Find Legal Information

JUSTICE GREIMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendants, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) and Bridgestone/Firestone,Inc. (Firestone), appeal from the trial court's denial of their joint motion to dismiss based uponforum non conveniens. Thus, the issue presently before us is whether the trial court abused itsdiscretion in denying the motion to dismiss. We reverse the decision of the trial court.

The plaintiff, the decedent's widow, filed her complaint against Goodyear, Firestone,Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, and Interstate Tire and Retread, Inc. onMay 10, 1999. The complaint alleged that in the course of the decedent's employment as a truckstop mechanic, he was injured when he attempted to remove the right front outer tire of a pair ofdual truck tires from a trailer in order to service the inner tire of the pair. Plaintiff claims that theflat-base, multipiece truck rim assembly on which the tire was mounted exploded, striking thedecedent in the head and leg. The truck trailer from which the decedent attempted to remove thetire was maintained and operated by Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company(Burlington Northern); however, the accident occurred on the premises of the decedent'semployer, Sawyer Truck Stop, in Sawyer, Michigan. The decedent died in the local hospitalthree days later.

The flat-base, multipiece truck rim assembly which allegedly exploded consisted of twocomponents, a Goodyear rim base and a Firestone side/lock ring. Plaintiff asserted in hercomplaint that each of these components was defective and unreasonably dangerous in its design. Plaintiff further alleged that the components contained inadequate warnings and were negligentlydesigned.

Plaintiff resides in Sawyer, Michigan, which is in Berrien County, and the probate estateof the deceased was created by the Berrien County probate court. Likewise, the decedent was aresident of Sawyer, Michigan, and was employed in Sawyer, Michigan, by Sawyer Truck Stop,where the accident occurred. All of the decedent's survivors are Berrien County residents.

The two police officers who responded to the accident are employees of ChikamingTownship, which is located in Berrien County, and they reside in Michigan.

Lakeland Medical Center, the hospital where the decedent was treated, is located in St.Joseph, Michigan, which is located in Berrien County. Each of the doctors who treated thedecedent practices in St. Joseph, Michigan.

Some of the decedent's coworkers at the truck stop witnessed the accident. The majorityof these witnesses, including the decedent's former employers, Nick and Pat Veit, reside inMichigan.

Goodyear is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio and ispresent in Illinois by virtue of doing business in this state. The multirim assembly involved inthe explosion was designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold by Goodyear. Themultirim assembly was neither designed nor manufactured in Illinois.

Firestone is also an Ohio corporation and is present in Illinois by virtue of doing businessin this state. The side/lock ring involved in the explosion was designed, manufactured,distributed, marketed, and sold by Firestone. The side/lock ring was manufactured in Wyandotte,Michigan.

The Burlington Northern is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business inIllinois.

Interstate Tire and Retread, Inc. (Interstate), is an Illinois corporation doing business inIllinois. The subject tire was remanufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed by Interstate.

In addition to the foregoing facts, plaintiff alleged in her complaint that BurlingtonNorthern was negligent in failing to properly maintain the subject trailer. More specifically,plaintiff claimed that Burlington Northern was negligent in allowing the trailer to leave itsWillow Springs, Illinois, railyard while equipped with an allegedly defective and dangerouswheel assembly.

Furthermore, on information and belief, plaintiff alleged in her complaint that eitherInterstate or Burlington Northern negligently assembled the wheel components with the retreadtire and supplied it for use on the trailer.

Plaintiff also asserted that Burlington Northern and Interstate failed to provide adequatewarnings and instructions regarding the assembly, handling, dangers, and defects inherent in theuse of the flat-base, multipiece rim. Plaintiff specifically alleged that Interstate failed to provideadequate warnings and instructions regarding the assembly, handling, dangers and defectsinherent in the use of its tires and the multipiece rims they require.

Based on the aforementioned factual allegations, Goodyear and Firestone assert that thisaction should be litigated in Michigan, while plaintiff contends that this action should remain inCook County, Illinois. Goodyear and Firestone argue that in denying their joint motion todismiss, the trial court improperly weighed the factors to be considered under a motion to dismissbased upon forum nonconveniens. We agree.

In response to Goodyear and Firestone's contention that their motion to dismiss shouldhave been granted, plaintiff claims that Goodyear and Firestone ignore the fact that Interstate andBurlington Northern are Illinois residents and that the alleged negligent assembly of the tire andwheel component parts was performed in Illinois. Plaintiff claims that the practical connectionbetween the case at bar and Illinois is further evidenced by the fact that Interstate allegedlydelivered the defective tire to Illinois; the truck trailer in question drove on Illinois roads andhighways; and Burlington Northern acted negligently in failing to properly maintain thecomponent parts and retread tire when it allowed the trailer to leave the Willow Springs, Illinois,railyard.

The question before us is whether the trial court's denial of Goodyear and Firestone'smotion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens was an abuse of discretion. Vinson v. Allstate,144 Ill. 2d 306, 309 (1991). "A trial court's ruling will not be reversed on review unless it can beshown that the court abused its discretion in balancing the relevant factors." Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d at309-10, citing Meyers v. Bridgeport Machines Division of Textron, Inc., 113 Ill. 2d 112, 118(1986) and Griffith v. Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc., 136 Ill. 2d 101, 106 (1990).

Forum non conveniens is a common law doctrine aimed at achieving effective judicialadministration through the implementation of considerations of fundamental fairness. Vinson,144 Ill. 2d at 310. Pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court "may decline toexercise jurisdiction over a case properly before it, whenever it appears that there is anotherforum that can better serve the convenience of the litigants and promote the ends of justice."Horn v. Rincker, 84 Ill. 2d 139, 149 (1981).

In Illinois, the doctrine of forum non conveniens has two potential applications: interstateforum non conveniens and intrastate forum non conveniens. "The interstate branch of thedoctrine is the traditional doctrine as adopted in 1948." 3 R. Michael, Illinois Practice