Plaintiffs commenced this action in the Wayne Circuit Court against defendant Jason’s Lounge, a foreign corрoration located in Windsor, Ontario, seeking damages for injuries allegedly suffered by plaintiffs as a result of being assaulted and battered by defendant’s employees on defendant’s premises. In lieu of filing an answer, defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(1), asserting alternative grounds: (1) lack of personal jurisdiсtion, or (2) the doctrine of forum non conveniens required dismissal of the case. After a hearing on the mоtion, the court held that it had personal jurisdiction over defendant but that Canada was a more appropriate forum to try the case. Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary disposition was granted on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. It is from that ruling that plaintiffs bring this appeal of right. We аffirm.
*134
The doctrine of forum non conveniens establishes the right of a court to resist imposition upon its jurisdictiоn even though such could properly be invoked. It was first recognized as a viable doctrine in this state by our Supreme Court in
Cray v General Motors Corp,
A balancing out and weighing of factors to be considered in rejeсting or accepting jurisdiction in such cases should include:
1. The private interest of the litigant.
a. Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses;
b. Ease of access to sources of proof;
c. Distance from the situs оf the accident or incident which gave rise to the litigation;
d. Enforceability of any judgment obtained;
e. Possible harassment of either party;
f. Other practical problems which cоntribute to the ease, expense and expedition of the trial;
g. Possibility of viewing the premises.
2. Matters of public interest.
a. Administrative difficulties which may arise in аn area which may not be present in the area of origin;
b. Consideration of the state law which must govеrn the case;
c. People who are concerned by the proceeding.
3. Reasonable promptness in raising the plea of forum non conveniens. [Id., pp 395-396.]
In deciding whether to apply the doctrine, the
Cray
Court further directed trial courts "to consider the plaintiffs choice of forum and to weigh carefully the relative advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction and the ease of and obstаcles
*135
to a fair trial in this state.”
Id.,
p 396. Ordinarily, a plaintiffs selection of a forum is accorded deference.
Anderson v Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co,
The decisiоn on whether to decline jurisdiction is in the discretion of the trial court. Such decision will not be overturned оn appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
Cray, supra,
pp 395-397;
Jemaa v MacGregor Athletic Products,
The alleged tortious conduct occurred in Canada. Also, many of the res gestae witnesses — particularly defendant’s employees and the attending mеdical personnel — are presumably Canadian residents and, thus, may be beyond the subpoena power of Michigan courts. See MCR 2.506(G)(1). This would undoubtedly increase the costs of litigation. "Considering such costs and thе likelihood that the attendance of some witnesses could not be procured, the defendant mаy be forced to conduct, a trial by depositions, if even that is possible.”
Anderson, supra,
p 630. Moreover, both this Court and our Supreme Court have taken judicial notice of the fact that the Wayne Circuit Court, where this action was filed, has the most crowded civil docket of any court in the state.
Id.,
p 631;
Duyck
*136
v International Playtex,
Inc,
144
Mich App
595,
601;
We do not suggest that the judges of that circuit use their backlogs, standing alone, as justification for dismissal of any litigation with a foreign tinge. Nevеrtheless, where a plaintiff’s interest in a forum is slight, the plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to less weight. [Id., p 134.]
Plaintiffs’ adamancy that the Wayne Circuit Court retain jurisdiction over the matter seems to stem from the fact that Canаda apparently has a law which places a $100,000 ceiling on recovery of mental anguish damages in a personal injury suit. If true, this would of course increase this state’s interest (i.e., full compensation of its injured residents) in having the case decided by a Michigan court. But, the converse is equally true: Canada wоuld have an increased interest in seeing that its residents are not subjected to exorbitant foreign damage awards. The Canadian damage limitation law is probably designed, at least in’ part, to protect its citizens from exactly this sort of litigation. Defendant would have cause to complain if damages were not assessed in accordance with the law of its domicile. See
Olmstead v Anderson,
Moreover, our review of the circumstances of this case convinces us that the doctrine of lex loci delicti mandates application of Canadian law because such would promote certainty, predictability of results, ease of application, and would prevent forum shopping. Id., p 24. Therefore, since plaintiffs would be bound by Canadian law regardless of the forum in which the trial was conducted, their interests in having the case tried here is even less. *137 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to decline jurisdiction on the basis that the balancing of interests favors a Canadian forum.
Affirmed.