Find Legal Information

Docket No. 93710-Agenda 13-January 2003.
WILLIAM DAWDY, JR., Appellee, v. UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY et al., Appellants.
Opinion filed August 21, 2003.

JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, William Dawdy, Jr., brought a personal injury actionin the circuit court of Madison County against defendants, theUnion Pacific Railroad Company and Rodney Riederer. Plaintiffsought damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accidentthat occurred in Macoupin County. Defendants moved to transferthe action to Macoupin County under the doctrine of forum nonconveniens. The circuit court denied the motion and the appellatecourt affirmed. No. 5-00-0293 (unpublished order under SupremeCourt Rule 23).

We allowed defendants' petition for leave to appeal (177 Ill.2d R. 315(a)). We now reverse the appellate and circuit courts andremand this cause to the circuit court of Madison County withdirections to transfer the cause to Macoupin County.

BACKGROUND

On the morning of May 20, 1997, plaintiff was driving atractor westbound on Illinois Highway 108 in Macoupin County.At the same time, Riederer, acting within the scope of hisemployment with Union Pacific, was driving a truck eastbound onthe same highway. The vehicles collided, causing plaintiff to beseriously injured.

On May 19, 1999, plaintiff filed a two-count complaint in thecircuit court of Madison County. Count I alleged negligence in theoperation of defendants' vehicle. Count II, addressed solely toUnion Pacific, alleged that the railroad was negligent also forfailing to train and supervise Riederer and for failing to ensure thatvehicle attachments would not extend beyond the width of theirvehicles when operated on public thoroughfares.

Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue from MadisonCounty to adjacent Macoupin County under the doctrine of forumnon conveniens. In their motion, defendants alleged as follows.Plaintiff resides in Greene County. The action arose in MacoupinCounty. Riederer resides in Macoupin County. Union Pacific is aDelaware corporation with its principal place of business inOmaha, Nebraska. Union Pacific does business in MacoupinCounty. Of the 18 witnesses who may be called to testify at trial,most of them reside in or near Macoupin County, and none ofthem reside in Madison County. Also, the docket of the MadisonCounty circuit court is more congested than that of the MacoupinCounty circuit court. Thus, according to defendants, MacoupinCounty would be the most convenient forum to try this case.Defendants argued that "this case has absolutely no connectionwhatsoever with Madison County, Illinois. There is no basis orreason for filing this case in this court other than 'forumshopping.' "

In his memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion totransfer venue, plaintiff argued that venue in Madison County isjust as convenient as in Macoupin County. Plaintiff alleged asfollows. Union Pacific operates a facility in Madison County. Ofthe 18 potential witnesses, 14 reside in neither Madison Countynor Macoupin County and, accordingly, will be required to travelregardless of where the case is tried. The average additional milesrequired for the 18 potential witnesses to travel to Madison Countyrather than to Macoupin County is approximately 18 miles perwitness. Most of the witnesses conduct business regularly inMadison County. Plaintiff's attorney resides in Madison County,and defendants' attorneys reside closer to Madison County than toMacoupin County. According to plaintiff, his choice of forum isentitled to deference and defendants failed to show that the factorsin a forum non conveniens analysis strongly weigh in favor oftransfer.

The circuit court of Madison County denied defendants'motion to transfer. Defendants appealed. Initially, the appellatecourt reversed the circuit court's order and remanded the causewith directions to transfer venue to Macoupin County. However,on plaintiff's motion for rehearing, the appellate court vacated itsdecision and affirmed the circuit court's denial of defendant'smotion to transfer venue. The appellate court held that, in light ofthis court's decision in First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d511 (2002), it was "compelled" to vacate its previous decision andissue a new decision affirming the circuit court's order denyingdefendants' motion to transfer venue to Macoupin County.

This court allowed defendants' petition for leave to appeal.177 Ill. 2d R. 315(a). We subsequently granted the Illinois TrialLawyers Association leave to submit an amicus curiae brief insupport of plaintiff. 155 Ill. 2d R. 345.

ANALYSIS

Defendants contend that the appellate court erred in affirmingthe circuit court's denial of defendants' motion to transfer venue.Defendants argue, inter alia, that Macoupin County, and notMadison County, is the most convenient forum to try this case.

I. Forum Non Conveniens: Controlling Principles

The Illinois venue statute provides that an action must becommenced: (1) in the county of residence of any defendant whois joined in good faith, or (2) in the county in which the cause ofaction arose. 735 ILCS 5/2-101 (West 2000). If there exists morethan one potential forum, the equitable doctrine of forum nonconveniens may be invoked to determine the most appropriateforum. Griffith v. Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc., 136 Ill.2d 101, 105 (1990); Bland v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 116 Ill.2d 217, 223 (1987). The doctrine is based on considerations offundamental fairness and sensible and effective judicialadministration. The doctrine allows the court in which the actionwas filed to decline jurisdiction and direct the lawsuit to analternative forum that the court determines can better serve theconvenience of the parties and the ends of justice. Vinson v.Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306, 310 (1991); Wieser v. Missouri PacificR.R. Co., 98 Ill. 2d 359, 365 (1983), quoting Adkins v. Chicago,Rock Island & Pacific R.R. Co., 54 Ill. 2d 511, 514 (1973); seeGulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507, 91 L. Ed. 1055,1062, 67 S. Ct. 839, 842 (1947).

Although the forum non conveniens doctrine has a longhistory at common law, its general application crystallizedfollowing Gulf Oil. See Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 515; Wieser, 98 Ill.2d at 365. Illinois courts employ the analytical framework of GulfOil in forum non conveniens cases. See, e.g., Meyers v. BridgeportMachines Division of Textron, Inc., 113 Ill. 2d 112, 118-19 (1986)(collecting cases), quoting Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09, 91 L. Ed.2d at 1062-63, 67 S. Ct. at 843; People ex rel. CompagnieNationale Air France v. Giliberto, 74 Ill. 2d 90, 110-11 (1978),quoting Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09, 91 L. Ed. at 1062-63, 67 S.Ct. at 843.

In Gulf Oil, the Court discussed private interest factorsaffecting the litigants and public interest factors affecting courtadministration. Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508, 91 L. Ed. at 1062, 67 S.Ct. at 843. A court must balance the private and public interests indetermining the appropriate forum in which the case should betried. Private interest factors include the convenience of theparties; the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial,documentary, and real evidence; the availability of compulsoryprocess to secure attendance of unwilling witnesses; the cost toobtain attendance of willing witnesses; the possibility of viewingthe premises, if appropriate; and all other practical considerationsthat make a trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. See Cook v.General Electric Co., 146 Ill. 2d 548, 557 (1992); Vinson, 144 Ill.2d at 310.

The relevant public interest factors include: the administrativedifficulties caused when litigation is handled in congested venuesinstead of being handled at its origin; the unfairness of imposingjury duty upon residents of a county with no connection to thelitigation; and the interest in having local controversies decidedlocally. Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09, 91 L. Ed. at 1062-63, 67 S.Ct. at 843; see Cook, 146 Ill. 2d at 557; Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d at 311.

An additional consideration under the forum non conveniensdoctrine is deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum. Aplaintiff's right to select the forum is substantial. Unless thefactors weigh strongly in favor of transfer, the plaintiff's choice offorum should rarely be disturbed. Griffith, 136 Ill. 2d at 106,quoting Jones v. Searle Laboratories, 93 Ill. 2d 366, 372-73(1982), quoting Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508, 91 L. Ed. at 1062, 67 S.Ct. at 843; Moore v. Chicago & North Western TransportationCo., 99 Ill. 2d 73, 77 (1983) (collecting cases); see Gulf Oil, 330U.S. at 508, 91 L. Ed. at 1062, 67 S. Ct. at 843. "This deference toplaintiff's choice of forum is commonly referred to as an unequalbalancing test." Wieser, 98 Ill. 2d at 366.

However, the plaintiff's choice of forum is not entitled to thesame weight or consideration in all cases. "When the home forumhas been chosen, it is reasonable to assume that this choice isconvenient." Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255-56,70 L. Ed. 2d 419, 436, 102 S. Ct. 252, 266 (1981). "Similarly,when the site of the accident or injury is chosen, the choice isconvenient because the litigation has the aspect of being 'decidedat home.' " Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 518; see Brummett v. WepferMarine, Inc., 111 Ill. 2d 495, 499-500 (1986). "When the plaintiffis foreign, however, this assumption is much less reasonable.Because the central purpose of any forum non conveniens inquiryis to ensure that the trial is convenient, a foreign plaintiff's choicedeserves less deference." Piper, 454 U.S. at 256, 70 L. Ed. 2d at436, 102 S. Ct. at 266; see McClain v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R.Co., 121 Ill. 2d 278, 289 (1988); Bland, 116 Ill. 2d at 227-28(collecting cases). Indeed, as a panel of our appellate court hasobserved:

"[W]hen the plaintiff is foreign to the forum chosen andthe action that gives rise to the litigation did not occur inthe chosen forum, this assumption [of convenience] is nolonger reasonable. Instead, it is reasonable to concludethat the plaintiff engaged in forum shopping to suit hisindividual interests, a strategy contrary to the purposesbehind the venue rules." Certain Underwriters at Lloyds,London v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 329 Ill. App. 3d 189,196 (2002).

We agree.

Courts have long acknowledged the existence of forumshopping:

" '[A]ll choices of tribunal are commonly used by allplaintiffs to get away from judges who are consideredto be unsympathetic, and to get before those who areconsidered more favorable; to get away from juriesthought to be small-minded in the matter of verdicts,and to get to those thought to be generous; to escapecourts whose procedures are burdensome to theplaintiff, and to seek out courts whose procedures makethe going easy.'

We would add that ordinarily plaintiffs' zeal in thoserespects is matched only by defendants' efforts in seekingto avoid such fora." Espinosa v. Norfolk & Western Ry.Co., 86 Ill. 2d 111, 123 (1981), quoting Miles v. IllinoisCentral R.R. Co., 315 U.S. 698, 707, 86 L. Ed. 1129,1135, 62 S. Ct. 827, 832 (1942) (Jackson, J., concurring).

This court has acknowledged that a plaintiff, in choosing a forum,might shop for the most favorable forum. Wieser, 98 Ill. 2d at 368;Espinosa, 86 Ill. 2d at 123.

However, courts have never favored forum shopping:

" 'The judiciary has never favored this sort of shoppingfor a forum. It has sought to protect its own good name aswell as to protect defendants *** against the practice ofseeking out soft spots in the judicial system in which tobring particular kinds of litigation. But the judges withlawyerly indirection have not avowed the interest of thejudiciary in orderly resort to the courts as a basis for theirdecision, and have cast their protective doctrines in termsof sheltering defendants against vexatious and harassingsuits. This judicial treatment of the subject of venue leadsCongress and the parties to think of the choice of a forumas a private matter between litigants, and in cases like thepressent [sic] obscures the public interest in venuepractices ***.' " Espinosa, 86 Ill. 2d at 122-23, quotingMiles, 315 U.S. at 706, 86 L. Ed. at 1135, 62 S. Ct. at831-32 (Jackson, J., concurring).

Accordingly, while courts acknowledge that plaintiffs forum shop,courts may not consider this practice in a forum non conveniensanalysis. Wieser, 98 Ill. 2d at 368; Espinosa, 86 Ill. 2d at 123. Byitself, forum shopping "furnishes no legal reason for sustaining"a plaintiff's choice of forum. Pruitt Tool & Supply Co. v.Windham, 379 P.2d 849, 850 (Okla. 1963). " ' "[D]ecent judicialadministration could not tolerate [forum shopping] as a persuasiveor even legitimate reason for burdening *** communities withlitigious controversies which arose elsewhere and should in alljustice be tried there." ' " Pruitt Tool, 379 P.2d at 850, quoting St.Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, Creek County,290 P.2d 118, 121 (1955). A plaintiff's right to choose a forum"cannot be permitted to override the public interest in, and needfor, an orderly, efficiently operated judicial system." Espinosa, 86Ill. 2d at 123.

In Griffith, this court explained the forum non conveniensunequal balancing test when the plaintiff chooses a foreign forum:

"Under our current forum non conveniens analysis,deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum is but onefactor, along with other relevant private and publicinterest factors, to be considered in the balancing process.The deference given to plaintiff's choice of forum is afactor which may be given more or less weight within thetest, depending on whether the plaintiff is a resident of theforum selected. In deciding a forum non conveniensmotion, a court is to take all the relevant factors intoaccount, giving each factor, including plaintiff's choice offorum, proper deference or weight under thecircumstances. If the plaintiff is foreign to the forumselected, the forum choice should be given less deferencethan it would be given if the plaintiff were a resident ofthe forum selected. The test, then, is whether the relevantfactors, viewed in their totality, strongly favor transfer tothe forum suggested by defendant.

By giving plaintiff's choice of forum more or lessweight within the formula, the current test takes intoaccount the plaintiff's status as a resident or a nonresidentof the forum chosen. We are satisfied that the current testensures that a nonresident plaintiff's choice of forum willnot be accorded undue deference ***." Griffith, 136 Ill.2d at 107-08.

"If central emphasis were placed on any one factor, the forum nonconveniens doctrine would lose much of the very flexibility thatmakes it so valuable." Piper, 454 U.S. at 249-50, 70 L. Ed. 2d at432, 102 S. Ct. at 263; see Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 518; Peile v.Skelgas, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 323, 336-37 (1994); Bland, 116 Ill. 2d at227.

Forum non conveniens is applicable on an intrastate as wellas on an interstate basis. In other words, the doctrine may beapplied where the choice is between forums in the same state aswell as when the choice is between forums in different states. Thesame considerations of convenience and fairness apply in decidingthe question of the forum for trial. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 517;Bland, 116 Ill. 2d at 224; Meyers v. Bridgeport Machines Divisionof Textron, Inc., 113 Ill. 2d 112, 119 (1986); Torres v. Walsh, 98Ill. 2d 338, 350-51 (1983); see Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 330-36(upholding intrastate application of forum non conveniens).

The determination of a forum non conveniens motion lieswithin the sound discretion of the trial court. On review, the trialcourt's decision will be reversed only if it can be shown that thecourt abused its discretion in balancing the relevant factors. Bland,116 Ill. 2d at 223; Meyers, 113 Ill. 2d at 117-18 (collecting cases);Wieser, 98 Ill. 2d at 365. An abuse of discretion will be foundwhere no reasonable person would take the view adopted by thetrial court. Schwartz v. Cortelloni, 177 Ill. 2d 166, 176 (1997); seePeople v. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d 353, 364 (1991); In re Possession &Control of the Commissioner of Banks & Real Estate ofIndependent Trust Corp., 327 Ill. App. 3d 441, 476 (2001).

II. The Present Case

Applying the forum non conveniens factors to this case, weconclude that the circuit court abused its discretion in denyingdefendants' motion to transfer to Macoupin County. Although weacknowledge plaintiff's right to choose the forum, we conclude,after considering the record, that the factors weigh strongly infavor of transfer. See Griffith, 136 Ill. 2d at 106. The recordstrongly indicates that a trial in Macoupin County would betterserve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice. SeeBland, 116 Ill. 2d at 223.

Turning to the private interest factors, we begin by examiningthe facts regarding the relative ease of access to evidence. We noteplaintiff's argument that we may not consider mileage distancesbecause this information was not part of the record. "However, anappellate court may take judicial notice of matters not previouslypresented to the trial court when the matters are capable of instantand unquestionable demonstration." Boston v. Rockford MemorialHospital, 140 Ill. App. 3d 969, 972 (1986), citing May DepartmentStores Co. v. Teamsters Union Local No. 743, 64 Ill. 2d 153, 159(1976). "Courts often take judicial cognizance of the distancesbetween two or more locations *** and the customary routes andusual time required for travel between them." 1 C. Fishman, Joneson Evidence