Blake v. Colfax Corp.

• Decision Date: 21 June 2013
• Docket Number: Docket No. 1–12–2987.
• Citation: 2013 IL App (1st) 122987,993 N.E.2d 930,373 Ill.Dec. 371
• Parties: Mendy BLAKE and Charles Blake, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. COLFAX CORPORATION, a Corporation, and Edward Warren, Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2013 IL App (1st) 122987

993 N.E.2d 930

373 Ill.Dec. 371

Mendy BLAKE and Charles Blake, Plaintiffs–Appellees,

v.COLFAX CORPORATION, a Corporation, and Edward Warren, Defendants–Appellants.

Docket No. 1–12–2987.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division.

June 21, 2013.

Hunt Law Group, LLC, of Chicago (Brian J. Hunt and Lindsay A. Watson, of counsel) for appellants.

Corboy & Demetrio, of Chicago (Daniel S. Kirschner, of counsel) for appellees.

OPINION

Presiding Justice LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

[373 Ill.Dec. 373]¶ 1 In this negligence action that arose from a vehicle collision, defendants moved to transfer the suit, which was filed in Cook County, to either Will or Du Page County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The circuit court denied defendants' motion, and this court granted defendants' petition for interlocutory appeal. On appeal, defendants contend that the total circumstances of this case strongly favored a transfer to Will County. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Plaintiff Mendy Blake was driving her vehicle on February 9, 2010, and was injured when a van owned by defendant Colfax Corporation and driven by its employee, defendant Edward Warren, crossed the center line and crashed into plaintiff's oncoming car. According to the traffic crash report, the collision occurred in Will County on Genoa Road around the intersection of Wheeler Road in Plainfield, Illinois. This location is near the border between Will and Kendall Counties. According to defendants' discovery responses, Warren was driving from his home in Kendall County to a job located in Du Page County when the collision occurred. Defendants claimed that Warren normally kept the van at his home.

¶ 4 Mrs. Blake and her husband, plaintiff Charles Blake, resided in Plainfield, Will County. Mr. Blake, however, submitted an affidavit stating that he worked at 222 Merchandise Mart Plaza in Chicago, and a transfer from Cook County to either Will or Du Page County would cause substantial inconvenience, impede his ability to perform work before and after each trial day, and greatly impede his ability to meet with his attorneys and prepare in the days leading up to trial.

¶ 5 The office and headquarters of Colfax Corporation, which was engaged in the business of lead abatement and asbestos removal, were located at 2441 North Leavitt Street, Chicago, Cook County. Although defendant Warren resided in Plainfield, Kendall County, he stated that the Leavitt Street, Cook County address was his work address.

¶ 6 The only nonparty eyewitness to the accident, Branden Adkins, resided in Plainfield, Kendall County. Adkins, however, submitted an affidavit stating that he was willing and able to testify in Cook County.

¶ 7 The Will County sheriff's department responded to the scene of the accident. Emergency medical services were provided by the Plainfield fire department, which was located in Will County. Emergency personnel transferred Mrs. Blake from the accident site to Provena St. Joseph Medical Center in Will County. She subsequently underwent surgery to repair her right femur fracture at that medical center, and the surgery was performed by a doctor whose office was located in Will County. Mrs. Blake's postoccurrence medical treatment was provided predominantly in Will and Du Page Counties. Defendants' van, which had caught on fire at the scene of the collision, was stored in Cook County and was subject to an order of protection by the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 8 Plaintiffs filed suit in Cook County against defendants, alleging a negligence claim based on Warren's operation of the van and a loss of consortium claim on behalf of Mr. Blake. Defendants moved the court to transfer this matter from Cook County to either Will or Du Page County pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Thereafter, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add allegations of negligence against defendants based on their failure to equip and maintain the van with safe and proper tires and adequate brakes.

¶ 9 After hearing argument on the motion, the trial court denied defendants' forum non conveniens motion. The trial court reviewed the private and public interest factors and found that defendants had failed to meet their burden to show that a transfer of the trial to either Will or Du Page County would be more convenient and better serve the ends of justice. Concerning the private interest factors, the trial court found that the convenience of the parties favored maintaining the action in Cook County because plaintiffs had chosen that forum, defendant Colfax Corporation's principal place of business was on the near northwest side of Chicago, and Mr. Blake worked at the Merchandise Mart and had submitted an affidavit stating that the Daley Center in Cook County was substantially more convenient for him. The court also found that practical considerations slightly favored Cook County because the Daley Center was in close proximity to the law offices of counsel for both sides. The court concluded that the remaining private interest factors were neutral.

¶ 10 Concerning the public interest factors, the court found that the interest in deciding local controversies locally favored Will County because the accident occurred there. Because plaintiffs resided in Will County, the trial expense and jury duty burden factors slightly favored Will County; nevertheless, Cook County also had an interest in this case because defendant Colfax Corporation was a Cook County resident and regularly used Cook County roads in conducting its business. Finally, court statistics indicated that it took slightly less time—about two or three months—for a case to go to trial in Cook County rather than in Will County.

¶ 11 Defendants timely filed a petition for leave to appeal the trial court's order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306 (eff. Feb. 16, 2011), and this court granted that petition.

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 On appeal, defendants argue that the circuit court's denial of their motion to transfer constitutes an abuse of discretion because the convenience to the parties favored Will County where the collision occurred and the plaintiffs resided. Defendants also argue that the witnesses to the occurrence resided in either Will or Kendall County, and the personnel of the fire department and sheriff's office who responded to the emergency and the medical professionals who treated Mrs. Blake worked in either Will or Du Page County. Defendants assert that the medical witnesses and busy professionals would have difficulty testifying in downtown Chicago because of the extra distance they would travel and the extra time and expense they would incur. Furthermore, defendants claim that a “viewing of the site may be required for the jurors in this case to understand the circumstances of the accident.” In addition, defendants argue that Colfax Corporation had merely a “tenuous presence” in Cook County, Cook County jurors should not be burdened with this litigation, and more jury cases were pending in Cook County in 2010 than in Will County.

¶ 14 The determination of a forum non conveniens motion lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and is not subject to reversal on appeal unless no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill.2d 167, 176–77, 278 Ill.Dec. 92, 797 N.E.2d 687 (2003). We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying defendants' motion.

¶ 15 The doctrine of forum non conveniens “ ‘was designed to give the courts “discretionary power which should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances when it has been shown that the interests of justice require a trial in a more convenient forum.” ’ ” (Emphasis in original.) First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill.2d 511, 520, 261 Ill.Dec. 763, 764 N.E.2d 54 (2002) (quoting Peile v. Skelgas, Inc., 163 Ill.2d 323, 335, 206 Ill.Dec. 179, 645 N.E.2d 184 (1994), quoting Torres v. Walsh, 98 Ill.2d 338, 346, 74 Ill.Dec. 880, 456 N.E.2d 601 (1983)). See also Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill.2d 306, 310, 162 Ill.Dec. 43, 579 N.E.2d 857 (1991) (a trial court may decline jurisdiction of a case when it is apparent that trial in another forum with proper jurisdiction and venue “would be more convenient and would better serve the ends of justice”). On a forum non conveniens motion, the defendant has the burden to show that relevant private interest factors affecting the litigants and public interest factors affecting court administration “strongly favor” the defendant's choice of forum to warrant disturbing the plaintiff's choice. Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill.2d 430, 444, 302 Ill.Dec. 363, 848 N.E.2d 927 (2006); Griffith v. Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc., 136 Ill.2d 101, 107, 143 Ill.Dec. 274, 554 N.E.2d 209 (1990). Each case must be considered as unique on its facts, and a court must consider all relevant criteria without emphasizing any one factor. Glass v. DOT Transportation, Inc., 393 Ill.App.3d 829, 832, 332 Ill.Dec. 275, 912 N.E.2d 762 (2009).

¶ 16 “Private interest factors include the convenience of the parties; the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real evidence; the availability of compulsory process to secure attendance of unwilling witnesses; the cost to obtain attendance of willing witnesses; the possibility of viewing the premises, if appropriate; and all other practical considerations that make a trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.” Dawdy, 207 Ill.2d at 172, 278 Ill.Dec. 92, 797 N.E.2d 687. Public interest factors include “the administrative difficulties caused when litigation is handled in congested venues instead of being handled at its origin; the unfairness of imposing jury duty upon residents of a county with no connection to the litigation; and the interest in...