Robbins, H. v. Consolidated Rail & Penn Central
212 A.3d 81
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- Plaintiff Howard Robbins, personal representative of David Robbins (decedent), sued Consolidated Rail Corp. and Penn Central under FELA in Philadelphia state court for decedent’s occupational exposure causing cancer; defendants are Pennsylvania corporations but decedent worked in Indiana (1953–1989).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(e) (forum non conveniens), arguing the case’s only real ties are corporate residence/headquarters and that relevant evidence/witnesses are in Indiana/elsewhere; they offered to waive statute-of-limitations and venue/jurisdiction defenses if plaintiff re-filed in Indiana.
- Plaintiff conceded decedent had no contacts with Pennsylvania but identified four former Consolidated Rail employees located in Pennsylvania whom he would call as fact witnesses and alleged that company policies governing exposure were developed at Consolidated Rail’s Philadelphia headquarters.
- Defendants submitted affidavits that decedent never worked in Pennsylvania, personnel files are in NJ/FL, and potential defense witnesses live outside Pennsylvania; plaintiff disputed these points and emphasized compulsory process for Pennsylvania witnesses.
- The trial court denied dismissal; defendants sought interlocutory review and the Superior Court affirmed, finding the trial court did not abuse discretion in weighing private and public Gulf Oil/Gilbert factors and that an alternate forum (Indiana) existed but defendants failed to show the requisite "weighty reasons."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by considering that dismissal would remove plaintiff's option to sue in defendant's residence (FELA venue choice) | Robbins: his FELA venue choice (Pennsylvania) is entitled to deference; losing that option is relevant | Defendants: forum non conveniens analysis should not give special weight to FELA venue privilege; facts point to Indiana as proper forum | Court: No error — trial court correctly summarized FELA venue law and did not apply heightened deference; consideration of plaintiff's forum choice was proper and not outcome-determinative |
| Whether plaintiff’s unverified assertion of Pennsylvania witnesses should control over admissions/other evidence showing no forum connection | Robbins: named four Pennsylvania witnesses and alleged policies were set in Philadelphia, justifying keeping the case in PA | Defendants: requests for admission (allegedly admitted) and affidavits show no Pennsylvania connection; plaintiff’s assertions unreliable | Court: Plaintiff’s witness assertions were properly considered; defendants’ purported admissions were not binding because the requests were served by a non-party (CSX); trial court did not abuse discretion in crediting plaintiff’s identified PA witnesses |
| Whether Pennsylvania has public interest in trying an out-of-state FELA claim solely because defendant resides in PA | Robbins: PA has an interest because policies/procedures relevant to exposure were developed at defendant’s Philly HQ and PA witnesses would be subject to compulsory process | Defendants: Jury burden and administrative difficulties counsel dismissal to Indiana where the cause arose | Court: Pennsylvania has a sufficient public interest here (policy development at HQ and PA witnesses); balancing Gulf Oil factors did not show "weighty reasons" to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Hovatter v. CSX Transportation, 193 A.3d 420 (Pa. Super. 2018) (forum non conveniens standards and analysis of FELA-related venue assertions)
- Alford v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., 531 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1987) (statutory codification of forum non conveniens principles and dismissal to permit re-filing in another state)
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (private and public interest factors governing forum non conveniens analysis)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (U.S. 2017) (interpretation of FELA venue provision as venue, not jurisdictional, rule)
- Bochetto v. Dimeling, Schreiber & Park, 151 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2016) (trial court discretion in weighting forum non conveniens factors)