In this article, the author studied automobile accidents that went through both court-annexed arbitration and a jury trial in California. He found that juries and arbitrators generally behaved similarly and with equal consistency in their judgments. Both types of fact-finders granted larger awards when medical expenses were higher, when the defendent was relatively more careless, and when the defendant had deep pockets. However, the author found that arbitrators were much more likely to find in favor of the plaintiff.