Question One: Alternative Dispute Resolution
Alternative dispute resolution refers to an amalgam of methods that can be applied outside the court process to solve disputes and provide an adjudication of rights to the parties. Arbitration and mediation comes into context in that regard. An arbitrator serves to get the parties to agree. His or her brief is limited to facilitation communication and agreement by the parties. In that context, it must be appreciated that the arbitrator may not suggest the solution.1 Rather, the solution has to emanate from the parties. On the other hand, the mediator facilitates the process of dispute resolution in a broader manner. He or she is allowed to suggest solutions, give advice on the way forward, and ensure the parties compromise. To that extent, the mediator plays an active role in the resolution while the arbitrator plays a passive role as is more of an umpire in the resolution process. Alternative dispute resolution has a number of advantages. These include the fact that it lacks the publicity that often characterizes court cases, it is devoid of legal technicalities and court formalities and it facilitates dialogue among the disputing parties.2 On the other hand, its disadvantages include the fact that parties may appeal to courts rendering the process useless, it could be costly especially when the dispute in question is technical and takes a lot of time.
The trial of Socrates, in which, he was accused of atheism and subverting the minds of the youths remains historic. Socrates’ philosophy has lived to influence even the modern world and it is iron that he was found guilty for believing in the truth. However, it should be noted that conventional wisdom then was different and Socrates was, therefore, a victim of the Athenian folly then. The jury’s verdict in this case is similar to the modern baseball arbitration method in that the jury merely cast their vote without any dialogue and sharing among one another and the judge. This approach is similar to the night baseball approach where the arbitrator merely reads the number picked by the disputing parties.
Question Two: Foreseeability Doctrine
The airplanes crash at the World Trade Center does not fall under the class of foreseeable hazards. It is must be appreciated that the security screenings at the airport was performed with due diligence and it would be stretching the truth too thin to assert that the screening was in any way negligent. Far from it, it should be appreciated that the foreseeability doctrine applies for situations that are clear. In that vein, a negligent action would be held foreseeable if the defendant could in exercising reasonable judgment expect a certain result to occur.3 For instance, the John Coomer v Kansas City Royal Baseball Corporation4 it can be argued that the defendant by allowing the throwing of hot dogs could foresee the likely accidents that could result. In that vein, it is instructive to appreciate that the defendant should be held liable for the eye injury to the plaintiff for the action falls squarely under the class of foreseeable event. In addition, the case of James Tuley v Kansas City Power and Lighting Company5 can be used illustratively. In that case, the defendant assumed the risk of its employees failing to act negligently. Under that context, it can be argued that the defendant would equally incur the liability for the negligence of its employees.6 In that regard the some of the actions by the employees can be correctly placed under the class of foreseeable events.
Question Three: Comparative Fault
Comparative fault is a doctrine applied in tort cases relating to negligence. The comparative fault seeks to identify the negligence due by the plaintiff and accordingly adjust the amount of damages he or she is entitled to. However, it must be divorced from the contributory negligence doctrine. In the latter, once it is