Green, C. v. CSX Transportation
2218 EDA 2020
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 21, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Clyde Green (Maryland resident) sued CSX Transportation under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, alleging occupational exposure (asbestos, diesel exhaust, second‑hand smoke) caused his colon cancer.
- Green worked for CSX and predecessors mainly in Maryland from the 1970s through the 1980s onward; his work in Pennsylvania was infrequent and ended decades ago.
- All treating physicians and most known fact witnesses live and practice in Maryland; Green was diagnosed and treated exclusively in Maryland.
- CSX (Virginia corporation, headquartered in Florida) moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, offering to consent to jurisdiction in Maryland and to preserve the Pennsylvania filing date for statute‑of‑limitations purposes if dismissal were granted.
- The trial court denied dismissal, citing (inter alia) that COVID‑19 made remote proceedings equally burdensome in Pennsylvania and Maryland and that CSX failed to show “substantially weighty issues” to overcome Green’s forum choice.
- The Superior Court reviewed the record, found the trial court erred in its balancing of forum non conveniens factors, concluded Maryland was the clearly more convenient forum, reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice to refiling in Maryland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Green) | Defendant's Argument (CSX) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard for forum non conveniens (use of term “vexatious”) | Court correctly denied dismissal because remote proceedings made litigation in PA not unduly oppressive | Trial court improperly applied the heavier intrastate/transfer standard ("vexatious/oppressive") instead of the interstate forum non conveniens "weighty reasons" standard | Court acknowledged ambiguous wording but found it applied the "weighty reasons" framework; not reversible on standard‑of‑law grounds |
| Whether COVID‑19 caused the court to improperly suspend application of Plum private/public factors | COVID‑related remote procedures made forum residency less relevant; factors weigh against dismissal | Reliance on pandemic and video technology cannot substitute for proper Plum factor analysis | COVID consideration was peripheral; court may not rely on technology/pandemic to avoid applying Plum factors fully |
| Whether CSX met its burden to show Maryland is a more appropriate forum | Green argued his chosen forum (Philadelphia) was appropriate: access to records, one PA worksite, and Philadelphia courts experienced with FELA | CSX argued Maryland is clearly more convenient: most witnesses, medical records, and treatment are in Maryland; offered to consent to jurisdiction and statute‑of‑limitations tolling | Superior Court held CSX met its burden; Maryland is the more convenient forum and dismissal without prejudice (to refile in MD) was warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Hovatter v. CSX Transp., Inc., 193 A.3d 420 (Pa. Super. 2018) (rejects reliance on court‑encouraged video technology as sole reason to deny forum non conveniens dismissal)
- Wright v. Consol. Rail. Corp., 215 A.3d 982 (Pa. Super. 2019) (distinguishes burdens for intrastate transfers and interstate forum non conveniens; addresses ‘‘vexatious/oppressive’’ language)
- Robbins for Estate of Robbins v. Consol. Rail Corp., 212 A.3d 81 (Pa. Super. 2019) (‘‘weighty reasons’’ standard and existence of an alternate forum are required for dismissal)
- Plum v. Tampax, Inc., 160 A.2d 549 (Pa. 1960) (adopts private and public interest factors for forum non conveniens analysis)
- Engstrom v. Bayer Corp., 855 A.2d 52 (Pa. Super. 2004) (describes Plum factors and considerations for convenience of witnesses and evidence)
- Alford v. Philadelphia Coca‑Cola Bottling Co., 531 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1987) (forum non conveniens requires weighing interests of justice beyond venue/ jurisdiction)