Hansen-Runge v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1-19-0383,1-19-0383
• Citation: Hansen-Runge v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 2020 IL App (1st) 190383, 178 N.E.3d 718, 449 Ill.Dec. 111 (Ill. App. 2020)
• Parties: Amber HANSEN-RUNGE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Alfred Hansen, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

2020 IL App (1st) 190383

178 N.E.3d 718

449 Ill.Dec. 111

Amber HANSEN-RUNGE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Alfred Hansen, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-19-0383

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SIXTH DIVISION.

October 16, 2020

Kevin M. Forde and Joanne R. Driscoll, of Forde Law Offices LLP, and Colleen Konicek and Elizabeth O. Bryant, of Fletcher & Sippel LLC, both of Chicago, and Thomas R. Peters and Marl R. Kurz, of Boyle Brasher LLC, of Belleville, for appellant.

Paul J. Napoli, Timothy P. Hulla, and Wilson D. Sikes, of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, of Edwardsville, for appellee.

JUSTICE GRIFFIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 This appeal calls for us to review the circuit court's decision on a motion to dismiss based on an interstate application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens . Defendant brought the motion, arguing that the now-deceased plaintiff's home county of Black Hawk County, Iowa was the most appropriate forum for this dispute as opposed to Cook County, Illinois where the plaintiff filed the case. The trial court denied the motion. We conclude that a consideration of the relevant public and private interest factors demonstrates that the alternative, out of state forum is strongly favored and, accordingly, we reverse.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Plaintiff Alfred Hansen ("Hansen") brought this case against his former employer, defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company. After the case was filed, Mr. Hansen passed away. Amber Hansen-Runge ("plaintiff") was appointed as Mr. Hansen's personal representative and now serves as the plaintiff in this case.

¶ 4 Hansen brought this case seeking damages for personal injury arising out of his employment. Hansen alleged in his complaint that, while he was employed as an electrician by Illinois Central, he was exposed to harmful chemicals and other toxins that caused him to develop a myelodysplastic syndrome. Plaintiff's complaint contains claims under the Federal Employers Liability Act ( 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. (West 2018)), the Locomotive Inspection Act ( 49 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq. (West 2018)), and the Safety Appliance Act ( 49 U.S.C. § 20301 et seq. (West 2018)). Plaintiff's claims are grounded on the theory that Illinois Central created an unsafe workplace by allowing its employees to be exposed to such harmful substances.

¶ 5 In response to the complaint, Illinois Central moved to dismiss the case on grounds of forum non conveniens . In support of its motion, Illinois Central argued that Black Hawk County, Iowa is the appropriate forum for this case, and it urged the court to dismiss this case in favor of that forum.

¶ 6 Both in the trial court and on appeal, the parties identify relatively few facts relevant to conducting a forum non conveniens analysis in this case. A few of the important facts are as follows. Illinois Central does significant business in Cook County, Illinois. During the time that Hansen worked for Illinois Central, he lived in Janesville, Iowa and worked in Waterloo, Iowa. Hansen never lived or worked in Illinois. Hansen was treated for his medical condition in Black Hawk County, Iowa and his medical providers are located there. The witnesses that plaintiff has identified are predominately located in Iowa, but some are located in other noncontiguous states. None of the identified witnesses are located in Illinois.

¶ 7 The trial court issued a written order disposing of the motion to dismiss. The trial court held that, in "the totality of the circumstances, * * * the balance of factors do[es] not strongly favor transfer." (Emphasis in original). Illinois Central filed a petition for leave to appeal, which we granted. The parties subsequently submitted briefs in support of their respective positions.

¶ 8 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 9 The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred when it denied Illinois Central's motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens . The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over a case, even though it may have proper jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, "if it appears that another forum can better serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice." Fennell v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. , 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 12, 369 Ill.Dec. 728, 987 N.E.2d 355. The doctrine is founded in considerations of fundamental fairness and sensible and effective judicial administration. Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. , 217 Ill. 2d 158, 169, 298 Ill.Dec. 499, 840 N.E.2d 269 (2005).

¶ 10 In determining whether a case should be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens , courts must balance certain public and private interest factors. Id. at 169-70, 298 Ill.Dec. 499, 840 N.E.2d 269. The court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances in the case in determining whether the balance of factors "strongly favors dismissal." Fennell , 2012 IL 113812, at ¶ 17, 369 Ill.Dec. 728, 987 N.E.2d 355.

¶ 11 Public interest factors include: the administrative difficulties caused when litigation is handled in congested venues; the unfairness of imposing jury duty upon residents of a community with no connection to the litigation; and the interest in having local controversies decided locally. First American Bank v. Guerine , 198 Ill. 2d 511, 516-17, 261 Ill.Dec. 763, 764 N.E.2d 54 (2002). 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, and, if appropriate all other practical considerations that make a trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Id. at 516, 261 Ill.Dec. 763, 764 N.E.2d 54.

¶ 12 A court is to neither weigh the private interest factors against the public interest factors nor is it to emphasize any one factor. Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. , 219 Ill. 2d 430, 444, 302 Ill.Dec. 363, 848 N.E.2d 927 (2006). Rather, the court must consider all relevant factors and evaluate the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the balance of factors strongly favors transfer. Id. at 443, 302 Ill.Dec. 363, 848 N.E.2d 927.

¶ 13 A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 453-54, 302 Ill.Dec. 363, 848 N.E.2d 927. As we have previously observed, orders denying motions to dismiss based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens have generally only been reversed when "the connection between the litigation and the plaintiff's chosen forum is ‘so slight as to be virtually non existent,’ or when a reviewing court determines that there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial court." (Quotations in original) (internal citations omitted). Snook v. Lake Forest Hospital , 133 Ill. App. 3d 998, 1000–01, 88 Ill.Dec. 974, 479 N.E.2d 994 (1985). Each forum non conveniens case must be decided on its own considerations of convenience and fairness. Schuster v. Richards , 2018 IL App (1st) 171558, ¶ 49, 422 Ill.Dec. 413, 103 N.E.3d 545.

¶ 14 Before weighing the private and public interest factors that are relevant to a forum non conveniens analysis, the court must determine how much weight to attach to the plaintiff's choice of Cook County as the forum. Under a typical forum non conveniens analysis, a plaintiff's right to select the forum is substantial and should rarely be disturbed. Fennell , 2012 IL 113812, at ¶ 18. However, the plaintiff's choice of forum is not entitled to the same weight or deference in all cases. Dawdy v. Union Pacific Railroad , 207 Ill. 2d 167, 173, 278 Ill.Dec. 92, 797 N.E.2d 687 (2003). When a plaintiff chooses the site of the accident or injury or its home forum, it is reasonable to assume that the choice of forum is convenient. Id. However, when the plaintiff is foreign to the chosen forum and when the action giving rise to the litigation did not occur there, the plaintiff's choice of forum is accorded less deference. Id. at 173-74, 278 Ill.Dec. 92, 797 N.E.2d 687.

¶ 15 In this case, Cook County is not plaintiff's home forum. In addition, Hansen never worked in Illinois or in Cook County when he was employed by Illinois Central. All of Hansen's work for Illinois Central was in Black Hawk County, Iowa. Because plaintiff's claims are all based upon injury Hansen allegedly sustained while working for Illinois Central, Black Hawk County, Iowa must be the site of the injury. As Cook County is neither the site of the injury nor the plaintiff's home forum, plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to less deference than it otherwise would enjoy.

¶ 16 Moving to the merits of the forum non conveniens issue, the record makes clear that the singular connection that this case has to Illinois or to Cook County is that Illinois Central has significant business operations here. Hansen did not allege that he ever even visited Illinois or Cook County in connection with his employment. Hansen similarly did not allege that his medical treatment or any other aspect of his injury led him to Illinois. Nonetheless, it is clear that jurisdiction is proper here and that Cook County is a potential forum. The question on appeal is only whether a consideration of the public and private interest factors establishes that the interests of this case being tried in Black Hawk County, Iowa greatly outweigh the interests of the case being tried in plaintiff's chosen forum of Cook County.

¶ 17 While the factual connection between the parties and the chosen forum or between the injury and the chosen forum is not determinative, it is important. The proper focus of an interstate forum non conveniens analysis is "whether the case is being litigated in the most appropriate state." Fennell v. Illinois...