arbitration v. litigation
Interviewing - Mates - Chief Engineers - Designated Duty Engineers - Interviews - Deckhands Able
Bodied Seamen - Tankermen - Dispatchers - QMED - Interviewing
The Difference Between Arbitration & Litigation
The U.S. legal system uses litigation as a means for parties to
resolve disputes. In litigation, one party sues another by serving
a summons and complaint and arguing the merits of a claim.
The claim might be for monetary damages, personal injury,
breach of contract, sexual harassment, wrongful termination, or
any number of civil theories. Because litigation in court can be
costly and time-consuming, parties sometimes turn to alternate
dispute resolution. In alternate dispute resolution, the parties
agree to have their legal dispute adjudicated by a judge, an
arbitrator, or a panel of arbitrators. Arbitration is praised as a
means of resolving disputes in a more streamlined and
cost-effective manner. Arbitration generally does not involve the
same protocol for discovery, which is the process by which
parties exchange information and records in preparation for a
bench trial. Arbitration can be more informal, where an
arbitrator might try to resolve certain differences or demands of
the parties, rather than having the parties engage in aggressive
motion practice. It should be noted that arbitration is generally
binding upon the parties. This means that the decision of the
arbitrator would have the same weight and enforceability as the
verdict of a jury or the written decision of a judge.

A case illustrating how a seaman was bound by an arbitration
agreement is
Terrebonne v. K-Sea Transportation. Click here
to read the decision.