Houston v. Caldwell

Decision Date25 May 1978
Docket NumberNo. 51794,51794
CourtFlorida Supreme Court
PartiesGeorge Robert HOUSTON, Petitioner, v. James R. CALDWELL et al., Respondents.

Colson & Hicks, P. A., and Susan Goldman, Miami, for petitioner.

Marjorie D. Gadarian, of Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for respondents.

Robert Orseck, of Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Miami, for The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.

R. J. Beckham, of Beckham, McAliley & Proenza, Jacksonville, for United Transp. Union.

DuBose Ausley and William M. Smith, of Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor, Tallahassee, for the Florida R. R. Ass'n, amici curiae.

HATCHETT, Justice.

Where one of the parties to a lawsuit is a resident of Florida, does a trial court have the discretion to dismiss the action by applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens? The Fourth District Court of Appeal, in its decision reported at 347 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), answered this question in the affirmative. That holding gives us jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (1968), because it conflicts with a long line of Florida cases which restrict the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens to cases in which both parties to an action are nonresidents and in which the cause of action arose outside of Florida. 1 We are in agreement with these prior decisions, and answer the question in the negative.

Petitioner, Houston, a resident of North Carolina, and respondent, Caldwell, 2 a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, were involved in an automobile collision in North Carolina resulting in injuries to petitioner. Petitioner filed suit in Palm Beach County seeking damages for the injuries arising out of the North Carolina accident. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or Abate on the ground that the action should have been brought in North Carolina since that state is the place where the cause of action arose and where the witnesses to the accident reside. Respondent further alleged that the trial of this suit in Palm Beach County would result in undue hardship and injustice to him. The trial court ordered the action dismissed without prejudice to petitioner's right to refile this suit in a more convenient forum. The district court held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens may be applied even though one of the parties is a resident of Florida. The district court reasoned that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is based upon equitable considerations and that the trial court should evaluate all the various factors involved in a case to determine the appropriateness of applying the doctrine. The district court stated that the threshold requirements for the applicability of the doctrine should be: (1) the cause of action arose outside of the jurisdiction of the forum state, and (2) that the defendant is amenable to process in the forum in which the cause of action arose. Since, however, the respondents and the trial court failed to establish in the record that the respondent Caldwell was in fact amenable to process in North Carolina, the case was remanded to the trial court with directions to make appropriate findings of fact on that issue.

Adams v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co., 224 So.2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), analyses the various Florida decisions applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens and clearly sets forth the applicable rule of law:

(T)he recognized law of this state (is) that if a transitory action is filed in a court of Florida between nonresident parties seeking to litigate a cause of action accruing in a foreign jurisdiction, the trial court is accorded a sound discretion in determining whether it should retain jurisdiction of the action, or dismiss it without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to reinstitute the action in a more appropriate and convenient forum. In the exercise of such discretion, the trial court may consider whether the filing of the action constitutes forum shopping on the part of plaintiff; whether it constitutes undue harassment of the defendant by requiring him to litigate the action in a forum remote from where it accrued or where the defendant resides or maintains a place of business; and, whether the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, requires the action to be litigated in a different forum. In the ultimate, however, it is seen that the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is restricted to the limited category of cases in which both parties to the action are nonresidents, and the cause of action sued upon arose in a jurisdiction outside of Florida. It is only after these two factors emerge and coalesce and that the trial court is authorized to proceed to a determination of whether the criteria necessary to bring into play the doctrine of forum non conveniens have been met. 224 So.2d at 800-801.

The district court in the present case stated that the nonresidency of the parties should not be an essential prerequisite to the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, but rather, it should be merely another factor considered when evaluating the appropriateness of a motion to dismiss in favor of a more convenient forum. The district court reasoned that the rule of law set forth in Adams restricted the flexibility of this doctrine and made the considerations of justice, fairness, and convenience subservient to the single factor of the residency of the parties. The Fourth District noted that the New York courts have developed an approach more sensible than that established by prior cases in this state. In Silver v. Great...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • Dow Chemical Co. v. Castro Alfaro
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 28 Marzo 1990
    ...Technologies Corp., 40 Conn.Supp. 457, 515 A.2d 390 (1986); State Marine Lines v. Domingo, 269 A.2d 223 (Del.1970); Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So.2d 858 (Fla.1978); Allen v. Allen, 64 Haw. 553, 645 P.2d 300 (1982); Jones v. Searles Laboratories, 93 Ill.2d 366, 67 Ill.Dec. 118, 444 N.E.2d 157 ......
  • Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 10 Febrero 1988
    ...Associates, Ltd. (Del.Super.1976), 360 A.2d 160; Mills v. Aetna Fire Underwriters Ins. Co. (D.C.App.1986), 511 A.2d 8; Houston v. Caldwell (Fla.1978), 359 So.2d 858; Harbrecht v. Harrison (1948), 38 Haw. 206; Jones v. Searle Laboratories (1982), 93 Ill.2d 366, 67 Ill.Dec. 118, 444 N.E.2d 15......
  • Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Oy Wartsila AB
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 19 Octubre 1993
    ...non conveniens as a matter of common law is Florida"), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 890, 101 S.Ct. 248, 66 L.Ed.2d 116 (1980); Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So.2d 858 (Fla.1978); Nat. Aircraft Serv., Inc. v. New York Airlines, Inc., 489 So.2d 38, 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). In this Circuit, "the forum non......
  • Esfeld v. Costa Crociere, S.P.A., No. 01-11072.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 30 Abril 2002
    ...been adopted by Florida, and the Florida Supreme Court has broadened the scope of its application over time. Compare Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So.2d 858, 861 (Fla. 1978) (holding that Florida's forum non conveniens doctrine does not apply in suits where either party is a Florida resident), w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The misinterpretation of the dismissal for failure to prosecute rule.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 75 No. 9, October 2001
    • 1 Octubre 2001
    ...(Fla. Oct. 26, 2000) (reiterating "the policy of allowing cases to be decided on the merits whenever possible"); Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1978) ("The dismissal of a suit is a drastic remedy which should be ordered only under the most compelling circumstances"). According to......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT