Failor, R. v. Fedex Ground Package
248 A.3d 527
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background:
- Plaintiffs Russell and Cathy Failor, Pennsylvania residents, sued FedEx Ground in Philadelphia for injuries Russell sustained after slipping on an unknown liquid on the rear of a FedEx trailer at FedEx’s Hagerstown, Maryland facility.
- Failor received all medical treatment in Pennsylvania; FedEx Ground’s principal place of business is in Pennsylvania and it operates a Philadelphia facility.
- FedEx Ground moved to dismiss under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(e) (forum non conveniens), submitting affidavits from Hagerstown managers claiming Philadelphia would be inconvenient; plaintiffs deposed those managers and elicited testimony that contradicted parts of the affidavits.
- The trial court dismissed without prejudice, finding Maryland (Hagerstown) a more convenient forum and directing refiling there; it did not rule on FedEx’s alternative request to transfer to Perry County under Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1).
- The Superior Court vacated the dismissal, holding the trial court misapplied the forum-non-conveniens standard (improperly comparing counties rather than states and failing to credit plaintiffs’ forum choice) and remanded for consideration of the alternate transfer request.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Page v. Ekbladh bars dismissal when plaintiff and defendant are citizens of same state | Page prohibits dismissing if both parties are citizens of the forum state; therefore dismissal improper | Page is not categorical; residence is a factor but not dispositive | Court: Page does not mandate denial; it was one factor among many, so trial court erred for other reasons, not on this ground alone |
| Whether FedEx met its burden to show "weighty reasons" (private factors) to disturb plaintiffs’ forum choice | Failors: private factors (plaintiffs, medical proof, corporate HQ in PA) favor Pennsylvania; affidavits insufficient | FedEx: incident and witnesses are in Maryland; travel would be onerous | Court: FedEx did not carry burden; affidavits contradicted by depositions and did not show Pennsylvania inconvenient as a whole |
| Whether trial court properly compared Philadelphia v. Hagerstown (county-to-county) rather than Pennsylvania v. Maryland (state-to-state) | Failors: court should compare states; plaintiff’s difficulties obtaining evidence not a valid reason to override forum | FedEx: Philadelphia was inconvenient relative to Hagerstown; therefore dismissal appropriate | Court: trial court erred by focusing on counties; proper analysis is Pennsylvania vs. Maryland; misapplication of law warranted vacatur |
Key Cases Cited
- Page v. Ekbladh, 590 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 1991) (forum-residence is a factor in forum non conveniens review)
- McConnell v. B. Braun Medical Inc., 221 A.3d 221 (Pa. Super. 2019) (defendant bears burden to show forum non conveniens; courts must compare states, not counties)
- Bochetto v. Dimeling, Shreiber & Park, 151 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellate review of forum non conveniens is for abuse of discretion)
- Estate of Vaughan v. Olympus America, Inc., 208 A.3d 66 (Pa. Super. 2019) (plaintiff’s forum preference is entitled to deference where significant evidence and corporate contacts lie in forum)
- Wright v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 215 A.3d 982 (Pa. Super. 2019) (distinguishable case affirming dismissal where plaintiff and records were located entirely outside Pennsylvania)
- Jessop v. ACF Industries, LLC, 859 A.2d 801 (Pa. Super. 2004) (defendant must show "weighty reasons" to overcome plaintiff’s choice of forum)
- Poley v. Delmarva Power and Light Co., 779 A.2d 544 (Pa. Super. 2001) (forum non conveniens requires strong justice-based reasons to relegate plaintiff to another forum)