Ex Parte Navistar, Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 February 2009
• Docket Number: 1071457.
• Parties: Ex parte NAVISTAR, INC., f/k/a International Truck and Engine Corporation, and Navistar International Corporation. (In re Brooklyn Price, administratrix of the estate of Edward M. Stewart, deceased v. International Truck and Engine Corporation and Navistar International Corporation).
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

17 So.3d 219 Ex parte NAVISTAR, INC., f/k/a International Truck and Engine Corporation, and Navistar International Corporation.
(In re Brooklyn Price, administratrix of the estate of Edward M. Stewart, deceased v. International Truck and Engine Corporation and Navistar International Corporation). 1071457. Supreme Court of Alabama. February 6, 2009.

[17 So.3d 220]

De Martenson and J. Patrick Strubel of Huie Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP, Birmingham, for petitioners.

Benjamin E. Baker, Jr., of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery; and L. Shane Seaborn of Penn & Seaborn, L.L.C., Clayton, for respondent.

STUART, Justice.

Navistar, Inc., f/k/a International Truck and Engine Corporation, and Navistar International Corporation (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Navistar"), defendants in an action pending in the Barbour Circuit Court, petition for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to transfer the action to the Colbert Circuit Court. We grant the petition and issue the writ.

Facts and Procedural Background

The underlying action arises out of a single-vehicle heavy-truck rollover accident in which Edward M. Stewart, a Georgia resident and the driver of the truck, was killed. The accident occurred in Colbert County. Brooklyn Price, Stewart's daughter and the administratrix of his estate, sued Navistar in the Barbour Circuit Court. According to the complaint, the truck Stewart was driving at the time of the accident was designed, engineered, manufactured, and marketed by Navistar. Price claims damages for Navistar's alleged negligence and wantonness and its alleged violation of the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine, asserting that the truck was not "crashworthy." Navistar moved to transfer the action to the Colbert Circuit Court on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. See § 6-3-21.1, Ala.Code 1975. The trial court denied Navistar's motion.

Standard of Review

"In Ex parte Kane, 989 So.2d 509, 511 (Ala.2008), we stated the standard of review in a similar setting as follows:

"`"The proper method for obtaining review of a denial of a motion for a change of venue in a civil action is to petition for the writ of mandamus." Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So.2d 788, 789 (Ala.1998). A writ of mandamus is appropriate when the petitioner can demonstrate "(1) a clear legal right to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the court." Ex parte BOC Group, Inc., 823 So.2d 1270, 1272 (Ala.2001). Additionally, this Court reviews mandamus petitions challenging a ruling on venue on the basis of forum non conveniens by asking whether the trial court exceeded its discretion. Ex parte Fuller, 955 So.2d 414 (Ala.2006); Ex parte Verbena United Methodist Church, 953 So.2d 395 (Ala.2006). Our review is limited to only those facts that were before the trial court. Ex parte Pike

17 So.3d 221

Fabrication, Inc., 859 So.2d 1089, 1091 (Ala.2002).'"

Ex parte Bama Concrete, 8 So.3d 295, 296 (Ala.2008).

Analysis

Navistar, among other arguments, contends that the trial court exceeded the scope of its discretion in denying Navistar's motion to transfer, which was based on the "interest of justice" prong of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, because, it says, Colbert County has a connection to this action and Barbour County has little or no connection other than that an unrelated purchaser of Navistar trucks of the same model is located in Barbour County.¹

In Ex parte McKenzie Oil Co., 13 So.3d 346, 348 (Ala.2008), this Court set forth the applicable law, stating:

"Alabama Code 1975, § 6-3-21.1, Alabama's forum non conveniens statute, provides when an action must be transferred under the doctrine of forum non conveniens:

"`With respect to civil actions filed in an appropriate venue, any court of general jurisdiction shall, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, or in the interest of justice, transfer any civil action or any claim in any civil action to any court of general jurisdiction in which the action might have been properly filed and the case shall proceed as though originally filed therein....'

"Ala.Code 1975, § 6-3-21.1(a).

"A party moving for a transfer under § 6-3-21.1 has the initial burden of showing, among other things, that the transfer is justified based either on the convenience of the parties and witnesses or in the `interest of justice.' Ex parte Masonite Corp., 789 So.2d 830, 831 (Ala. 2001); Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So.2d 788, 789 (Ala.1998). ...

"......