*1 MINTON, JR., HARRISON Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HELENA MARINE SER- INC.,

VICE, Defendant-Appellant. Fifth District No. 5 — 85—0037 July 1, 1986. Rehearing 28, 1986. Opinion July filed denied JONES, J., dissenting.

Raymond Massey Mitchell, L. Bay, Thompson R. both of & William Belleville, Gault, Tindall, Thackston, Spivey Hunger E. Lake & Greenville, Mississippi, appellant. for P.C., Lakin, Herndon, Alton,

L. appel- Thomas Lakin & of East for lee. opinion

JUSTICE HARRISON delivered the of the court: Plaintiff, Minton, Jr., a Harrison in the circuit complaint court of Madison pursuant the Merchant Seamen Act, commonly (West called the Jones Act sec. 688 (46 U.S.C.A. 1975)), Defendant, the general maritime law of the United States. Service, Helena Marine filed motion decline as to ei- conveniens. ther all part complaint for granted petition motion denied. This Court Rule Ill. 2d R. Supreme 306(a)(l)(ii) leave to under appeal We affirm. 306(a)(l)(ii)). filed a four-count complaint

Plaintiff which damages injuries seeking personal court on April was em- accidents while separate occurred allegedly I and II allege defendant. Counts ployed by Tince Hendrix on the River in a fall on the motor vessel 1980. No further details as to location on or about October this ac- alleges defendant’s answer complaint. stated *2 III cident, occurred, allege if occurred in Louisiana. Counts and IV it Rosemarie in a fall on the motor vessel that Illinois, on or Quincy, River at or near Waldon on August about 1981. in Arkansas. on defendant Pulaski

Summons was served that Illinois was not complaint Defendant’s to the asseverated answer motion to for the case. Defendant then filed a a convenient forum to those counts I II and decline as based jurisdiction sever counts and filed an amended subsequently conveniens. Defendant upon non forum counts, or, all four the court to decline over asking jurisdiction motion alternative, I and II and decline as to sever counts motion the affidavit counts. the amended Supporting to those two that of Helena Marine Service. The affidavit asserted of the president Elizabethtown, that Kentucky, times a at all resident plaintiff was Rock, Arkansas, is in Little place business principal all records per- no in and that that defendant does business Helena, Arkansas. The kept to are at taining plaintiff’s employment there are crew members who would be affidavit also stated that seven II, in counts I and alleged witnesses to the accident potential employed by of them are still Only all reside in Arkansas. seven potential wit- defendant. There are six crew members who would IV, in III and and two of them alleged to the accident counts nesses Arkansas, reside one in one in one in Ten- Mississippi, Kentucky, nessee, one in Iowa. one of these six witnesses still Only works plaintiff sought for The affidavit further asserts that medi- defendant. Elizabethtown, Ken- cal care after both incidents from a doctor filed no affidavits or other documents to tucky. deny Plaintiff additional alleged allege facts defendant’s affidavit to facts. The circuit court denied defendant’s amended motion to decline jurisdiction.

Defendant on that the court erred in argues appeal denying motion because the State or Federal courts of Arkansas or perhaps than Illi- for case plaintiff’s be more convenient Kentucky would fora intrastate upon based has not filed a motion nois. Defendant conveniently cannot be claims the action conveniens, but rather non with an interstate thus are faced in Illinois. We heard fo-

493 rum question. non conveniens reviewing

In a to court’s decision a motion decline jurisdic tion conveniens, we are to limited a determina tion of whether the abused its discretion. (Brummett Wepfer Marine, 495, 503-04, 694, 699.) It N.E.2d is not our function determine whether the trial exercised his judge only discretion but whether that discretion has been wisely, abused. . 2d 699 Numerous factors interests involving private must be considered comparing when the relative convenience competing (Brummett Ill. (1986), 111 fora. 694, 696.) Defendant following which points it contends indicate Illinois is not convenient forum: defendant’s Arkansas; principal place employment of business is in rec plaintiff’s Arkansas; ords are in many of the occurrence live in Arkan witnesses subject Illinois; sas process not re compulsory sides in there; he medical received treatment circuit court docket has a Defendant backlog. cites these factors claim the State or Federal courts of Arkansas or per haps Kentucky are more convenient action. How fora ever, two of the counts occurred in Illinois. *3 Brummett, opinion court’s recent in supreme announced case, after oral in argument addressed circumstances present very There, similar to those in a Jones Act both the presented here. plaintiff Tennessee, defendant were residents defendant had no in place business of the nine members at the eight crew time of the accident were the ninth residents Tennessee and was a Florida, resident of plaintiff’s were in employment records Ten nessee. in the plaintiff accident which was oc injured curred in Illinois. The supreme Piper court noted that in v. Aircraft Reyno 235, (1981), 419, 436, 454 U.S. 70 L. Ed. 2d 102 S. Ct. 252, 266, the States Supreme United Court declared that when the chooses his home is plaintiff forum it reasonable to assume that the chosen forum is convenient. Our court then held: supreme

“The choice of forum should entitled to no plaintiff’s less deference when in a tort he choses the of the action situs injury *** rather than the forum of residence. his The fac- [Citation.] tual as great, greater, connection forum is perhaps when chooses the forum where an accident occurred as plaintiff Moreover, when his place he chooses of residence. Illinois has an in protecting interest within the persons property State conditions; from practices unsafe the State should there- in no matter where persons, they fore a forum which provide in Illinois.” reside, seek suffered compensation injuries can Marine, 495, 111 Ill. 2d 499- (Brummett Wepfer 500, 694, 697.) 490 N.E.2d factor when it stated:

The court focused further element of fairness in clearly overriding “There is an essential in the choice an of the forum which condoning injured party also makes for and effective injury was suffered. It sensible administration for a claim to be in the forum judicial pursued it arose. files his claim at the situs of where Where forum, the plain his there is a clear nexus with the (111 Ill. 2d charged shopping.” tiff cannot be with forum 694, 697.) 490 N.E.2d Brummett, in we find that choice of Applying holding plaintiff’s great Illinois as the forum for his case is entitled to deference due in Illinois. allege plaintiff injured the fact two of the counts Brummett, find, that defend supreme also as did the court We on the docket of the Madison regarding backlog ant’s argument court is The fact unpersuasive. of the controversy the State an interest the outcome gives Illinois interest in a less court sufficient to overcome 111 Ill. 2d docket. Brummett (See reluctant to 694, 698.) extremely “Courts should be forum’s because that gestae merely dismiss a case from the rei weight no and this factor is entitled almost backlog; docket has a that the calendar in another without evidence show more dispute expeditiously.” would resolve no evi 698.) presented The defendant Brummett in the alterna the condition of the dockets of courts dence as to rejected defendant’s forum, supreme consequently tive Likewise, of Madison backlog the trial argument upon based presented in the cause sub has no evidence judice defendant courts of Arkansas or the dockets of the State or Federal condition of backlog the trial his reject argument and we Madison County. Illinois not a forum because proper

Defendant also argues em- Arkansas, along of business is principal place *4 occurrence fact many records. It also to the ployment points compulsory not subject in Arkansas and would be witnesses live fa- strongly not make the balance in Illinois. These factors do process in two alleged the defendant, light injury of the fact especially vor (See Brummett v. occurred Illinois. of the counts 495, 504-05, Further 699.) more, different the occurrence in a total of five witnesses reside States, held, who are meaning the trial is there will be some wherever not the occur subject compulsory process. further note some of We rence witnesses still for defendant. an accident occurs on work When moving rivers, vessel and down we that the con up presume cannot any sideration travel these one fo of occurrence witnesses favors rum In 699.) over addi another. tion, as does his plaintiff treating physician. resides These all that will single facts lead to the conclusion there is no forum be strongly convenient to all and witnesses. The must parties favor defendant of will defeated. before choice forum Textron, See Meyers Bridgeport Machines Division of 113 Ill. 2d 112. reasons,

For we abuse its these conclude trial court did not discretion in denying defendant’s motion to decline injury alleged conveniens. The counts III and IV occurred in Illinois. defendant claims While II, counts I if Louisiana, and occurred in it does not contend the any, cause Therefore, should be heard in because has Louisiana. chosen as Illinois the forum for his of the conven- because ience of all together, four counts we find no abuse of discretion trying denial the forum motion in entirety. reasons,

For foregoing of Madi- order son denying non conveniens motion af- firmed, cause is remanded further proceedings.

Affirmed remanded.

WELCH, J., concurs.

JUSTICE dissenting: JONES I respectfully dissent. case, facts, No aspect slight- witnesses or has the parties, est Yet, with connection the trial court the ma- County. jority it be tried there Sanction is permitting notwithstanding. granted thus further and continued taxpayers abuse County. residents of Madison has

This case no connection of kind In with Madison fact, all parties Despite and all witnesses are nonresidents of Illinois. this void of interest connection, or has this case most, most, county certainly Illinois one of *5 496 It not be made that requirement

court dockets State. should present relating congestion defendant evidence of courts of case; other that constitute it is proper States would forums sufficient that we that circuit court of Madison is County know practically County overrun with cases. The citizens of Madison will be attending for the money pay expenses furnish the tax required trial, courtroom, bailiffs, jurors, reporters to furnish court Not judges. County the least of the burdens be borne Madison trials, effect, will displace citizens is the fact that this litigation County trials and of Madison resi- dispositions involving v. Chesapeake dents. As the court & supreme stated Satkowiak 370, Ry. 224, 106 Ill. 2d 478 N.E.2d 373: (1985), Ohio Co. “The interest noted include administra- Gilbert tive by concentrating litigation difficulties caused centers, imposition of of a commu- jury duty citizens litigation, difficulties in informa- nity providing unrelated to the far tion when a case tried from persons to all interested interested, those ***. who are

[***] *** This continuing glut of cases in certain Illinois counties burdening these counties is a factor we must consider before Chicago litigation. (Moore with additional nonresident v. & 73, 99 (1983), 81; Co. Ill. 2d Transportation North Western 359, 373; 98 (1983), Wieser v. Missouri R.R. Co. Ill. 2d Pacific 366, 375; (1982), 93 Ill. 2d Espi- Jones v. Searle Laboratories 111, (1981), 86 2d Ry. nosa v. Western Co. Ill. 122- & Norfolk 23).” the residents and placed upon taxpayers

Aside from the burdens trial that defend decision of the denied County, of Madison to the decisions contrary ant’s motion to decline Transporta v. & North Western Chicago our Foster supreme 378, 198, Chicago & 102 Ill. 2d 466 N.E.2d Moore (1984), tion Co. 73, 457 N.E.2d (1983), Co. 99 Transportation North Western 359, 98 Ill. 2d 456 417, (1983), R.R. Co. Wieser v. Missouri Pacific Ill. 86 98, Ry. (1981), & Western Co. Espinosa N.E.2d Norfolk 111, 2d 427 111. N.E.2d dimension consider- This assumes a somewhat different case complaint. of plaintiff’s III and allegations ation counts IV 13, 1981, while work- injured August There he that he was on alleges on aboard the motor vessel Rosemarie Waldon ing truth that Assuming charge, Illinois. at or near Quincy, River done, the takes intrastate trappings case as must be

497 Although conveniens. arguably would have been justified in filing his suit in Adams at least as to III (see counts and IV Brummett v. Wepfer 495, (1986), 2d 490 N.E.2d 694), he did not choose to file it there. Even so the cases of Torres v. Walsh (1983), 338, 601, 98 Ill. 2d 456 N.E.2d Satkowiak v. & Chesapeake Ohio Ry. 370, Co. 106 Ill. 2d Boston v. Rockford Memorial 140 Hospital (1986), App. Ill. 3d Walker v. Iowa Marine Repair Ill. Corp. App.

N.E.2d would require this case transferred to Adams County for trial. That far county has a less crowded docket than has would be no less convenient to than Madi son County. *6 Marine, Inc., despite fact that Brummett Wepfer

would arguably granting be followed a transfer of the case to Adams the fact being remains that aside from the situs of accident, County Adams has no more parties contacts than witnesses has Madison compel defendant still cannot (save attendance the occurrence witnesses the 3 of 13 still employed by it) addition, or the medical witness. In the distance from Rock, Arkansas, Little Elizabethtown, greater are even Adams County than to Madison County. Adams is an inconven- ient and improper forum.

QUINCY al., Petitioners, v. THE COUNTRY CLUB et HUMAN RIGHTS al., Respondents.

COMMISSION et Fourth District No. 4 — 86—0044 27, 1986. Opinion September 24, 1986. Rehearing denied October