Johnson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 October 1954
• Docket Number: No. 36355,36355
• Citation: 243 Minn. 58,66 N.W.2d 763
• Parties: Fred C. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 763

66 N.W.2d 763

243 Minn. 58

Fred C. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 36355.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 15, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1954.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. As long as we treat citizens and noncitizens who are nonresidents alike, the federal constitution or decision law does not

bar our adoption of the Forum non conveniens rule in declining jurisdiction over transitory causes of action.

2. Nothing in our state constitution prevents the application of the Forum non conveniens rule.

3. The reasons for rejecting the doctrine of Forum non conveniens in Boright v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 180 Minn. 52, 230 N.W. 457, no longer exist, and that case and others of like import in which the Forum non conveniens rule has heretofore been rejected are expressly overruled. We now hold that the district courts of this state may fairly exercise their discretion in declining to accept jurisdiction of transitory causes of action brought here by citizens and noncitizens of this state who are nonresident when it fairly appears that it would be more equitable that the cause of action be tried in some other available court of competent jurisdiction.

Davis, Rerat, Yaeger & Lush, Eugene A. Rerat, Harry H. Peterson, Minneapolis, Edward B. Henslee, Gen. Counsel, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, and Paul F. Clements, Minneapolis, of counsel, for appellant.

Harry S. Stearns, Jr., St. Paul, John L. Rice, Carl W. Krohl, Andrew C. Scott, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for respondent.

KNUTSON, Justice.

The facts in this case may be briefly stated. Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Nebraska and resides at South Sioux City, Nebraska. Defendant is a railway corporation organized and incorporated under the laws of the state of Illinois, having its principal place of business in Chicago in that state. It conducts and operates a railroad business in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, and other states.

Plaintiff commenced this action in the district court of Washington county, in the nineteenth judicial district of the state of Minnesota, to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained while he was employed as a conductor on a train operating through the railroad yards at Ashland, Nebraska. The action was brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (referred to hereinafter as F.E.L.A.) 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 51 to 60.

Defendant thereupon moved the court to dismiss the action on the ground of Forum non conveniens and other grounds. In support of its motion, defendant's affidavit states:

'* * * If this suit is to be tried in this Court, it will be necessary to obtain a large number of witnesses from the vicinity of Ashland, Nebraska, and South Sioux City, Nebraska, to cover the condition of defendant's track, the condition of its train and cars and the result of the inspection of equipment both before and after the accident, with medical testimony covering treatment and examination of the plaintiff. It is affiant's contention that it will require at least four employee witnesses from the vicinity of Ashland, Nebraska, and four employee witnesses from South Sioux City, Nebraska, as well as one medical witness from Ashland, Nebraska, and two from the vicinity of South Sioux City, Nebraska.

'The occurrence involved in this litigation took place at Ashland, Nebraska, which is approximately 900 miles distant on defendant's railroad from Stillwater, Minnesota, requiring from 24 to 36 hours traveling time in each direction or a distance of approximately 400 miles by the closest foreign line route or 15 hours of travel in each direction, in both instances requiring three days attendance at the trial for each witness and would entail heavy expense for travel, time lost, witness fees and payments for substitutes to take the place of the witnesses during their absence.

'As against a trial of this cause of action in the State of Nebraska, near the residence of plaintiff or the case of the occurrence, it is affiant's opinion that it would cost this defendant at least an additional $2,000 to try the case in Stillwater, Minnesota, in view of the expense, time lost, witness fees and incidentals growing out of a trial over 400 miles distant from the point of the accident, and would seriously interfere with defendant properly defending this case on its merits.'

In another affidavit, defendant alleges that the accident happened in Saunders county, Nebraska, the county seat of which is Wahoo, Nebraska; that the district courts of the state of Nebraska are courts of general jurisdiction in that state and have jurisdiction of the cause of action pleaded by plaintiff; that the district court of Dakota county, Nebraska, sits at Dakota City, Nebraska, and the next jury term thereof would convene in January 1954; that the district court of Saunders county, Nebraska, sits at Wahoo, Nebraska, and the next term of that court in which there is a jury convenes on September 29, 1953, and the next jury term thereafter during the month of January 1954; also that Dakota county, Nebraska, is within the territory embraced by the district court of the United States for the district of Nebraska, Omaha division, and that the next term of that court would be held at Omaha, Nebraska, on September 28, 1953, and the next term thereafter in April 1954; also that Saunders county is within the territory embraced by the district court of the United States for the district of Nebraska, Lincoln division, and that the next term of that court would be held at Lincoln, Nebraska, on the first Monday of October 1953 and again thereafter in May 1954.

None of these allegations are controverted by plaintiff's counteraffidavit. Based thereon, the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice on the ground of Forum non conveniens. Judgment was entered dismissing the action without prejudice, and this appeal is from such judgment.

Principally, plaintiff claims that the doctrine of Forum non conveniens is inapplicable in Minnesota in cases of this kind.

It is plaintiff's contention (1) that U.S.Const. art. IV, § 2, imposes upon the courts of Minnesota the mandatory duty to hear and decide cases brought by nonresidents uner the F.E.L.A. because Minnesota entertains jurisdiction of similar actions brought by its own citizens; (2) that by virtue of the provisions of Minn.Const. art. 1, § 8, M.S.A., the courts of Minnesota are under the mandatory duty of entertaining actions brought by citizens thereof under the F.E.L.A.; (3) that the under Minn.Const. art. 10, § 1, and Rule 4.03(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure the courts of Minnesota not only have jurisdiction over foreign railroads in cases brought by nonresident plaintiffs but also are bound to entertain jurisdiction of cases brought by nonresident plaintiffs against nonresident railroad corporations doing business in the state; (4) that the provisions of U.S.Const. art. IV, § 2; of 35 Stat. 66, as amended, 45 U.S.C.A. § 56, and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1445(a); of Minn.Const. art. 1, § 8; and of Rule 4.03(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, compelling the courts of Minnesota to exercise jurisdiction in F.E.L.A. cases, render inoperative the doctrine of Forum non conveniens by the courts of this state in F.E.L.A. cases; and (5) that 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a), does not render applicable in state courts the doctrine of Forum non conveniens even though it does so in the federal courts.

We think that these contentions can be simplified and that the questions presented for our decision are three in number:

(1) Does the federal constitution or federal law prohibit the application of the doctrine of Forum non conveniens in actions brought under the F.E.L.A.?

(2) Does the Minnesota constitution prohibit the application of the doctrine of Forum non conveniens?

(3) Do Minnesota decisions prevent the application of the doctrine and, if so, should they any longer be adhered to?

This case was argued together with the case of Millen v. Great Northern Ry. Co., --- Minn. ---, 66 N.W.2d 777, the decision in which is filed with this decision. The decisive questions on the merits are the same in both cases, and, as far as they are considered to be important, we shall attempt to answer the contentions of counsel in both cases in this decision.

At the outset, certain things can be admitted. That the court has jurisdiction over the cases involved is not open to dispute. The only question is whether the court may decline to exercise such jurisdiction.

1. The rule of Forum non conveniens is an equitable rule ¹ based on the proposition that a court in its discretion may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a transitory cause of action when it appears that the action may more equitably be tried in some other available and competent court. In Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507, 67 S.Ct. 839, 842, 91 L.Ed. 1055, 1062, the court said:

'The principle of Forum non conveniens is simply that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute. These statutes are drawn with a necessary generality and usually give a plaintiff a choice of courts, so that he may be quite sure of some place in which to pursue his remedy. But the open door may admit those who seek not simply justice but perhaps justice blended with some harassment. A plaintiff sometimes is under temptation to resort to a strategy of forcing the trial at a most inconvenient place for an adversary, even at some inconvenience to himself.

'Many of the states have met misuse of venue by investing courts with a discretion to change the place of trial on various grounds, such as the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice. The federal law contains no such express criteria to guide the district court in exercising its power. But the...