Laverty v. Csx Transp. Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 October 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 5–09–0043.,5–09–0043. |
| Citation | 956 N.E.2d 1,404 Ill.App.3d 534,353 Ill.Dec. 481 |
| Parties | Claudious LAVERTY, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Thomas R. Laverty, Deceased, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant–Appellant,andA.W. Chesterton, Inc., Abex Corporation, Alco Locomotive, Inc., American Standard, Inc., Ametek, Inc., Aqua–Chem, Inc., Baldwin Locomotive Securities Corporation, Beazer East, Inc., Bondex International, Inc., Borg–Warner Corporation, Budd Company, Caterpillar, Inc., Certain–Teed Corporation, Continental Teves, Inc., Daimler Chrysler Corporation, Enpro Industries, Inc., Flexo Supply Company, Ford Motor Company, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Garlock, Inc., General Electric Company, General Motors Corporation, Georgia–Pacific Corporation, Goodrich Corporation, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Griffin Wheel Company, Honeywell International, Inc., Industrial Holdings Corporation, Ingersoll–Rand Company, J.P. Bushnell Packing, John Crane, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, New York Air Brake Corporation, Owens–Illinois, Inc., Pecora Corporation, Railroad Friction Products Corporation, Rapid–American Corporation, Riley Stoker Corporation, Rockwell Automation, Inc., RPM, Inc., Sprinkmann Sons Corporation of Illinois, Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition, L.L.C., Union Carbide Corporation, Viacom, Inc., Young Group Ltd., and Young Insulational Group of St. Louis, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kurt E. Reitz, Erick E. VanDorn, Heath H. Hooks, Thompson Coburn, LLP, Belleville, IL, for Appellant.Michael R. Bilbrey, Robert B. Ramsey, Law Offices of Michael R. Bilbrey, P.C., Edwardsville, IL, for Appellee.Justice WEXSTTEN delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff, Claudious Laverty, individually and as the administrator of the estate of her deceased husband, Thomas R. Laverty, filed a complaint in the circuit court of Madison County against CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX Transportation), and other defendants, for willful and wanton conduct and negligence pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) (45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. (2000)). CSX Transportation appeals the circuit court's order denying its motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens. We reverse and remand with directions.
FACTS
In counts I, II, and VIII of her complaint, filed on December 4, 2007, the plaintiff requested that a judgment be entered against CSX Transportation. The plaintiff alleged that, during the course of Thomas's employment with CSX Transportation, he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested, and absorbed asbestos fibers, causing his death from mesothelioma in November 2007.
The plaintiff is a resident of Texas. Thomas also resided in Texas when he died and had previously lived in Michigan and Ohio. Neither the plaintiff nor Thomas ever resided in Illinois. Thomas was employed from 1940 through 1942 and from 1945 through 1979 as a railway fireman and engineer. In 1940, Thomas began working for Pere Marquette Railroad in Michigan and was so employed in 1947, when the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway purchased the Pere Marquette Railroad. The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway operated from 1869 until 1980, at which time it merged with Seaboard Coast Line Industries to become CSX Transportation.
The record reveals that Thomas's surviving family members, who witnessed his suffering and damages, reside in Texas and that approximately 20 of Thomas's treating physicians, who treated him after he retired from the railroad and developed mesothelioma, are located in Texas. It also reveals that Thomas worked in Ohio and Michigan, that his railroad work was concentrated in and around Saginaw, Michigan, and that, during his railroad career, he received medical care from Dr. H.E. Mayne and Dr. William Underhill in Michigan. He was never treated by a doctor in Illinois.
On February 27, 2008, CSX Transportation filed a motion to dismiss counts I, II, and VIII of the plaintiff's complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens. In its motion, CSX Transportation argued that Thomas worked for the Pere Marquette Railroad and the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway from Saginaw, Michigan, and not from any location in Illinois. CSX Transportation argued that neither the Pere Marquette Railroad nor the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway operated tracks in Illinois but had only limited trackage rights running to Chicago, Illinois, from Michigan or Indiana. CSX Transportation argued that no witnesses and no treating physicians were located in Illinois.
CSX Transportation also argued that Thomas's alleged exposure as a railroad employee would have occurred primarily in Michigan, that Thomas received medical care in Michigan, and that the manager of field investigations, Raymond Sheahan III, was also located in Michigan. CSX Transportation argued that it would be inconvenient for it to defend the lawsuit in Madison County, Illinois, because the investigation of the plaintiff's claims would occur in Michigan, the primary location of the alleged exposure, and because all the identified medical-provider and coworker witnesses were located outside of Illinois.
On January 8, 2009, at the hearing on CSX Transportation's motion to dismiss on the basis of interstate forum non conveniens, the plaintiff conceded that no witnesses were located in Illinois and that Thomas had not been exposed to asbestos in Illinois. As of the date of the hearing, 35 of the 38 codefendants who had entered their appearances in the case had filed forum non conveniens motions. On January 9, 2009, the circuit court denied CSX Transportation's motion to dismiss. On March 11, 2009, this court granted CSX Transportation's timely petition for leave to appeal the circuit court's order.
ANALYSIS
CSX Transportation argues that the circuit court improperly denied its motions to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. The defendant argues that the state of Illinois has no connection to this litigation and that the facts warrant a dismissal of this case for refiling in Michigan. We agree.
The Illinois venue statute provides that an “action must be commenced (1) in the county of residence of any defendant who is joined in good faith and with probable cause for the purpose of obtaining a judgment against him or her and not solely for the purpose of fixing venue in that county[ ] or (2) in the county in which the transaction or some part thereof occurred out of which the cause of action arose.” 735 ILCS 5/2–101 (West 2006). Where, as here, more than one potential forum exists, the court may invoke the doctrine of forum non conveniens to determine the most appropriate forum. Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill.2d 167, 171, 278 Ill.Dec. 92, 797 N.E.2d 687 (2003).
[3] “ Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine ‘founded in considerations of fundamental fairness and sensible and effective judicial administration’ [citation] [and] allows a [circuit] court to decline jurisdiction in the exceptional case where trial in another forum with proper jurisdiction and venue ‘would better serve the ends of justice’ [citation].” First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill.2d 511, 515, 261 Ill.Dec. 763, 764 N.E.2d 54 (2002). The trial court is vested with considerable discretion in determining whether to grant a forum non conveniens motion. Peile v. Skelgas, Inc., 163 Ill.2d 323, 336, 206 Ill.Dec. 179, 645 N.E.2d 184 (1994). We will reverse the trial court's decision only if the court abused its discretion, i.e., if it acted arbitrarily, failed to employ conscientious judgment, or ignored recognized principles of law. Peile, 163 Ill.2d at 336, 206 Ill.Dec. 179, 645 N.E.2d 184; Roberts v. Illinois Power Co., 311 Ill.App.3d 458, 461, 243 Ill.Dec. 579, 723 N.E.2d 1180 (2000).
The rationale underlying the doctrine of forum non conveniens “is as valid on an intrastate [basis] as it is on an interstate basis.” Torres v. Walsh, 98 Ill.2d 338, 350, 74 Ill.Dec. 880, 456 N.E.2d 601 (1983). “A plaintiff's ‘home forum’ for purposes of an interstate forum non conveniens motion is the plaintiff's home State.” Kwasniewski v. Schaid, 153 Ill.2d 550, 553, 180 Ill.Dec. 320, 607 N.E.2d 214 (1992). Thus, in addressing the issue of interstate forum non conveniens, we focus our inquiry on whether Illinois is the appropriate state to litigate the controversy. Kwasniewski, 153 Ill.2d at 553, 180 Ill.Dec. 320, 607 N.E.2d 214; McGinty v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 362 Ill.App.3d 934, 937, 299 Ill.Dec. 255, 841 N.E.2d 987 (2005).
In resolving forum non conveniens questions, the trial court must balance private-interest factors affecting the convenience of the parties and public-interest factors affecting the administration of the court. Bland v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 116 Ill.2d 217, 223–24, 107 Ill.Dec. 236, 506 N.E.2d 1291 (1987). Private-interest factors include the convenience of the parties, the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real evidence, and all other practical considerations that make the trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive—for example, the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of unwilling witnesses, the cost to obtain the attendance of willing witnesses, and the ability to view the premises, if appropriate. Guerine, 198 Ill.2d at 516, 261 Ill.Dec. 763, 764 N.E.2d 54; Peile, 163 Ill.2d at 337, 206 Ill.Dec. 179, 645 N.E.2d 184. Public-interest factors include having localized controversies decided in the local forum, administrative concerns, including the congestion of court dockets, and the imposition of jury duty upon residents of a county or state with little connection to the litigation. Peile, 163 Ill.2d at 337, 206 Ill.Dec. 179, 645 N.E.2d 184. We recognize that convenience, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fennell v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.
...Ry. Co., 116 Ill.2d 217, 227, 107 Ill.Dec. 236, 506 N.E.2d 1291 (1987) (collecting cases); see Laverty v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 404 Ill.App.3d 534, 539, 353 Ill.Dec. 481, 956 N.E.2d 1 (2010). ¶ 34 As an expert witness, Dr. Schonfeld would be compensated for any inconvenience regarding t......
-
Inman v. Howe Freightways, Inc.
...in travel. See Fennell , 2012 IL 113812, ¶¶ 33-34, 369 Ill.Dec. 728, 987 N.E.2d 355 ; Laverty v. CSX Transportation, Inc. , 404 Ill. App. 3d 534, 539, 353 Ill.Dec. 481, 956 N.E.2d 1 (2010). Nevertheless, given that many witnesses in the initial trial testified via evidence depositions and s......
-
Fennell v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co.
...case is analogous to the supreme court's decision in Gridley and this court's decisions in Laverty v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 404 Ill.App.3d 534, 353 Ill.Dec. 481, 956 N.E.2d 1 (2010), and Skidmore v. Gateway Western Ry. Co., 366 Ill.App.3d 238, 304 Ill.Dec. 401, 852 N.E.2d 857 (2006). In......
-
Decker v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
...R.R. Co., 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 19, 369 Ill.Dec. 728, 987 N.E.2d 355, and this court's decision in Laverty v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 404 Ill.App.3d 534, 353 Ill.Dec. 481, 956 N.E.2d 1 (2010), the defendant contends that St. Clair County is entitled to little deference because it is the plain......