*1 III join part I decline dissent. McMorrow’s of Justice argue did not raise the parties of that dissent because unnecessary review, and it is error harmless the issue of appeal. of this disposition (No. 93710. PACIFIC JR., v. UNION DAWDY, Appellee,
WILLIAM al., et Appellants. RAILROAD COMPANY Rehearing August denied Opinion filed, 2003. September *2 RARICK,J., part. took no
KILBRIDE, J., dissenting. E. Hooks, Thomas Jones and Heath H. of Belleville Coburn, L.L.E, (Thompson counsel), for appellants. Burke, Gail G. Renshaw and Richard J. of The Lakin EC., River, Firm, Law appellee. of Wood for Joseph Prager, E. Kolar and Beth R. of Baizer & Ko- EC., Park, for amicus curiae Illinois Trial lar, Highland Lawyers Association. of the opinion delivered FREEMAN
JUSTICE court: Jr., personal Dawdy, brought
Plaintiff, William of Madison in the circuit court injury action Company Pacific defendants, the Union Railroad against for damages sought Riederer. Plaintiff Rodney that oc- a motor vehicle accident injuries sustained moved Macoupin County. curred in Defendants County under the action to transfer The circuit court non conveniens. doctrine No. and the affirmed. appellate denied the motion Court Supreme order under (unpublished 5—00—0293 23). Rule petition appeal defendants’ leave to
We allowed (177 315(a)). appellate 2d R. We reverse the now and remand to the circuit court circuit courts this cause directions to transfer the cause with to Macoupin
BACKGROUND driv- morning May 20, plaintiff On the was *3 in 108 Ma- ing Highway a tractor westbound on Illinois Riederer, time, within County. acting At the same coupin Pacific, driv- employment of his with Union was scope The highway. on the vehicles ing a truck eastbound same injured. collided, causing seriously to plaintiff be 19,1999, May complaint filed a two-count plaintiff On I County. alleged in Madison Count the circuit court of operation in the of defendants’ vehicle. Count negligence Pacific, II, solely alleged that addressed to Union failing also for to train and negligent railroad was that vehicle failing and for to ensure Riederer supervise beyond of their would not extend the width attachments thoroughfares. on operated vehicles when to transfer venue from Defendants filed a motion County under the County adjacent Macoupin to Madison motion, their non conveniens. doctrine of forum alleged defendants County. as follows.Plaintiff resides Greene Macoupin County. The action arose in Riederer County. Macoupin resides in Union Pacific is a Delaware corporation principal place with its Omaha, business in Macoupin Nebraska. Union Pacific does business in County. testify theOf 18 witnesses who be called to County, Macoupin trial, most them in or reside near County. and none of them Also, reside Madison County docket of the Madison circuit court is more congested Macoupin County than that of the circuit according County Macoupin Thus, defendants, court. to try would be the most convenient forum to this case. argued absolutely Defendants that “this case has no con- County, nection whatsoever with Madison Illinois. There filing is no basis reason for this case in this court other ” shopping.’ than ‘forum opposition In his memorandum in to mo- defendants’ plaintiff argued venue, tion to transfer that venue in County just Macoupin is as convenient inas County. alleged oper- Plaintiff as follows. Union Pacific facility County. potential ates a in Madison Of the 18 wit- County nesses, 14 reside in neither Madison nor Ma- coupin County accordingly, required and, will be to travel regardless average of where the case is tried. ad- required potential ditional miles for the 18 witnesses to Macoupin to travel Madison rather than approximately per 18 miles witness. Most of regularly the witnesses conduct business attorney Plaintiffs resides in Madison attorneys and defendants’ reside closer to Madison County. According plaintiff, than choiceof his forum is entitled to deference and defendants failed to show the factors forum transfer. analysis strongly weigh in favor
The circuit court Madison denied defen- appealed. Initially, to dants’ motion transfer. Defendants and the circuit court’s order court reversed appellate to venue directions to transfer the cause with remanded for However, plaintiff’s on motion County. Macoupin af its and court vacated decision rehearing, appellate to motion denial of defendant’s firmed the circuit court’s that, light court held appellate transfer venue. Bank v. in First American this court’s decision to “compelled” it vacate (2002), Ill. 2d 511 was affirming and issue a new decision previous decision defendants’ motion denying circuit order court’s venue to transfer petition court allowed defendants’ leave
This 315(a). granted R. subsequently 177 Ill. 2d We appeal. Lawyers Illinois Trial Association leave to submit an 155 Ill. 2d R. support plaintiff. amicus curiae brief
ANALYSIS court erred in appellate Defendants contend that the of defendants’ motion affirming the circuit court’s denial Ma- argue, alia, venue. Defendants inter transfer is the most coupin County, try convenient forum to this case.
I. Controlling Principles Forum Non Conveniens: The Illinois statute that an action provides venue (1) must be commenced: in the of residence (2) faith, joined good defendant who is any county in which the cause action arose. 735 ILCS 5/2— 2000). (West than potential If there exists more one forum, doctrine of conveniens equitable appropriate be invoked to determine the most International, Inc., forum. v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Griffith & (1990); Bland v. Western Norfolk Ry. Co., The doctrine based on of fundamental fairness sensible considerations The doctrine judicial and effective administration. allows *5 172
the court in which the action
jurisdic
was filed to decline
tion and direct the lawsuit to an alternative forum that
the court
can
determines
better serve the convenience of
the parties and the
of justice.
ends
Vinson Allstate,
v.
144
306,
(1991);
310
Wieser v. Missouri
R.R.
Pacific
Co.,
359,
(1983),
98 Ill. 2d
365
quoting Adkins v. Chicago,
Co.,
Rock Island &
511,
R.R.
(1973);
54 Ill. 2d
Pacific
Corp. Gilbert,
501,
see
Oil
v.
507,
330 U.S.
91 L. Ed.
Gulf
1062,
1055,
839,
67 S. Ct.
Although the
non conveniens doctrine has a
long history
law,
general
at common
application
crystallized following
Oil.
See
198 Ill. 2d at
Gulf
515; Wieser,
Ill. 2d at
365. Illinois courts employ the
analytical framework of
Oil in
Gulf
See,
cases.
e.g., Meyers v. Bridgeport Machines Division
(1986)
Textron, Inc.,
112,
113 Ill. 2d
118-19
(collecting
cases), quoting
508-09,
Oil,
tors affecting
public
the
and
af
interest factors
fecting
Oil,
court administration.
330 U.S. at
Gulf
The relevant litigation caused when difficulties administrative being handled at instead of venues congested handled duty upon jury of imposing the unfairness its origin; litigation; connection to with no residents of decided lo having local controversies the interest 1062-63, 508-09, Ed. at Oil, U.S. L. cally. Gulf 557; Vinson, 144 Cook, 843; Ct. at see 67 S. Ill. 2d at 311. consideration under
An additional choice plaintiffs deference to doctrine is conveniens the forum is right A to select of forum. *6 favor of strongly in weigh the factors substantial. Unless rarely of be transfer, the choice forum should plaintiffs 106, 2d Jones v. quoting 136 Ill. at Griffith, disturbed. (1982), Laboratories, 366, quot 372-73 Searle 93 1062, Ed. S. Oil, 508, at 91 L. at 67 Ct. ing 330 U.S. Gulf 843; Transporta v. & North Chicago at Moore Western (1983) cases); 73, (collecting 2d Co., tion 99 Ill. 77 see 508, 1062, Oil, at L. Ed. at S. Ct. at 330 U.S. 91 67 Gulf of is com plaintiffs 843. “This deference to choice Wieser, balancing to test.” monly unequal referred as an Ill. 98 2d at 366.
However, of is not entitled plaintiffs the choice in all cases. “When weight to the same or consideration chosen, it is to as the home forum has been reasonable Piper that this choice is convenient.” Co. sume Aircraft 255-56, 419, 436, 102 235, 454 70 L. Ed. 2d Reyno, v. U.S. (1981). of 252, when the site the “Similarly, S. Ct. 266 chosen, injury is the choice is convenient accident being at litigation aspect has the ‘decided because ” Guerine, 518; v. Ill. 2d at see Brummett home.’ (1986). Marine, 495, Inc., 499-500 2d Wepfer however, assumption plaintiff foreign, is “When purpose less reasonable. Because the central is much that is to ensure any inquiry convenient, foreign trial is plaintiffs choice deserves 256, less deference.” at Piper, U.S. 70 L. Ed. 266; S. Ct. see McClain v. Illinois Central Co., (1988); Bland, R.R. 116 Ill. Gulf cases). Indeed, (collecting panel 227-28 as a our appellate court has observed:
“[W]hen the plaintiff foreign is to the forum chosen and gives the action to litigation that rise did not occur forum, the chosen this assumption [of convenience] no is longer Instead, reasonable. it reasonable to conclude plaintiff engaged in forum shopping to suit his interests, contrary individual a strategy purposes to the behind the venue rules.” Certain Lloyds, Underwriters at Co., v. London Illinois Central R.R. App. agree. We long acknowledged
Courts have existence forum shopping: “ ‘[A]ll commonly by choices tribunal are all used get away judges from who are considered unsympathetic, get be and to before those who are favorable; away
considered more to get juries from thought verdicts, to be small-minded the matter of get thought and to to those generous; escape to be courts procedures whose are to the burdensome plaintiff, and to procedures seek out courts whose make easy.’ going ordinarily plaintiffs’ We would add that zeal in those respects by only seeking is matched defendants’ efforts in Co., Espinosa to avoid such fora.” Ry. v. & Western *7 Norfolk 111, (1981), Ill. quoting 86 2d 123 Miles v. Illinois Central Co., 698, 707, 1129, 1135, R.R. 315 U.S. 86 L. 62 Ed. S. Ct. (1942) 827, (Jackson, J., concurring). 832 This court has a in acknowledged plaintiff, choosing that forum, might a shop Wieser, for the most favorable forum. 368; Ill. 2d at Espinosa, 98 at 123.
However,
shopping:
courts have never favored forum
“
judiciary has never
of shopping
‘The
favored this sort
sought
protect
good
for a forum. It has
to
as
own
name
***
protect
against
as to
practice
well
defendants
to
system which
judicial
spots in the
seeking out soft
judges
kinds
But the
with
litigation.
bring particular
interest of the
have
avowed
lawyerly indirection
as
for their
a basis
judiciary
orderly
resort to
courts
decision,
doctrines in terms
protective
cast their
and have
harassing
against
and
sheltering defendants
vexatious
subject
leads
of the
of venue
judicial treatment
suits. This
forum
think of the choice
a
Congress
parties
and the
to
cases like the
litigants,
private
a
matter between
as
public
in venue
interest
pressent
[sic] obscures
”
122-23, quoting
Espinosa,
***.’
practices
1135,
Miles,
706, 86 Ed.
Accordingly, while courts in a practice not consider this shop, forum courts 368; Wieser, at analysis. non conveniens forum itself, By shopping Ill. Espinosa, 86 a legal sustaining” plaintiffs “furnishes no reason for Windham, & v. Supply choice of forum. Pruitt Tool Co. “ 1 (Okla. 1963). “[Djecent judicial 379 P.2d administration as a shopping] not tolerate [forum could *** legitimate burdening even reason persuasive or controversies which arose litigious communities with ’ ” justice in all be tried there.” elsewhere and should St. Louis —San Tool, quoting Pruitt 379 P.2d Court, Superior Francisco Co. v. Creek Ry. A a forum plaintiffs right
P.2d choose in, public interest “cannot be to override the permitted for, orderly, efficiently operated judicial and need system.” at 123. Espinosa, conve- Griffith, explained chooses balancing plaintiff niens test when the unequal foreign forum: analysis, defer-
“Under our current factor, but one plaintiffs ence to choice forum is fac- along private other relevant interest with tors, balancing process. The defer- considered be given choice of forum is factor which ence *8 test, given weight be more depend- or less within the ing plaintiff on whether the is a resident the forum In deciding motion, selected. a forum account, court is to take all the each giving relevant factors into factor, forum, including plaintiffs choice of proper weight deference under the If circumstances. plaintiff foreign selected, is to the forum the forum choice given given should be less deference than it be would if the plaintiff test, were resident of the forum selected. then, factors, is whether the relevant viewed their total- ity, strongly favor suggested by transfer to the forum defendant.
By giving plaintiffs choice forum more or weight less formula, within the the current test takes into account the plaintiffs status as a resident or a nonresident ofthe forum chosen. We satisfied are that the current test ensures that a nonresident choice of forum will not be ac corded Griffith, undue deference ***.” at 107- OS.
“If central emphasis
placed
any
factor,
were
on
one
non conveniens doctrine would lose much of the
very flexibility that
it
makes
so valuable.” Piper, 454
249-50,
at
432,
263;
U.S.
70 L. Ed. 2d
102 Ct.
S.
at
see
Guerine,
518;
2d
198 Ill.
Skelgas, Inc.,
Peile v.
163 Ill.
(1994);
2d
Bland,
336-37
Forum
applicable
conveniens is
on an intrastate
as
on
well as
words,
interstate basis.
other
doctrine may be applied where the choice is between
forums in the same state as well as when
the choice
between forums in different states. The same consider
ations of convenience and
apply
deciding
fairness
question
of the forum for trial.
(1986);
Walsh,
(1983);
Torres v.
350-51
see
Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at
(upholding
applica
330-36
intrastate
conveniens).
tion
The determination
aof
non conveniens motion
lies within the sound discretion of the trial
On
court.
if it
only
reversed
review, the trial court’s decision will be
the court abused
discretion
can be shown that
223;
Bland,
factors.
balancing
relevant
cases); Wieser, 98
(collecting
II. The Present Case to this Applying the conveniens factors case, the abused discre we conclude that circuit court Ma defendants’ to transfer denying tion motion County. Although acknowledge plaintiffs right we coupin forum, conclude, considering to choose the we after record, of strongly the factors in favor weigh at 106. The record Griffith, transfer. See 136 Ill. 2d strongly that a trial in would Macoupin indicates serve and the ends parties better the convenience of Bland, justice. See 116 Ill. at 223. Turning factors, by private begin to the interest we examining regarding relative of access facts ease argument may to evidence. note that we We mileage not consider distances because this information “However, appellate part was not the record. judicial previously take notice matters matters capable to the trial court when the are presented v. demonstration.” Boston unquestionable of instant 969, Hospital, App. Memorial Rockford (1986), citing Co. v. Teamsters May Department Stores (1976). Local “Courts Union No. judicial take cognizance often distances between *** customary or more routes two locations and the time travel them.” 1 C. Fish- required usual between (7th man, 2:56, § Jones on Evidence 1992); ed. ac Graham, cord M. Cleary & Graham’s Il Handbook of (7th 202.2, § linois 1999); Evidence at 60 ed. R. (3d Steigmann, 1995); § Illinois Evidence Manual 2:21 ed. see, e.g., Waters, City Chicago v. case, present the accident occurred in Ma-
coupin County. Although only potential two of the wit- nesses reside in actually County, most of the potential 18 by witnesses identified defendant reside closer to Macoupin County than Madison Al- County. though potential two of the work at witnesses the Illinois State headquarters Collinsville, Police part of which County, none of the potential witnesses reside County. Four out ten of the medical providers are located in Macoupin adjacent Greene County. The remaining providers six medical are located in either Sangamon County or Macon both of which are to Macoupin County closer than to Madison Because location of the accident inis Ma- *10 coupin County, and the locations of identified wit- nesses are on a whole Macoupin County closer to than Madison these County, weigh factors in of slightly favor of Macoupin County convenience over Madison County.
Another private interest is the factor possibility viewing the if premises, appropriate. appellate court apparently gave weight. this factor no The court con- cluded: “although the accident in Macoupin occurred County, nothing there is the record to indicate a that view of the necessary.” accident site will be reasoning
This
misses the mark. This convenience
factor is
necessity
not concerned with the
of viewing the
site of the
but rather
injury,
is concerned with the pos-
Oil,
sibility
site,
if
viewing
appropriate. See Gulf
L. Ed.
U.S. at
ing Gulf is scene of an accident jury a view the having sibility a ruling upon consideration important added.) Moore, Ill. 2d (Emphasis motion.” conveniens viewing Further, necessity or propriety at 80. of the trial the discretion a decision left within scene is 144 Ill. 559; Cook, Washington, 146 Ill. court. See 2d at 403. that case, if trial court later determines the accident oc appropriate, accident
viewing the site Although Macoupin Macoupin County. curred in jury a it be irrational for adjoins would Ma to travel to of Madison residents composed See, e.g., scene. Vin County to view the accident coupin Further, arguably son, viewing such Ill. 2d 312-13. if the case more were accomplished expeditiously could be Con, See, Evans v. MD County. e.g., in Macoupin tried (1995). Inc., 292, 296 App. that weigh practical next all other considerations
We Plaintiff inexpensive. easy, expeditious, make trial in Madison attorneys that his maintain an office observes attorneys only are located County, and defendants’ St. Clair away neighboring short distance factor, weight consider this “little While a court Co., 142 Peabody it.” Boner v. Coal should be accorded “the fact that Also, according plaintiff, taken into County adjoins must be the distance is so analysis. consideration in the Where argue inconvenience minimal, it becomes incredulous He asserts by in the chosen Plaintiff.” any difference adjoining the two counties are “because determin- mileage insignificant purposes would be *11 ing convenience.” posi- the Plaintiffs “[sjupports note that amicus
We its discretion tion that the trial court did abuse keeping County.” the case Madison Amicus addition- ally contends “that on a motion to transfer between adjacent private counties, the interest ‘convenience’fac- conclusively weighed tors should be favor.” “[t]he Amicus observes that doctrine of non conve- forum posits niens concerns convenience at trial” and adjacent “travel between counties is common and not according Therefore, inconvenient.” amicus, trial in adjacent county is not inconvenient to a defendant as a matter of law. accept
We cannot
the contention that
trial in an
adjacent county
conclusively
not inconvenient for a
upholding
defendant.
denials of
forum
venue,
motions to transfer
this court has observed that
by plaintiffs
suggested by
the forums chosen
and those
adjacent
e.g.,
defendants were located in
See,
counties.
Griffith, 136 Ill. 2d at
However,
this court has
repeatedly recognized
single
that no
non conveni
emphasis
ens factor should be accorded central
conclusive effect. Jones v.
Laboratories,
Searle
(1982). “Mileage
366, 373
is but one factor of conve
emphasis
placed
any
nience. ‘If central
were
on
one fac
tor, the
non conveniens doctrine would lose much
”
very flexibility
of the
that makes it
Bland,
so valuable.’
quoting Piper,
Ill. 2d at
249-50,
U.S. at
L.
Ed. 2d at
102 S. Ct. at 263. Illinois courts have
adjacent
transferred venue to
counties
on
based
e.g., Washington,
See,
non conveniens.
therein).
This court has found the annual
of the
report
(Annual
Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts
Report)
to be a proper
reference
in
court
assessing
congestion. This court
already
has
taken notice of
County’s congested
Madison
court docket. See Washing
ton,
Plaintiff does not dispute that
the docket of the
County
Madison
circuit
congested
court
is more
than
that of Macoupin County. Indeed, he cannot. The Annual
Report
1,867
1998 reveals that
there
jury
were
ac
tions for
in
damages
$50,000
excess of
pending
only
while
pend
such cases were
ing
Further,
in Macoupin County.
cases,
in such
the aver
age time lapse
filing
between
and verdict
in Madison
County
months,
was 29.3
only
but
17.3 months —one
year
Macoupin County.
less—in
These statistics demon
strate that
the docket of the circuit court of Madison
County, through the
that plaintiff
time
filed his com
plaint, continued to be “crowded to the
where
point
congestion
great
Bland,
is of
concern.”
Another public interest factor the local concerns interest in local controversies. appellate reasoned as follows: “the accident occurred in County, and defendant Riederer ais resident of said However, county. the facts also demonstrate that Madison legitimate has interest this case because defendant Union Pacific conducts business Madison Plaintiff County.” additionally points to the fact that post Riederer maintains a office box in Madison “nearly daily travels there for his mail.” This reasoning Merely conducting is erroneous. busi ness, maintaining box, post office does not affect the It is as issue. *13 a sumed on non conveniens motion that the forum a plaintiffs proper chosen is venue for action. If defendant Union Pacific did no business in Madison County, county improper would have been an venue (West 2000) (action for the case. See 735 ILCS 5/2 —101 must be commenced in residence of a defendant arose); or the county where the action 735 ILCS 5/2— (West 102(a) 2000) (foreign only corporation resident counties in it an office those which has or does busi ness). Accordingly, the fact that the defendant conducts County within is not a fac dispositive business Madison in A a tor this case. conveniens motion causes court to the criteria of venue it consid beyond look when Vinson, 144 ers the relative convenience of a forum. See 311; Bland, If the fact that Ill. 2d at 116 Ill. at 226. business, post the defendant or maintains a of conducts box, dispositive, fice in the chosen forum were plaintiffs “doctrine itself would be vitiated, and no would ever be obtained. entirely transfer Rather, choice would be elevated to the stature consideration, not to be dispositive patently of a which is Corp., App. allowed.” Franklin v. FMC (col (1986); Evans, Ill. 3d at 296-97 App. accord cases). lecting facts, the accident occurred
Turning to the relevant County. Madison Neither in and not Macoupin Al- County. in resides plaintiff nor Riederer in Madison of the witnesses work though some them to Madison connecting there is little else little or no interest County. Clearly, has whose claim arose trying the action of nonresident County. in Macoupin County, Macoupin County
Conversely, unlike Madison
and interest
in this action.
strong
has a
connection with
reside in
Riederer,
some of the witnesses
addition
the fact that the ac
Macoupin County.
significantly,
Most
the action a
Macoupin County gives
cident occurred
518;
Washington,
interest.
198 Ill. 2d at
local
See
Bland,
403;
Addressing
conclude that
of Madison
should
residents
not
the fact that
jury duty given
be burdened with
in,
to,
action
relation
their
did
arise
and has no
county.
404; Vinson,
See
Washington,
Rather,
Ill. 2d at 313.
the accident occurred in
gives Macoupin County
significant
This
inter
dispute and, therefore,
est
it would not be unfair
jury duty
burden the residents
thereof with
Cook,
case.
As we noted *14 that, Guerine, held it light of our decision was to affirm the circuit court’s denial of “compelled” motion to venue to Macoupin defendant’s transfer However, from readily distinguishable Guerine is this case. Guerine,
In
the
the
we concluded
balance of
strongly
non conveniens factors did not
favor
forum
plaintiffs
transfer
from the
chosen forum. We held that
potential
among
where the
trial witnesses are scattered
forum,
counties,
the
chosen
including
plaintiffs
several
single county enjoys predominant
and no
a
connection to
litigation,
plaintiff may
deprived
the
not be
of his or
Guerine,
her chosen forum.
Further,
can be read to
Guerine
condone
shopping.
“[a]
forum
In
we observed that
animating
jurispru
concern
our
non conveniens
forum
curtailing
by
shopping
plaintiffs.”
dence is
Guer
citing
ine,
Torres,
fairness
and convenience to those that will
testify
be called
Realigning parties
at trial.
for the
purpose
fixing
venue in
where there
abe
more favorable outcome to
does not reinforce or
complement
principles
non conveniens.
Instead,
perverts
Underwriters,
it
them.” Certain
App. 3d at 199.
agree.
Torres,
We
See
factors favors greatly Macoupin County.Further, interest factors favors plaintiff’s the deference to choice of Madison reduced because he does not reside there and the action Considering private did not arise there. all relevant public interests, we conclude that the balance of factors strongly Macoupin County. favors transfer This determination rested within the discretion of the circuit subject only upon showing court, abuse, to reversal *15 person circuit take the would i.e., that no reasonable e.g., 223; position. Ill. 2d at Bland, See, court’s conclude that We Schwartz, Ill. 2d at 176. Accordingly, that we hold inmet this case. standard was denying defen its discretion the circuit court abused County to from to transfer venue dants’ motion Macoupin non on the doctrine based conveniens. Remaining Contentions
III. that the additional contention note defendants’ We venue their motion to transfer denial of circuit court’s provi constitutional federal state violates various court on However, of the circuit our reversal sions. grounds of defen discussion conveniens obviates Beahringer Page, 204 v. constitutional claim. See dants’ (2003); City Gould, 369-70, Detroit v. Ill. 2d (both (1957) holding that constitutional questions if can be determined decided case will be grounds). on other
CONCLUSION judgment appel- foregoing reasons, the For the circuit court of and the order of the late court reversed, the cause is remanded to are directions to with circuit court of Madison the cause to transfer
Appellate reversed; court reversed; circuit with directions. cause remanded part in the consideration JUSTICE RARICKtook no or decision of this case. dissenting: KILBRIDE,
JUSTICE
majority opinion.
respectfully
I
dissent from
pro-
repeated
majority flatly disregards this court’s
that the
nouncements
non conveniens doctrine
gives
discretionary power
courts broad
be
should
only
exceptional
exercised
circumstances when
justice require
interests of
a trial in a more convenient
Peabody
Co.,
forum. Boner v.
Coal
527-28
*16
(1991), citing
Ry.
v.
Co.,
Bland
&
Ill.
Western
116
Norfolk
(1987);
217,
2d
First
American Bank v.
(2002), quoting
Skelgas,
511,
Ill. 2d
v.
Inc.,
Peile
(1994), quoting
Walsh,
Torres v.
2d
(1983), citing
Corp.
338, 346
Gilbert,
Oil
v.
330 U.S.
Gulf
91 L. Ed.
“[t]he record
indicates that a trial in Ma
coupin County would better
serve
convenience of
parties
justice”
and the ends of
and “no reasonable
person
by
adopted
would take the view
the trial court.”
added.)
(Emphasis
under circumstances this concluded Thus, that a transfer was not warranted. it cannot be held that the trial court abused its discretion refusing Macoupin County. in to transfer this case to majority Pacific, discounts that defendant Union foreign corporation, County a is a resident of Madison 102(a) (West 2000) purposes. venue See 735 ILCS 5/2— (in foreign corporation, the case of a residence defined is any county corporation as where the has an office isor business). doing Union Pacific’s contact with Madison County marginal. is not minimal or The record demon- merely that Pacific strates Union does not conduct busi- County, operates facility in ness Madison it a there and employs County, including numerous citizens of Madison potential some of the work witnesses who out of this facility. disagree majority’s
I also with the conclusion that analysis, court not non conveniens should conducts that the defendant business consider the fact This court has held at 183. type in the conducted the “extent and business” that certainly appropriate for the are considerations analysis. Boner, 142 Ill. in a court majority’s Thus, that the at 540. conclusion fact Union Pacific conducts that should consider County inexplicable. in Madison business recognized that, Boner, where a defen this court operations company active has officesand conducts dant county, “by in a marginal.” are no means activities that weigh Thus,
Boner, 142 Ill. 2d when ing to the the relative “convenience” of operates defendants, facilities the fact that Union Pacific against finding in Madison militates the forum “inconvenient” to defendants.
Certainly the residents Madison have involving litigation interest the resolution corporation operates facilities within its borders. Presumably, Pacific Union and its numerous Madison *17 pay County. employees resident taxes Madison county’s Hence, the resources not be overburdened alleged negligence would involving the trial of a case with corporate Boner, 142 Ill. 2d at one residents. See Although plaintiff did not in his 540. file suit home forum given thus, deference, and, his choice of forum is less his is, nevertheless, choice forum still accorded consider weight. especially Boner, 142 Ill. This able 2d at 542. where, here, forum choice is true as defendants’ plaintiffs home forum Union Pacific’shome neither nor 142 Ill. 2d Boner, forum. See at 542. majority
It is also unfair and inaccurate for suggest plaintiff case has somehow “ engaged ‘[Realigning parties purpose fix for the ing in a be a more favor venue where there ” quoting 167, outcome’ him. 207 Certain able Lloyds, at Underwriters London v. Illinois Central R.R. App. plaintiff Co., 189, in this parties.” “realign simply case did not Plaintiff was injured by in an accident with a truck owned Union by employee. Pacific, driven Pacific Union Nor did plaintiff any include Pacific Union shopping purpose. as a defendant for improper forum Union Pacific ais necessary indispensable party litigation. to this Not only was Union Pacific the owner of the truck and the employer plaintiffs complaint Riederer, of defendant but specificallyalleges negligent also that Union Pacific was failing supervise failing for to train and Riederer to ensure that vehicle attachments would not extend beyond operated the width of its vehicles when on thoroughfares. acknowledge majority’s regarding
I also concerns the number of cases filed Madison Neverthe just less, as sometimes choose a forum because perceived advantage, of a some defendants move for dismissal or transfer under the doctrine of genuine conveniens not because of concern with conve they nience but because believe that an alternative forum friendly Accordingly, would more be to their interests. supplant this court be should hesitant trial court’s ruling where, here, non conveniens as such a “ transfer parties will ‘better “serve the convenience of the ’ ” justice.” and the ends of v. Missouri Wieser (1983), quoting Co., 359, R.R. 98 Ill. 2d Ad Pacific Chicago Co., kins v. Rock & Island R.R. 54 Ill. 2d Pacific (1973), quoting Lonergan 511, 514 v. Crucible Steel Co. (1967); America, 599, 37 Ill. 2d accord Vinson v. (1991); Corp., Allstate, see Oil Gulf 91 L. U.S. Ed. at 67 S. Ct. motion, On a the burden is on *18 private the defendant to show that relevant and “strongly interest factors favor” the defendant’s choice
189 disturbing plaintiffs choice. of forum to warrant Griffith International, Inc., v. Mitsubishi Aircraft “ (1990). plaintiffs initial instances, ‘In the most proper prevail, provided venue is choice of forum will to forum such do inconvenience factors attached right greatly outweigh substantial to not ” added.) (Emphasis try in forum.’ the case the chosen quoting Peile, Ill. 2d at Guerine, Ill. 2d at Although this is a difficult standard for defen 335-36. legitimate meet, “it transfers dants to does not foreclose litigation strongly in when of factors favors the balance added.) (Emphases Ill. Guerine, 198 another forum.” at 521. existing support case,
In
record
this
does
properly
claim
defendants’
that
trial court did not
apply
non
fac
consider or
the relevant
conveniens
produced
tors. Defendants have not
a
record of
verbatim
proceedings.
ruling
In
on a
non conveniens
analysis.
engage
motion, a court
must
in fact-sensitive
strongly
In
cautioned that trial courts
court
“give
careful
to
more
consideration forum
analyses”
a better record of their
so
motions”
“leave
reviewing
that
courts can make more informed decisions.
Implicit
Ill.
this court’s
Guerine, 2d at 520-21.
provide
litigants
the trial
admonition was directive that
by
supported
factors,
a record of
relevant
with
opposed
supposition
conjec
evidence,
facts and
as
support
opposition
ture,
of or
the Gridley v. State Farm Mutual
conveniens motion. See
App.
Co.,
Automobile Insurance
(2002),appeal allowed,
None defendants’ assert real any practical prob inconvenience to the defendants or militating against trying lems this case in Madison County.Accordingly,there was sufficient on the evidence ruling. relevant interests sustain the trial court’s See (1984) (if O’Bryant, Foutch v. 391-92 support record is insufficient to defendant’s claim er reviewing presume ror, then court must that the trial conformity legal court’s order inwas with established basis). principles and had a sufficient factual majority completely sidesteps Nevertheless, the court’s latest discussion of the barely ago year doctrine that occurred one in Guerine. In County Guerine, a Kane resident was killed in ac County. cident that occurred in De Kalb A lawsuit was County. filed Cook One of the defendants was a Cook County resident, and the other defendant resided in through County Indiana, but would have to drive Cook potential to trial in Kane De either or Kalb among witnesses were scattered several counties in the including state, same area of Kane and De Kalb although Counties, filed several witnesses affidavits stat ing they willing would be to travel to Cook nothing for trial. There in the was record to indicate that jury necessary. view of the accident site would be determining that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to transfer venue from noted that this court to De Kalb Cook significant the case and had ties counties both potential among several coun were scattered witnesses including plaintiffs Guerine, 198 ties, chosen forum. indistinguishable factually from Guerine. This case plaintiff’s did not occur cases, the accident In both plaintiff nor one of forum, neither chosen forum, and chosen some defendants resided plaintiff’s chosen the witnesses lived or worked case, like both Madison forum. In the instant significant case, ties to have *20 throughout potential the are scattered and witnesses only the area of counties in the state. The several same distinguishing factors these are that between cases Guer- County in Cook rather than Madison ine was filed County, happened and chosen forum in Guerine to of individual defendant rather be the residence corporate major- than the ity of the defendant. residence any distinguish provide does not reason to this case and between the residence of an individual defendant corporate that of a defendant. These minor differences justify alone do a different result here. frustrating acknowledged Guerine,
In “the this court litigation quagmire in the of Torres v. created wake (1983), applied Walsh, Ill. 2d 338 first 98 where we conveniens doctrine to intrastate transfers” noting and, that non conveniens law is Illinois clarify attempted clear,” to “less than this court Today’s Guerine, 2d at 526. deci doctrine. Ill. steps only does cast Not it sion takes two backward. validity applicability of Guerine to on the doubt complicates and confuses cases, future but it also further already clear.” an area the law that is “less than of adjoins Macoupin County, I Since Madison agree plaintiff for defendants with that it is incredulous argue by inconvenience plaintiff. chosen ‘“ adjoining involved,
When counties are “[t]he battle ’ ” over the forum results in a battle over minutiae.” Guerine, Ill. 519-20, Peile, quoting 163 Ill. 2d 335, quoting Peile, App. (Lewis, 3d at 522 J., specially concurring).
Macoupin County undoubtedly has interest deciding controversy a involving an accident oc- that curred within its Nonetheless, borders. Madison also legitimate has a interest deciding controversy involving residents, Pacific, one Union company operates facilities there employs numerous citizens of Madison County, including potential some wit- nesses. view,
Contrary
majority
transfer
by
is not required
the heavier court
docket
particularly when one
defendants
ais
resident of
See
taking
County’s
notice Madison
congested
docket,
court
the majority
Bland,
on
relies
trial abused its discretion the case non conveniens motion to transfer adjacent county unsupported by and the both the law record. foregoing respectfully reasons,
For the I dissent. (No. 93729. Appellee, COM
SISBRO, INC., v. THE INDUSTRIAL (George Rodriguez, Appellant). et MISSION al. May Rehearing denied Opinion filed 2003. September