Fennell v. Illinois Central R.R. Co.
2012 IL 113812
| Ill. | 2013Background
- Mississippi plaintiff William Fennell sued Illinois Central Railroad Company under FELA and LIA for asbestos-related injuries.
- Plaintiff previously filed in Mississippi (Jefferson County) and later refiled in Illinois after dismissal without prejudice.
- Action concerns exposure to asbestos while employed by defendant across multiple states including Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Alabama.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under interstate forum non conveniens; circuit court denied the motion; appellate court affirmed.
- This Court reversed the appellate and circuit court judgments, remanding with directions to dismiss under Rule 187(c)(2).
- Plaintiff’s home forum and witnesses are largely in Mississippi; Illinois has limited factual connections.
- Court emphasizes balancing private and public factors and deference to plaintiff’s forum choice is reduced where plaintiff is not resident and injury did not occur in chosen forum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interstate forum non conveniens dismissal was proper | Fennell asserts Illinois forum appropriate given venue and witnesses | Mississippi is most convenient forum; Illinois forum non conveniens dismissal warranted | Yes; appellate circuit abused discretion; Mississippi forum favored |
| Degree of deference to plaintiff’s chosen forum | Plaintiff’s Illinois forum should be given substantial deference as home forum | Deference reduced when plaintiff is nonresident and injury occurs elsewhere | Deference reduced; factors weigh in favor of Mississippi |
| Private factor considerations—witnesses and evidence access | Many witnesses and documents located in Mississippi | Some documents in Illinois; expert travel possible | Mississippi witnesses and evidence access weighed in favor of Mississippi |
| Public factor considerations—local interest and docket congestion | Illinois has some local interest; docket not congested | Mississippi has stronger public interest; Illinois docket congestion not decisive | Public factors weighed strongly in favor of Mississippi |
| Impact of plaintiff’s second choice of forum on deference | Second forum choice should not bars deferential evaluation | Second choice reduces deference; Mississippi preferred | Second choice reduces deference; balance favors Mississippi |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (private and public interest factors in forum non conveniens)
- Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 217 Ill. 2d 158 (2005) (balancing private/public factors; deference considerations)
- Foster v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co., 102 Ill. 2d 378 (1984) (application of forum non conveniens in Illinois)
- Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167 (2003) (trial court discretion; abuse standard in forum non conveniens)
- Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430 (2006) (defining deference and forum analysis; when to reverse)
- Wieser v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 98 Ill. 2d 359 (1983) (local interests and burdens of litigation)
- Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306 (1991) (public interest and docket considerations)
- Guerine v. First American Bank, 198 Ill. 2d 511 (2002) (deference to plaintiff’s forum choice; private/public factors)
- McClain v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. Co., 121 Ill. 2d 278 (1988) (standard for reviewing forum non conveniens decisions)
- Satkowiak v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 106 Ill. 2d 224 (1985) (local relevance of public interest factors)