Disputes should not be kept out of court just to avoid misjudgement. that is not the main agenda for keeping disputes out of court. the case that you state is a secluded case and cannot be a basis for the argument. to argue on that point would undermine the whole legal system as that would mean that judges don't know how to judge. no, the pillar reason for ADR is to avoid uncertain high costs that might arise from disputes settled in court.
take this for example. if you sue a tobacco manufacturer for causing lung cancer to you, you can settle for 3m Dollars; you go home rich, they go home relieved you're history. however, if it's brought to court, (especially with jury) you can end up with either nothing at all and being in debt from legal costs or the jury can award you 500m Dollars.
like what if there are members of the jury who's immediate relative died of lung cancer? they might have a grudge and want to 'punish' these tobacco manufacturers.
or if they are heartless hardheads who insist that the plaintiff is stupid to pick up smoking in the first place. then they might award nothing.
it is the lingering uncertainty that causes ADR to be so popular. with ADR, it can provide a win-win solution. the plaintiff gets his cash and the defendant gets a controlled loss.
So should it be kept out of court? yes
like it or not, it's better than wasting the judge's time and taxpayer's money. the two squabbling parties can get out quick and if the defendant accepts a settlement then he's already admitting to guilt.

