73 A.3d 1260
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Kenneth and Doris Pisieczko (New Jersey residents) sued CHOP in Philadelphia alleging Mr. Pisieczko was seriously injured on Nov. 19, 2012 while performing contracting work for CHOP in Mays Landing, New Jersey when a pole broke and he fell.
- Complaint asserted negligence and loss of consortium; suit filed in Philadelphia County.
- CHOP petitioned to dismiss under the forum non conveniens statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(e), arguing New Jersey was the proper forum (accident location, parties, and witnesses in New Jersey).
- Trial court granted dismissal, finding an adequate alternate forum (New Jersey) and that public and private interest factors provided “weighty reasons” to overcome plaintiffs’ choice of forum. Plaintiffs appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed for abuse of discretion, applied Engstrom’s public/private-factor balancing test, and affirmed the dismissal, noting plaintiffs could refile in New Jersey.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing under forum non conveniens | Pisieczko argued Philadelphia was proper because CHOP is headquartered there and some witnesses (doctor, CHOP hiring rep) would be burdened by dismissal | CHOP argued New Jersey is the proper forum: accident, plaintiffs, and many witnesses are in New Jersey; New Jersey courts less congested | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; alternative forum exists and public/private factors favor New Jersey |
| Whether trial court relied on sufficient private factors to overcome plaintiff’s forum choice | Plaintiffs asserted their choice should stand and local CHOP connections justify venue | CHOP emphasized ease of access to evidence/witnesses and convenience of jury view in New Jersey | Held — private factors favor New Jersey (accident site, witnesses, logistics) |
| Whether public interest factors support dismissal | Plaintiffs contended Philadelphia has an interest due to CHOP HQ | CHOP and trial court cited congested Philadelphia docket, lack of relation between Philadelphia jurors and the accident, and appropriateness of New Jersey judges applying New Jersey law | Held — public factors favor New Jersey (court congestion, juror relation, choice of law expertise) |
| Whether precedents cited by plaintiffs required denial of dismissal | Plaintiffs relied on Shears and Farley to argue dismissal inappropriate | CHOP distinguished those cases (Farley required showing of alternative forum and substantial discovery; Shears underscores high burden to disturb plaintiff’s choice) | Held — cases distinguishable; trial court applied proper analysis and dismissal stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Engstrom v. Bayer Corp., 855 A.2d 52 (Pa. Super. 2004) (sets out the weighty-reasons rule and lists public and private factors for forum non conveniens analysis)
- Cinousis v. Hechinger Dept. Store, 406 Pa.Super. 500 (1991) (affirmed dismissal where plaintiffs and accident were out-of-state and alternative forum existed)
- Farley v. McDonnell Douglas Truck Serv., 432 Pa.Super. 456 (1994) (reversed dismissal where court failed to determine existence of alternative forum and extensive discovery had occurred)