Webster v. Southeast Alabama Timber Harvesting, LLC
94 So. 3d 371
Ala.2012Background
- Webster sued Southeast and Smith in Chambers Circuit Court for injuries from an accident in Lee County, alleging various negligent and willful conduct theories.
- The accident occurred when Webster’s vehicle collided with timber released from Southeast’s truck; responders and Webster were in Lee County.
- Southeast’s principal place of business is in Chambers County; Webster chose Chambers County as the venue under Ala. Code 1975 § 6-3-7(a)(2).
- Southeast and Smith moved for transfer under § 6-3-21.1 asserting the case should move to Lee County for convenience and/or justice, supported by a Lee County eyewitness and travel burden.
- Webster opposed the transfer; after a hearing, the circuit court denied the transfer.
- The Alabama Supreme Court granted mandamus, directing transfer to Lee County, finding the interest of justice favored Lee County due to stronger connections and the accident’s location.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion denying transfer under forum non conveniens | Southeast and Smith: transfer justified by interest of justice and convenience | Webster: no transfer; Chambers County connection suffices | Yes; circuit court exceeded discretion; transfer granted |
| Whether the interest-of-justice prong supports transfer to Lee County | Strong nexus with Lee County, accident location, and witnesses favor transfer | Limited Lee County connection; plaintiff’s choice of forum should prevail | Yes; interest of justice supports transfer to Lee County |
| Whether the convenience of parties and witnesses need not be considered separately | Interest of justice suffices to justify transfer | Convenience should be weighed as well | Not addressed separately; interest of justice governs |
| Whether prior cases support transferring tort actions to the county where the accident occurred | Authorities show preference for the transferee county with strong connection | Case law is distinguishable but supports keeping action where injury occurred | The court found correct alignment with prior authorities to transfer |
| Whether Webster’s cited precedents undermine transfer under § 6-3-21.1 | Her authorities are distinguishable; stronger Lee County ties exist here | Presents contrary interpretations of interest-of-justice | The court rejected Webster’s arguments and proceeded with transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So.2d 788 (Ala. 1998) (establishes transfer analysis for interest of justice)
- Ex parte Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc., 10 So.3d 536 (Ala. 2008) (strong Lee County connection favored transfer)
- Ex parte McKenzie Oil Co., 13 So.3d 346 (Ala. 2008) (strong connection to transferee county; transfer supported)
- Ex parte Wachovia Bank, N.A., 77 So.3d 570 (Ala. 2011) (analysis of interest-of-justice in venue transfers)
- Ex parte First Tennessee Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 994 So.2d 906 (Ala. 2008) (interest-of-justice consideration in § 6-3-21.1)
- Ex parte Fuller, 955 So.2d 414 (Ala. 2006) (origin of interest-of-justice analysis and transfer guidance)
- Ex parte Yocum, 963 So.2d 600 (Ala. 2007) (distinguishes nexus analysis; factors for transfer)
- Ex parte City of Haleyville, 827 So.2d 778 (Ala. 2002) (venue considerations in municipal action; distinguishable)