•  
  •  
 

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

Abstract

The evolution of equity in tort has brought about the use of alternative methods of dispute resolution in reaching settlements in mass tort cases: "Indeed, equity is a progressive force in the law. When formal adjudication cannot provide a plain, adequate, and complete remedy, the system of ADR should be flexible enough to deliver individualized justice." It appears, however, that the use of ADR is not always a prudent exercise of the court's power, nor is it always conducive to individual justice. This Note examines the Gray case, in which the court appointed a special master, thereby assigning one man the duty of appropriating the settlement of a mass tort. This Note argues that in certain cases, such as Gray, the court system works a disservice to plaintiffs and to the core tenets of ADR. In such cases, the parties and the system would be better served by expanded use of Plaintiffs' Steering Committees ("PSC") or passive mediation, thereby better preserving the attorney-client relationship. This Note will first examine the increasing role of the special master in tort settlements, with particular attention to the distribution scheme created for the Gray v. Derderian case. Next, this Note will consider examples of successful ADR methods used in Gray, contrasted with the inequitable and dangerous results of the settlement distribution matrix as it relates to judicial activism and attorney-client conflict. Finally, there is an examination of successful use of the special master in non-tort civil suits.

Disciplines

Banking and Finance Law | Consumer Protection Law | Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | Jurisdiction | Law | Legal History | Torts

Download

Share

COinS