Search for Arbitration Attorneys or Arbitrators

Enter a city and state

Learn about Arbitration

Arbitration Topics
VIEW MORE >>

What's New at Arbitration.com

VIEW MORE >>

About Arbitration.com -

When you just can't come to an agreement, court isn't the only answer. Arbitration is an out-of-court means of dispute resolution. When parties have a disagreement, the 'arbitrator' or 'arbiter' is a neutral third-party that reviews the case to determine what action should be taken, and will determine the terms under which the dispute will be settled. The decision of the arbitrator is final, and may be legally binding or non-binding.

If you have a dispute with your employer or over a commercial contract, it is likely that arbitration is mandatory to resolve any issues. Being an easier means than taking anyone to court, arbitration is often required for resolving disputes within a company and is most often used in settling commercial disputes. Does arbitration sound like your solution? Get started today – find the arbitration attorney or arbitrator you need in any specialty, in any state.


 

Arbitration News

Article Image

Arbitration Ruling Rejected by Metro Passenger

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

A Metro passenger who filed a lawsuit against Metro transportation recently rejected a $3000 arbitration award. The passenger had originally requested mediation.

The lawsuit was filed by passenger Alvin Golliday after his eye allegedly popped out of his head when train doors closed on him as he exited the vehicle on September 14, 2014. He was allegedly told to get off the train because it was being taken out of service. He claims the doors closed on him, which caused him to be crushed and his prosthetic eye to pop out of his head.According to Golldiay, he had to walk around without an eye for several months.

Golliday further claimed Metro “carelessly and unexpectedly” caused the doors to close for no reason and without any warning, and without ensuring they were clear of patrons.

Golliday had requested mediation in April, stating it would be in the best interest of judicial economy to resolve the matter in this way. Metro opposed the mediation request.

Following Golliday’s rejection of the arbitration award, the parties are now at an impasse and Metro believes the mediation process would be useless in advancing theirs or Golliday’s positions.

Metro disputes Golldiay’s allegation the door caused the incident or even made contact with him in a way that would result in such an injury. The company believes Golliday is exaggerating the incident and the extent of his injuries. Despite its denial, Metro still attempted to resolve the issue for what it considered a “fair and reasonable sum.”