollover is likely to have
occurred to due design issues hence Pete is liable for compensation. Pete’s arguments would
only hold if he manages to provide statistical evidence that the ATV was indeed poorly designed.
Layrisson Law Firm (2014) points out that the key question in ADR cases involving
accidents focus on the accident is whose fault and the worth of the damages. Therefore, for Pete
to be compensated for the injuries and medical costs incurred he must provide sufficient
evidence to his claims as well as ATV manufacturer. ADR offers a platform for Pete to quickly
compensated and the matter easily resolved.

ADR CASE STUDY 4
References
Adamović, A. (2012). Alternative dispute resolution in light of the Civil Procedure Act. Facta
universitatis-series: Law and Politics, 10(2), 157-169.
Carver, T. B., & Vondra, A. A. (1994, MAY–JUNE). Alternative Dispute Resolution: Why It
Doesn’t Work and Why It Does. Retrieved Nov 11, 2018, from Harvard Business Review:
https://hbr.org/1994/05/alternative-dispute-resolution-why-it-doesnt-work-and-why-it-
does
Lee, M. (1998). The Ford Pinto Case and the Development of Auto Safety Regulations, 1893—
1978. Business and Economic History, 390-401.
Mendoza, J. (2018). 7 Legal Steps for Dispute Resolution in Arizona. Retrieved Nov 11, 2018,
from West Longenbaugh Zickerman: https://www.welzaz.com/legal-steps-alternate-
dispute-resolution/
Parker Layrisson Law Firm. (2014, June 15). Overview of ADR in Car Accident Personal Injury
Cases. Retrieved Nov 11, 2018, from Parker Layrisson Law Firm:
https://layrisson.com/mediation-and-arbitration-adr-in-car-accident-personal-injury-
cases/
Şimşek, N. S., & Bölten, K. (2010). General Overview as to the Distinction between Litigation
and Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods.
Zimmer, M. B. (2011). Overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Primer for Judges and
Administrators. International Journal For Court Administration, 1-11.