2019 IL App (1st) 180840
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Six Wisconsin residents were passengers in a limousine driven by Aaron Nash that crashed on I-90 in Kane County; one passenger died and others suffered serious injuries.
- Plaintiffs sued Nash and his Wisconsin employer and numerous construction-related defendants, alleging negligence including inadequate advance warning signs at the construction lane-shift.
- Multiple lawsuits were consolidated in Cook County; 15 construction-related defendants moved to transfer the cases to Kane County on forum non conveniens grounds.
- Only two defendants (Exp U.S. Services, Inc. and Plote Construction, Inc.) pursued interlocutory appeals after the trial court denied the transfer; both have principal offices in Cook County.
- The trial court analyzed both private and public interest factors (plaintiffs’ forum choice, witness convenience, access to evidence, cost, ability to view the scene, attorneys’ locations, local interest, and docket congestion) and concluded Cook County was not an inconvenient forum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying forum non conveniens transfer from Cook County to Kane County | Plaintiffs argued Cook County was a permissible forum; many witnesses, medical providers, and counsel were in Cook County; plaintiffs’ choice deserves some deference | Defendants argued Kane County (site of accident) was the proper forum and transfer was warranted because most relevant events occurred there | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; defendants failed to show the factors strongly favored transfer |
| Deference owed to plaintiffs’ choice of forum | Plaintiffs: though nonresidents, their choice still merits some deference | Defendants: plaintiffs (nonresidents) should get little or no deference since neither residence nor injury site is Cook County | Court: plaintiffs’ choice gets reduced but not eliminated deference; trial court acted reasonably |
| Private-interest factors (convenience of parties/witnesses, access to evidence, practical problems) | Plaintiffs: majority of defendants/claims have ties to Cook County; many treating providers, witnesses, and counsel are in Cook County; site inspection not possible | Defendants: accident occurred in Kane County; witnesses and first responders there make Kane more convenient | Court: private factors favored or were neutral toward Cook County; defendants did not identify unwilling witnesses or show strong need for transfer |
| Public-interest factors (local interest, burden on forum, docket congestion) | Plaintiffs: Cook County has an interest (residents and corporate defendants), and docket data did not show Kane faster | Defendants: Kane County is the local situs of the accident; Cook County docket congestion favors transfer | Court: public factors did not favor transfer; local interest exists in both counties and congestion statistics fluctuated — no strong reason to transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430 (Ill. 2006) (establishes Illinois framework and abuse-of-discretion standard for forum non conveniens analysis)
- Guerine v. First American Bank, 198 Ill. 2d 511 (Ill. 2002) (discusses deference to plaintiff’s choice of forum and forum non conveniens factors)
- Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167 (Ill. 2003) (explains trial court’s balancing of private and public interest factors)
- Gridley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 217 Ill. 2d 158 (Ill. 2005) (notes principal place of business as a factor in forum non conveniens analysis)
- Vivas v. The Boeing Co., 392 Ill. App. 3d 644 (Ill. App. 2009) (permits reduced weight for site inspection where the scene has materially changed)
- Erwin v. Motorola, Inc., 408 Ill. App. 3d 261 (Ill. App. 2011) (movant must identify witnesses unwilling to testify; burden remains on movant)