What are the differences between a trial and an arbitration?

The difference between a trial and an arbitration is significant when it comes to resolving legal disputes in Arizona. A trial is a formal proceeding before a judge and jury. It is often used to settle court disputes between two parties, such as in a personal injury or medical malpractice case. The parties present evidence, call witnesses, and argue their case to the jury. The jury then decides who is at fault and how much money the responsible party should pay. On the other hand, arbitration is an informal alternative to a trial. An arbitrator, or a neutral third party, is tasked with hearing the evidence and making a decision on the dispute. Unlike a trial, the arbitration process is private and usually completed in a much shorter amount of time. The arbitrator will review the evidence and decide who is at fault and how much money the responsible party should pay, similar to a judge or jury. The key difference between a trial and an arbitration is that a trial relies on a jury of your peers to reach a verdict, while an arbitration relies on an appointed arbitrator to make the decision. In Arizona, both a trial and an arbitration can be used to decide a case and the outcome will be legally binding. Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages, and you should consult a lawyer to decide what is best for your situation.

Related FAQs

What is the difference between compensatory and punitive damages?
What is the Duty of Care in a Negligence Claim?
What types of evidence are admitted in a personal injury trial?
What if the other party doesn’t have enough insurance?
What are the common causes of car accidents?
What is the process for filing a personal injury claim?
What is contributory negligence?
What is a statute of repose?
When is a settlement considered taxable income?
What are economic damages?

What are the differences between a trial and an arbitration?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts