(to reverse). The question presented in this case is whether the circuit court abused its discretion in declining to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens to dismiss an action based on an incident which occurred in Florida and which is brought by a Florida plaintiff against a defendant which, although doing business in Florida and Michigan, neithеr is incorporated nor has its principal place of business in this state. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court. We reverse.
I
Plaintiff alleges that he was injured while employed as a crew member on one of defendant’s dredges. While he was working on the dredge, or on a spill barge related.to the dredge’s operation, a frayed cable that plaintiff was handling allegedly fell on his foot. He contends that a strand of the cable became imbedded in his toe and caused an infection that later required the toe to be amputated. Plaintiff filed suit in the Wayne Circuit Court claiming that the defendant was negligent under the Jones Act, 46 USC 688, and that the dredge was unseaworthy under general maritime law.
Plaintiff is allegedly a lifelong resident of Florida. The alleged incident occurred in Florida on *624 December 22, 1975. Defendant is a New Jersey cоrporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant maintains an agent in Detroit because it occasionally does business in Michigan. It also does business in Florida. Defendant filed an answer and special defenses. It asked that the case be dismissed on grоunds of forum non conveniens. Defendant asserted that the appropriate place for trial would be in Florida. In addition to plaintiffs residence in Florida, the incident occurred in a harbor in Miami, Florida; most of the witnesses are from Florida, with a few possibly in nearby southern states or in Puerto Rico; аnd the plaintiff received medical treatment in Florida. The defendant is subject to suit in Federal or state court in Florida and has agreed, if the case is dismissed, to waive any statute of limitation defenses that might be applicable there.
The circuit court denied defendant’s motiоn to dismiss. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal from the order of the circuit court and affirmed its decision.
Anderson v Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co,
On appeal to this Court, defendant contends, first, that the trial court applied an improper test by requiring the defendant to show that the trial of the сase in Michigan would subject it to special hardship, and second, that the decision to retain jurisdiction was an abuse of discretion. In response, plaintiff argues that Jones Act cases deserve special consideration and as a rule ought to be exempt from the аpplication of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Plaintiff further argues that, in any event, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by retaining jurisdiction.
II
Plaintiffs argument that forum non conveniens *625 is inapplicable to Jones Act cases relies on the Federal policy underlying the act. The policy, he asserts, is that of giving Jones-Act plaintiffs lаtitude in their choice of forum. Since the doctrine of forum non conveniens would at times deprive a plaintiff of that choice, plaintiff argues that the doctrine ought to be inapplicable.
The Jones Act, 46 USC 688, which was passed in 1920, granted to seamen the same rights as those available to railrоad employees under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), 45 USC 51
et seq. Mitchell v Trawler Racer, Inc,
Although, as plaintiff contends, there may be a Federal policy, as illustrated by the cases above, to allow plaintiffs in Jones Act or FELA cases a choice among many possible forums, it is important to note that this Court is under no Federal compulsion to exempt Jones Act or FELA cases from the application of this state’s doctrine of
forum non conveniens.
In
Missouri ex rel Southern R Co v Mayfield,
The fact that the Federal courts will transfer FELA or Jones Act cases 2 is pertinent to a consideration of any Federal policies that may be involved. Plaintiffs in Jones Act or FELA cases have latitude in the initial choice of a forum. However, the fact that the transfer provision of 28 USC 1404(a) applies to "any civil action” — including a Jones Act or . FELA case, see Ex parte Collett, supra — demonstrates implicit Federal recognition that a Jones Act or FELA suit, like othеr types of actions, may be initiated in an inappropriate forum. Therefore, we see no clear Federal concerns which would be disparaged by including Jones Act cases within this state’s application of its doctrine of forum non conveniens.
III
Apart from any Federal policies, the plaintiff *627 urges that the unique nature of a seaman’s employment merits this Court’s adoption of its own policy of nonapplication of the doctrine to Jones Act cases. On behalf of this argument, plaintiff notes how seamen are regularly moving from job to job and state to state. Further, the situs of Jones-Act incidents would normally be on a ship, which because of its mobility could frequently make a view by the jury impossible. Therefore, plaintiff argues, it often may be difficult for a plaintiff to identify a particularly appropriate forum, either for the parties or for the witnesses.
These circumstances, however, are all factors that may and should be considered in a case-by-case application of the doctrine. As stated in
Gulf Oil Corp v
Gilbert,
IV
The question remains whether the facts of this case warranted and required its dismissal.
In Cray v General Motors, supra, this Court found the doctrine of forum non conveniens to be applicable in Michigan. Each case consolidated fоr decision in Cray involved an incident occurring in another state. The plaintiffs and witnesses to the incident in each case were nonresidents of Michigan and none of the witnesses were subject to *628 Michigan’s subpoena power. General Motors, a defendant in each of the сases, had its principal place of business in Detroit. Plaintiffs contended that considerable discovery would be necessary with respect to materials and experts in Michigan for negligent acts that allegedly occurred here. This Court held that the retention of jurisdiction of thе various cases did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
In the present case, as in
Cray,
neither the plaintiff nor any witnesses to the incident reside in Michigan, and the incident occurred in another state. Unlike General Motors, the defendant neither is incorporated nor has its principal place of business here. Although it does business in Michigan — at this writing, it is engaged in a dredging operation in the Saginaw area — this litigation is unrelated to that business. The fact that Michigan courts have jurisdiction over the defendant through the business it does here is immaterial to
forum non conveniens
considerations because the appliсation of the doctrine assumes that two courts, the one the plaintiff has chosen and the one the defendant argues would be more appropriate, can obtain jurisdiction.
Gilbert, supra,
A plaintiffs selection of a forum is ordinarily accorded deference. The United States Supreme Court, describing this deference in
Gilbert,
stated, "unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed”.
In this case, there is minimal nexus bеtween the litigation and this state. The only apparent connections of any kind are that plaintiff’s counsel is located here and that there may be testimony at trial from some experts who reside here. Plaintiff has only named one such witness and defendant contends he has sincе moved out of the state.
While the convenience of counsel and of expert witnesses may be of some importance in conjunction with other factors, it is entitled to little weight when it alone is advanced as favoring the *630 chosen forum. If such factors were to be deеmed sufficient, a plaintiff could assure a forum in any state in which jurisdiction could be obtained simply by employing counsel and a witness there.
Balanced against plaintiffs slight interest in having a trial in Michigan is the inconvenience it would cause the defendant. Miami, Florida, where the incident oсcurred, is approximately 1500 miles from Wayne County, where this action was commenced. Although the parties disagree as to how many witnesses there were to the incident, most of the potential witnesses have last known addresses in Florida, with others having addresses in Georgia, North Carоlina and Puerto Rico. The physicians who treated the plaintiff are also located in Florida. For those witnesses whose attendance at trial the defendant would be able to procure, the cost of transportation would be significant. Considering such costs and the likelihood that the attendance of some witnesses could not be procured, the defendant may be forced to conduct a trial by depositions, if even that is possible.
V
The plaintiff, however, contends that because the defendant has not clearly specified either the course of litigation it intends to follow or the witnesses it intends to use, the doctrine of forum non conveniens should not apply because any inconvenience to the defendant is speculative. Certainly, when the plaintiff has a significant interest in the chosen forum, the defendant should outline the intended course of litigation in order for the balance to be struck in favor of another forum. Where, as here, there is little nexus between the litigation and the forum, there is no need for the defendant to prepare extensively for trial in order *631 to show exactly how inconvenient a triаl in Michigan would prove to be. The fact that virtually all the witnesses to the incident are apparently residents of Florida or nearby southern states reveals a likelihood that the defendant will suffer considerable difficulty in preparing any defense and is sufficient to overcomе plaintiff’s slight interest in having a trial in Michigan.
VI
Matters of public interest additionally favor declining jurisdiction for the essentially "imported litigation” that this case represents. As stated in Gilbert, supra:
"Factors of public interest also have place in applying the doctrine. Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation.”330 US 508 -509.
The Wayne Circuit Court, where this action was filed, has the most crowded civil docket of any court in the state. The burden on our courts and upon the defendant’s ability to prepare a defense greatly outweighs the remote interest the plaintiff has shown in behalf of conducting this trial in Michigan.
VII
The doctrine of forum non conveniens is applicable to Federal Jones Act cases commenced in a Michigan state court. Although the plaintiff’s choice of forum is afforded appropriate weight, no significant nexus between the litigation and this *632 state has been demonstrated. The "choice of forum [is] supported only by the fact that it was chosen”. Pence, supra. All significant factors as set forth above weigh heavily in favor of the defendant. There is an appropriate forum available to plaintiff in the state or Federal courts in Florida. Defendant has agreed to waive any statute of limitations defenses applicable in Florida. Therefore, we find that it wаs an abuse of discretion for the trial court to have denied defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Notes
See
Engel v Davenport,
See,
e.g., Wilson v Ohio River Co,
See
Pacific Car & Foundry Co v Pence,
403 F2d 949 (CA 9, 1968);
Curtin v Litton Systems, Inc,