Hovatter, D. v. CSX Transportation
193 A.3d 420
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- Two consolidated FELA suits: Hovatter (Maryland resident; injury in Cumberland, MD) and Wilson (Kentucky resident; injuries in KY/OH/IN). Both sued CSX in Philadelphia Common Pleas.
- CSX moved to dismiss both actions under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, offering to waive statute-of-limitations and venue/personal-jurisdiction defenses if plaintiffs refiled in a designated forum within a set time.
- Trial court denied CSX’s motions, relying in part on 45 U.S.C. § 56 and giving heightened deference to plaintiffs’ forum choices because the suits invoked the FELA; it also found CSX did business in Philadelphia.
- CSX appealed, arguing (1) FELA does not entitle plaintiffs to special deference in state forum-non-conveniens analysis, and (2) the private and public interest factors favored dismissal because plaintiffs, witnesses, and evidence were located outside Pennsylvania.
- The Superior Court reviewed de novo the legal question and for abuse of discretion the forum-non-conveniens rulings, and found the trial court erred legally and abused its discretion.
- Result: Superior Court reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaints without prejudice so plaintiffs may refile in the alternate forums within the stipulated time limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the FELA (45 U.S.C. § 56) require heightened deference to a plaintiff’s choice of forum in state forum-non-conveniens analysis? | FELA plaintiffs are entitled to particular deference; §56 shows Congress intended broad venue choices for FELA claims. | §56 governs federal venue and concurrent jurisdiction but does not constrain state courts’ forum-non-conveniens analysis; no heightened deference required. | Trial court erred: no special FELA-based deference in state forum-non-conveniens; §56 is not controlling in state dismissals. |
| Can unrelated, routine business activity in a county (e.g., freight passage) defeat a forum-non-conveniens dismissal? | Plaintiffs: CSX’s doing business in Philadelphia supports keeping venue; defendants must show weighty reasons to disturb forum. | CSX: unrelated, routine presence in county does not overcome weighty reasons where plaintiffs, witnesses, evidence, and operative events are elsewhere. | Held for CSX: doing business supports venue but does not bar dismissal; trial court abused discretion by relying on unrelated business activity to deny dismissal. |
| Do private interest factors (witnesses, proof, costs) weigh against dismissal when events and witnesses are out-of-state? | Plaintiffs: inconveniences can be mitigated; forum choice should be respected. | CSX: all essential witnesses, treatment records, and proof are located outside Pennsylvania, making trial in PA impractical and costly. | Held for CSX: private-interest factors favor dismissal; trial court unreasonably minimized travel/cost burdens and suggested impractical remedies. |
| Are public interest factors (local juror burden, court familiarity) relevant when plaintiffs are non-residents and events occurred elsewhere? | Plaintiffs: public factors are neutral or manageable. | CSX: public interests (jury burden, court at home with governing law, administrative efficiency) favor litigating at origin. | Held for CSX: public-interest factors support dismissal; trial court failed to weigh plaintiffs’ foreign status and public considerations properly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (framework for private and public interest factors in forum non conveniens analysis)
- Rini v. N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co., 240 A.2d 372 (Pa. 1968) (forum non conveniens standard; appellate review for abuse of discretion)
- Engstrom v. Bayer Corp., 855 A.2d 52 (Pa. Super. 2004) (venue technical propriety does not preclude forum non conveniens dismissal)
- Petty v. Suburban Gen. Hosp., 525 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super. 1987) (adopts Gulf Oil factors for Pennsylvania courts)
- Norman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 323 A.2d 850 (Pa. Super. 1974) (affirming dismissal under forum non conveniens in FELA context where connections to forum were minimal)
- State of Mo. ex rel. S. Ry. Co. v. Mayfield, 340 U.S. 1 (1950) (states may apply forum non conveniens impartially, without special FELA preference)
- Jessop v. ACF Indus., LLC, 859 A.2d 801 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discusses deference to plaintiff’s forum choice but recognizes limits when plaintiff sues in a foreign forum)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) (addresses limits of state-court jurisdiction over railroads doing business in the state)