Illinois Supreme Court Divided Over When Plaintiff's Chosen Venue May Be Overridden
August, 2006
Introduction
The Illinois Supreme Court recently split over the issue of how much deference to accord a plaintiff’s choice of venue. Langenhorst v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 99924, 2006 WL 487878 (Ill. Mar. 2, 2006). In a 4:3 decision, the high court refused to transfer venue from St. Clair County — despite the fact that neither plaintiff nor her decedent lived there and the accident did not occur there.
Facts
A widow brought a wrongful death action against Norfolk Southern Railway Company after her husband was killed when a train struck his vehicle at a railway crossing. Plaintiff filed suit in St. Clair County, ranked among the American Tort Reform Association’s top five worst “Judicial Hellholes” of 2004 and 2005.1 The railway moved to transfer venue to adjacent Clinton County based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Plaintiff and her husband were lifetime residents of Clinton County, which was also where the accident occurred.
After the trial court refused to transfer the case, the railway unsuccessfully petitioned the appellate court to allow an immediate appeal. The Supreme Court directed the appellate court to reconsider its judgment, which that court did and ultimately affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case, allowing the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association to file an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiff. The high court affirmed by a narrow majority, finding that the doctrine of forum non conveniens did not require transfer.
Analysis
The majority initially noted that the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens, allowing a trial court to decline jurisdiction when trial in another forum would better serve the ends of justice, grants courts discretionary power that should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. A plaintiff’s forum choice should rarely be disturbed, and only when the relevant factors strongly favor transfer to defendant’s suggested forum. Less deference is accorded plaintiff’s choice when neither plaintiff’s residence nor the accident site is located in the chosen forum.
The test is very fact-specific, requiring a court to consider a multitude of private and public interest factors. The private interest factors include: the parties’ convenience; the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary and real evidence; the possibility of a jury view of the accident scene, if appropriate; and all other practical considerations that make a trial easy, expeditious and inexpensive. The public interest factors include: the interest in deciding the controversy locally; administrative concerns, such as court docket congestion; and the unfairness of imposing trial expenses and the burden of jury duty on residents of a forum with little connection to the litigation.
Applying the test to the instant case, the majority concluded that the balance of factors did not strongly favor transfer to Clinton County. Potential witnesses were scattered throughout several counties, as well as Indiana and Missouri; travel distances for the witnesses were minimally different because St. Clair and Clinton Counties adjoin; the railway’s registered agent, the parties’ attorneys, some witnesses, and the documentary evidence were located in St. Clair County; a jury view of the accident scene was not appropriate because of substantial post-collision changes; the railway conducted business in St. Clair County; and the railway did not assert any real inconvenience or practical problems in trying the case in St. Clair County. The factors favoring Clinton County — the location of the accident scene and some of the witnesses, and plaintiff and her husband’s residence — were not enough to compel a different result.
The three dissenting justices thought that the majority had misapplied the balancing test. The dissent concluded that the majority’s decision was at odds with the court’s most recent forum non conveniens precedent. The dissent appeared to advocate a shift in the analysis, one that would focus on the more appropriate forum, based on where the cause of action arose, rather than on the convenience to the parties.
Learning Point:
Langenhorst adds the latest wrinkle to the Supreme Court’s forum non conveniens jurisprudence. There are now three relatively recent high court decisions that reach seemingly irreconcilable results. It is clear that the court is deeply divided over the issue. What is also clear is that forum non conveniens remains a fertile ground for venue challenges in cases involving forum-shopping plaintiffs.
In the event of an unfavorable ruling, the avenue to immediate relief is through the appellate court’s discretionary authority to accept an interlocutory appeal. In the Clausen Miller Appellate Practice Group’s experience, however, ultimate relief is more likely to come from the Supreme Court. In a recent case, for example, the Supreme Court directed the appellate court to hear defendant’s appeal on the merits after that court had summarily declined to do so. In another case, the high court simply reversed the trial court outright, without even hearing the appeal. The lesson to be learned is that it is better to exhaust all avenues of appellate relief upfront, rather than to wait to appeal from a final judgment when the damage may already be done. •
(Footnotes)
1 The reports can be accessed at www.atra.org/reports/hellholes.
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2006v2) 2006 Volume 2 Table of Contents
