Fennell v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
964 N.E.2d 158
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Fennell v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. involves a FELA-based claim by Walter Fennell for respiratory ailments allegedly from years of exposure to asbestos and other toxins during employment with the railroad.
- Fennell worked for IC in various roles from 1970 to 2007 and resides in Copiah County, Mississippi; his work largely involved travel to Mississippi, Louisiana, and nearby states.
- In 2002, Fennell and 84 others filed a Mississippi action against IC; that case was dismissed without prejudice in 2006, for reasons not disclosed in the record.
- In 2009, Fennell filed suit in St. Clair County, Illinois, asserting FELA and LBI Act claims arising from cumulative exposure.
- IC moved to dismiss under interstate forum non conveniens, arguing Copiah County Mississippi was more convenient and evidence and witnesses were concentrated there.
- The trial court denied the motion, and IC appealed, contending the court abused its discretion; the appellate court affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying interstate forum non conveniens | Fennell's choice of Illinois forum should be respected | Mississippi forum is more convenient for witnesses and evidence | No abuse; factors did not strongly favor Mississippi forum |
| Private-interest factors weigh more in favor of Illinois or Mississippi | Some witnesses and evidence favor Illinois for expert Dr. Schonfield | Most witnesses/evidence located in Mississippi; defendant burden met | Factors not strongly favoring Mississippi; plaintiff’s forum preserved |
| Public-interest factors and plaintiff’s choice of forum | Local controversy not decisive; plaintiff’s Mississippi ties favored | Public interests lie in efficient administration; potential jury burdens in Illinois | Public-interest factors did not necessitate transfer; ruling affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430 (2006) (burden on defendant to show forum inconvenience; balance factors; deference to trial court)
- Guerine v. First American Bank, 198 Ill. 2d 511 (2002) (private/public factors; deference to trial court; localizing interests)
- Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167 (2003) (intrastate/interstate forum non conveniens framework)
- Brown v. Cottrell, Inc., 374 Ill. App. 3d 525 (2007) (weight of documentary evidence and witnesses in forum analysis)
- Gridley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 217 Ill. 2d 158 (2005) (localization of disputes; nonlocal flavor considerations)
- Laverty v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 404 Ill. App. 3d 534 (2010) (witness locations; Illinois subpoena power; similarities to case)
- Skidmore v. Gateway Western Ry. Co., 366 Ill. App. 3d 238 (2006) (nonlocal controversy; witness networks)
- Hoskin v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 365 Ill. App. 3d 1021 (2006) (consideration of docket congestion and local interests)
- Boner v. Peabody Coal Co., 142 Ill. 2d 523 (1991) (documentation of factors and deference in forum motions)