History
  • No items yet
midpage
Lee, H. v. Bower Lewis Thrower
102 A.3d 1018
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014
Read the full case

Background

  • Pedestrian Hyun Jung "Joann" Lee was severely injured when struck by a Penn State employee's pickup on Penn State's campus (State College) on November 23, 2010.
  • Lee sued architects, builders, designers, Penn State, and others in Philadelphia County, alleging negligent design (lighting, warnings) of the area near the East Parking Deck.
  • Several defendants (mostly Centre County–based and Penn State employees/witnesses) moved to transfer venue to Centre County under Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) for forum non conveniens.
  • The trial court granted the transfer after considering affidavits from seven potential defense witnesses describing travel, job and childcare burdens if forced to attend a Philadelphia trial.
  • Lee appealed, arguing the trial court misapplied Cheeseman and required a showing that the chosen forum was oppressive or vexatious with more stringent proof than presented.
  • The Superior Court affirmed, finding the affidavits and record provided sufficient detailed information showing trial in Philadelphia would be oppressive to defendants/witnesses.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether transfer for forum non conveniens required showing forum was "oppressive or vexatious" and whether that stringent standard was met Lee: Trial court misapplied law; defendants failed to show oppressive/vexatious conduct and affidavits were vague/conclusory Defendants: Affidavits and record evidence show trial in Philadelphia would be oppressive (distance, work/childcare burdens, witness inconvenience); transfer warranted Transfer affirmed: court properly applied Cheeseman standard; affidavits provided sufficient detailed information to show oppressiveness
Whether public-interest factors (court congestion, imposing jury duty) justify transfer Lee: Transfer cannot rest on generalized public-interest factors; must focus on party/witness convenience Defendants: Primary focus is party/witness convenience; public factors not controlling here Court: Reiterated Cheeseman — public-interest factors are not determinative; decision rested on party/witness burdens, not court congestion
Whether modern video testimony and depositions cure alleged oppressiveness Lee: Proposes depositions/video testimony to avoid transfer Defendants: Video cannot cure the oppressiveness of transporting numerous local witnesses; would create imbalance Court: Rejected video-only cure as imposing oppressive evidence presentation (live plaintiff vs. largely videotaped defense)
Whether defendants needed affidavits from every possible witness or detailed proof about plaintiff-side inconvenience Lee: Argued defendants' proof speculative and insufficient Defendants: Only a sufficient factual basis is required; trial court discretion to determine sufficiency Court: Found defendants met burden; need not produce affidavits from every witness; discretion to assess sufficiency upheld

Key Cases Cited

  • Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc., 549 Pa. 200, 701 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1997) (holding transfer on forum non conveniens requires defendant to show chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious with detailed information on the record)
  • Zappala v. Brandolini Property Mgmt., Inc., 589 Pa. 516, 909 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2006) (appellate review of transfer for abuse of discretion; trial courts have considerable discretion in weighing forum non conveniens factors)
  • Wood v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 829 A.2d 707 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003) (affidavits from local employee witnesses about long travel distances supported transfer)
  • Scola v. AC & S, Inc., 540 Pa. 353, 657 A.2d 1234 (Pa. 1995) (discussing past reliance on public-interest factors like court congestion in transfer analysis)
  • Okkerse v. Howe, 521 Pa. 509, 556 A.2d 827 (Pa. 1989) (addressing forum non conveniens and related transfer principles)
  • Plum v. Tampax, Inc., 399 Pa. 553, 160 A.2d 549 (Pa. 1960) (early discussion of public-interest considerations in venue transfer)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Lee, H. v. Bower Lewis Thrower
Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Oct 22, 2014
Citation: 102 A.3d 1018
Docket Number: 2421 EDA 2013
Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.