Answer:
In this case, the issue is that Pete suffered serious injuries and he wants to sue the manufacturer of the ATV. For this purpose, the steps in civil litigation and also the process of alternative dispute resolution needs to be evaluated to see how the parties should settle this issue. In case Pete decides to bring a lawsuit against the ATV manufacturer, Pete has to file a claim in the court with the relevant jurisdiction. On the other hand, the second option available to the parties is to settle this dispute by adopting the methods of alternative dispute resolution (Lynch, 2001).
The ADR processes not only save the time and expenses of the parties, but in some cases they may not result in the final resolution of the dispute. It is desirable that these alternatives are explored at an early stage so that the timely implementation of these processes can take place. Generally it is wise to look for the chances of having an out of court settlement before the litigation proceedings are being started. Perhaps due to this reason, a large number of matters are decided by the parties before the dispute reaches the trial stage. However, the parties can discuss the settlement of the dispute at any time even if the litigation is going on. The reason is that the ADR processes provide a cost effective alternative to trial (Roberts, 1995).
A civil lawsuit may arise on account of a dispute between people, businesses and other entities. These include the business entities. Generally, the basic steps in several lawsuits include pleadings, discovery, trial and perhaps an appeal. However, the parties are at liberty to halt this process if they voluntarily settle the dispute at any time. A large number of cases are settled by the parties before reaching trial. Another alternative to a civil lawsuit is to settle the matter through ADR processes (Kumaraswamy, 1996).
For example in the present case, the parties can use the ADR process of expert evaluation for resolving the dispute present between them. The ADR process of expert evaluation appears to be most suitable in the present case. In case of expert evaluation, a neutral party that is acceptable to both the parties to the dispute is appointed for resolving the dispute between the parties. After hearing both the parties, this third party gives its opinion regarding the most likely outcome of the dispute. After the neutral third party is appointed and it has been given instructions regarding the dispute, both parties submit their views to such a party regarding the dispute (Roberts, 1983). This is the stage where the parties can also submit documents under the relevant evidence before the third-party. Therefore the evidence that they submitted by the parties to the dispute is examined by the third-party expert and then gives an opinion regarding the possible outcome of the dispute.
As in the present case, the dispute is of a technical nature, it will be quite helpful to appoint an independent expert to evaluate the dispute and give its opinion regarding the possible outcome.
References
Lynch, J. 2001 “ADR and Beyond: A Systems Approach to Conflict Management”, Negotiation Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, Volume, p. 213.
Roberts, S. (1995) Litigation and settlement reform of civil procedures, eds Zuckerman, A.S. and Cranstone, R.
Kumaraswamy, M. M. (1996) Is construction conflict congenital? Procs ARCOM 12th Annual Conference, 1, 190-199.
Roberts, S. (1983) Mediation in family disputes, Modern Law Review 537.
