Lambert v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

• Decision Date: 28 June 2002
• Docket Number: No. 1-01-1877.,1-01-1877.
• Citation: 773 N.E.2d 133,332 Ill. App.3d 373,265 Ill.Dec. 771
• Parties: Lori LAMBERT, Independent Personal Representative of the Estate of Randy Lambert, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., a Subsidiary of Bridgestone Corporation of Japan (formerly known as Firestone Tire and Rubber Company), an Ohio corporation, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, a Delaware corporation; and Interstate Tire and Retread, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

773 N.E.2d 133

332 Ill. App.3d 373

265 Ill.Dec. 771

Lori LAMBERT, Independent Personal Representative of the Estate of Randy Lambert, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., a Subsidiary of Bridgestone Corporation of Japan (formerly known as Firestone Tire and Rubber Company), an Ohio corporation, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, a Delaware corporation; and Interstate Tire and Retread, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 1-01-1877.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.

June 28, 2002.

Williams Montgomery & John Ltd., Chicago (Barry L. Kroll, Alyssa M. Campbell, Thomas H. Neuckranz, Jeffrey S. Taylor, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellant Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.

Holland & Knight LLP, Thomas R. Woodrow, Chicago, for Defendant-Appellant Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.

Miller, Faucher & Cafferty, Dom J. Rizzi, Chicago, Risjord & James, P.C., Aaron N. Woods, Randy W. James, Lee's Summit, MO; Conybeare Law Office, P.C., Barry R. Conybeare, St. Joseph, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Justice GREIMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendants, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) and Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (Firestone), appeal from the trial court's denial of their joint motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens. Thus, the issue presently before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. We reverse the decision of the trial court.

The plaintiff, the decedent's widow, filed her complaint against Goodyear, Firestone, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, and Interstate Tire and Retread, Inc. on May 10, 1999. The complaint alleged that in the course of the decedent's employment as a truck stop mechanic, he was injured when he attempted to remove the right front outer tire of a pair of dual truck tires from a trailer in order to service the inner tire of the pair. Plaintiff claims that the flatbase, multipiece truck rim assembly on which the tire was mounted exploded, striking the decedent in the head and leg. The truck trailer from which the decedent attempted to remove the tire was maintained and operated by Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (Burlington Northern); however, the accident occurred on the premises of the decedent's employer, Sawyer Truck Stop, in Sawyer, Michigan. The decedent died in the local hospital three days later.

The flat-base, multipiece truck rim assembly which allegedly exploded consisted of two components, a Goodyear rim base and a Firestone side/lock ring. Plaintiff asserted in her complaint that each of these components was defective and unreasonably dangerous in its design. Plaintiff further alleged that the components contained inadequate warnings and were negligently designed.

Plaintiff resides in Sawyer, Michigan, which is in Berrien County, and the probate estate of the deceased was created by the Berrien County probate court. Likewise, the decedent was a resident of Sawyer, Michigan, and was employed in Sawyer, Michigan, by Sawyer Truck Stop, where the accident occurred. All of the decedent's survivors are Berrien County residents.

The two police officers who responded to the accident are employees of Chikaming Township, which is located in Berrien County, and they reside in Michigan. Lakeland Medical Center, the hospital where the decedent was treated, is located in St. Joseph, Michigan, which is located in Berrien County. Each of the doctors who treated the decedent practices in St. Joseph, Michigan.

Some of the decedent's coworkers at the truck stop witnessed the accident. The majority of these witnesses, including the decedent's former employers, Nick and Pat Veit, reside in Michigan.

Goodyear is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio and is present in Illinois by virtue of doing business in this state. The multirim assembly involved in the explosion was designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold by Goodyear. The multirim assembly was neither designed nor manufactured in Illinois.

Firestone is also an Ohio corporation and is present in Illinois by virtue of doing business in this state. The side/lock ring involved in the explosion was designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold by Firestone. The side/lock ring was manufactured in Wyandotte, Michigan.

The Burlington Northern is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois.

Interstate Tire and Retread, Inc. (Interstate), is an Illinois corporation doing business in Illinois. The subject tire was remanufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed by Interstate.

In addition to the foregoing facts, plaintiff alleged in her complaint that Burlington Northern was negligent in failing to properly maintain the subject trailer. More specifically, plaintiff claimed that Burlington Northern was negligent in allowing the trailer to leave its Willow Springs, Illinois, railyard while equipped with an allegedly defective and dangerous wheel assembly.

Furthermore, on information and belief, plaintiff alleged in her complaint that either Interstate or Burlington Northern negligently assembled the wheel components with the retread tire and supplied it for use on the trailer.

Plaintiff also asserted that Burlington Northern and Interstate failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions regarding the assembly, handling, dangers, and defects inherent in the use of the flat-base, multipiece rim. Plaintiff specifically alleged that Interstate failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions regarding the assembly, handling, dangers and defects inherent in the use of its tires and the multipiece rims they require.

Based on the aforementioned factual allegations, Goodyear and Firestone assert that this action should be litigated in Michigan, while plaintiff contends that this action should remain in Cook County, Illinois. Goodyear and Firestone argue that in denying their joint motion to dismiss, the trial court improperly weighed the factors to be considered under a motion to dismiss based upon forum nonconveniens. We agree.

In response to Goodyear and Firestone's contention that their motion to dismiss should have been granted, plaintiff claims that Goodyear and Firestone ignore the fact that Interstate and Burlington Northern are Illinois residents and that the alleged negligent assembly of the tire and wheel component parts was performed in Illinois. Plaintiff claims that the practical connection between the case at bar and Illinois is further evidenced by the fact that Interstate allegedly delivered the defective tire to Illinois; the truck trailer in question drove on Illinois roads and highways; and Burlington Northern acted negligently in failing to properly maintain the component parts and retread tire when it allowed the trailer to leave the Willow Springs, Illinois, railyard.

The question before us is whether the trial court's denial of Goodyear and Firestone's motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens was an abuse of discretion. Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill.2d 306, 309, 162 Ill.Dec. 43, 579 N.E.2d 857 (1991). "A trial court's ruling will not be reversed on review unless it can be shown that the court abused its discretion in balancing the relevant factors." Vinson, 144 Ill.2d at 309-10, 162 Ill.Dec. 43, 579 N.E.2d 857, citing Meyers v. Bridgeport Machines Division of Textron, Inc., 113 Ill.2d 112, 118, 100 Ill.Dec. 567, 497 N.E.2d 745 (1986) and Griffith v. Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc., 136 Ill.2d 101, 106, 143 Ill. Dec. 274, 554 N.E.2d 209 (1990).

Forum non conveniens is a common law doctrine aimed at achieving effective judicial administration through the implementation of considerations of fundamental fairness. Vinson, 144 Ill.2d at 310, 162 Ill.Dec. 43, 579 N.E.2d 857. Pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court "may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a case properly before it, whenever it appears that there is another forum that can better serve the convenience of the litigants and promote the ends of justice." Horn v. Rincker, 84 Ill.2d 139, 149, 49 Ill.Dec. 315, 417 N.E.2d 1329 (1981).

In Illinois, the doctrine of forum non conveniens has two potential applications: interstate forum non conveniens and intrastate forum non conveniens. "The interstate branch of the doctrine is the traditional doctrine as adopted in 1948." 3 R. Michael, Illinois Practice § 14.1 (1989); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947); Whitney v. Madden, 400 Ill. 185, 79 N.E.2d 593 (1948). When addressing the issue of interstate forum non conveniens, the focus of the question is whether Illinois is an appropriate state in which to litigate the controversy. When the issue of intrastate forum non conveniens arises, the focus of the question is whether the case is being litigated in the most convenient county. 3 R. Michael, Illinois Practice § 14.1 (1989).

In 1983, in the case of Torres v. Walsh, 98 Ill.2d 338, 74 Ill.Dec. 880, 456 N.E.2d 601 (1983), the Illinois Supreme Court stated that the same considerations of convenience and fairness routinely applied in deciding the issue of forum for a dismissal motion based on interstate forum non conveniens apply equally in deciding a dismissal motion based on intrastate forum non conveniens. The case at bar raises the issue of interstate forum non conveniens: whether Illinois is an appropriate state in which to litigate this controversy. Due to the supreme court's holding in Torres, case law addressing intrastate forum non conveniens is equally applicable to the case at bar as case law addressing interstate forum non conveniens.

Nearly every Illinois court that has addressed the issue of forum non conveniens since its inception, whether it be interstate forum non conveniens or intrastate forum non conveniens, has discussed a list of factors...