PRUITT TOOL & SUPPLY COMPANY v. WindhamPRUITT TOOL & SUPPLY COMPANY v. Windham
This is an original application seeking from this court a writ of mandamus against the Judge оf the District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District commanding that court to dismiss cause No. 18,100, stylеd Mary Catherine Williams v. Pruitt Tool & Supply Co., under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
The facts revealed by the record are that said action is one for the recovery of damages for personal injuries growing out of an automobile collision. The undisputed evidence discloses that the case was filed December 28, 1961, in the District Court of LeFlore County, Oklahoma; that the plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of Arkansas, living at Ft. Smith; that the defendant is аn Arkansas corporation with its principal place of business at Ft. Smith, Arkansas; thаt the accident which occasioned the suit occurred in Logan County, Arkansаs; that the highway patrolman, a witness in the case, is stationed at Paris, Arkansas; that thе driver and occupant of the vehicle involved in the col-
As opposed to the above, the respondent asserts there are two witnesses in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. The remaining witnesses mentioned by respondent, one in Lawton and one in Texas, would not be subject to process in either jurisdiction, Le-Flore County, Oklahoma, or Arkansas.
It is frankly stated by respondent that: “Naturally, plaintiff and her attorneys made this selectiоn because they felt this would be the most advantageous jurisdiction for the presentation of plaintiff’s case.” While we appreciate such candor, it furnishes no legal reason for sustaining respondent’s position. In the case of St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company v. Superior Court, Creek County, Okl.,
“ * * * Tf^ motivating reason fоr selecting Oklahoma rather than Missouri for the institution of this action was apparently the expectation of receiving a substantially higher verdict. As said by the Suprеme Court of New Jersey, ‘decent judicial administration could not tolerate thаt as a persuasive or even legitimate reason for burdening- * * * communities with litigious controversies which arose elsewhere and should in all justice be tried there.’ Gore v. United States Steel Corp., supra [15 N.J. 301 ,104 A.2d 670 ], In Tuck v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C.E.D. Pa.,122 F.Supp. 527 , 529, the court in dealing with such question said:
“ ‘Plaintiff has countered merely with the suggestion оf the possibility of a higher verdict in the present forum. In this connection, we cannot assume that juries in Trenton are any different than those in Philadelphia, or would be lеss likely to fairly and honestly appraise the life of this young man as to what it meant tо his young widow and infant child, and more than that plaintiff cannot ask.’ ”
In addition to the faсts outlined above, the record reveals an estimated additional cost оf $2,000 to $2,500 in the defense of the cause to say nothing of the expense cast uрon the State of Oklahoma in the disposition of a cause rightly triable in Arkansas.
Wе find no substantial difference between the case at bar and the Creek County сase cited, supra. The facts therein, if anything, were stronger in favor of the respondent than here. There, the plaintiff had moved to Oklahoma after the aсcident, and the court in the first paragraph of the syllabus said:
“Where action was commenced by Missouri resident in Oklahoma for injuries resulting from accident on Missouri рremises of defendant Missouri corporation, and all witnesses are residents оf Missouri and cost to defendant of defending action in Oklahoma would greatly exсeed cost of defending same action in Missouri, action should be dismissed under rule of forum non con-veniens in absence of any valid and proper reason for having chosen this state as the forum for such action.”
Upon the authority of such case the writ of mandamus is granted, and the respondent district judge is ordered and directed to dismiss cause No. 18,100 without prejudice.