Myers v. Boeing Co.
| Decision Date | 02 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 55981-3,55981-3 |
| Citation | 794 P.2d 1272,115 Wn.2d 123 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Donald MYERS, Personal Representative and Administrator for the Estates of Junichi Asano, Shohei Itoh, Masato Yamaguchi, Shizuko Yamaguchi, Masahiro Yamaguchi, Hiroko Yamaguchi, Junko Okuno, Shizuko Kiuchi, Yoko Kurihara, Sachi Kurihara, Yuhiko Kurimoto, Shinichiro Kashitani, Masao Kibi, Sadao Koba, Shuji Takenaga, Shunpei Takehara, Aiko Tanaka, Kantaro Tsuji, Yasuta Tomuro, Yutaka Tashiro, Sachiko Tashiro, Kaori Tashiro, Yoshiki Tashiro, Taigo Maese, Tadahiko Masunaga, Reiko Mizobata, Akira Yamazaki, Tomomi Yamaoka, Kaoru Yamaoka, Michio Yamato, Kyoko Watari, Hiroshi Hayakawa, Mikio Tsukahara, Koji Oda, Yoko Oda, Takashi Kurihara, Naomi Saito, Mayumi Saito, Eiji Tagawa, Yumiko Yoshida, Motoaki Takeshita, Takashi Yasukawa, Kazuhiko Ichikawa, Hideki Mori, Shogo Tomoto, Kazuo Ishida, Takaai Okumura, and Motoko Sato, Decedents, Petitioner, v. The BOEING COMPANY, a corporation whose principal place of business is in the State of Washington, Respondent. Vernon T. JUDKINS, Personal Representative and Administrator for the Estates of Giancarlo Moroni and Andrea Moroni, Decedents, Plaintiff, v. The BOEING COMPANY, a corporation whose principal place of business is in the State of Washington, Defendant. Vernon T. JUDKINS, Personal Representative and Administrator for the Estate of Kimble Jonathan Mathews, Decedent, Plaintiff, v. The BOEING COMPANY, a corporation whose principal place of business is in the State of Washington, Defendant. Vernon T. JUDKINS, Personal Representative and Administrator for the Estate of Hajimu Nakano and Shoji Nishimura, Decedents, Petitioner, v. The BOEING COMPANY, a corporation whose principal place of business is in the State of Washington, Respondent. Vernon T. JUDKINS, Personal Representative and/or Special Administrator for the Estates of Kwok Kwong Lee, Chak Lam Tam, Chi Dan Yeung and Lai Keuen Cheung, Decedents, Plaintiff, v. The BOEING COMPANY, a corporation whose principal place of business is in the State of Washington, Defendant. Donal |
Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones & Grey, Deborah A. Elvins, Margaret A. Pageler, Krutch, Lindell, Judkins & Keller, P.S., Richard F. Krutch, Seattle, Speiser, Krause & Madole, Donald W. Madole, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Perkins, Coie, Keith Gerrard, Thomas J. McLaughlin, Scott F. Seablom, Seattle, for respondent.
After the trial court bifurcated plaintiffs' cause of action, defendant admitted liability and moved for a dismissal of the damages claims on forum non conveniens grounds. The trial court found that, as to damages, Japan was the more convenient forum and granted the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in an unpublished opinion. Plaintiffs appeal, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in bifurcating the action and in dismissing the damages claims. Plaintiffs also argue that the dismissal violated their treaty rights. Finding no error, we affirm.
On August 12, 1985, a Boeing 747 aircraft owned by Japan Air Lines (JAL) crashed while en route from Tokyo to Osaka, Japan. Five hundred and twenty people died in the crash, most of them Japanese nationals. Myers and Judkins, personal representatives, brought eight actions against Boeing and JAL on behalf of the estates of 71 Japanese nationals and 8 non-Japanese nationals. 1 Upon motion by Boeing, to which plaintiffs did not object, the trial court consolidated the eight actions for "pretrial purposes". The consolidated actions were preassigned to the King County Track One system, Judge Gary M. Little presiding. Boeing then moved to dismiss all eight complaints on forum non conveniens grounds. In its motion papers, Boeing stated that if the cases were dismissed and refiled in the decedents' countries, Boeing would agree not to contest liability.
In response to that motion, the trial court entered an order dated May 7, 1987, ruling as follows:
1. The liability issue and the damage issue in these actions should be, and hereby are, bifurcated;
2. The issue of liability in these actions will be resolved in this jurisdiction;
3. Resolution of the question of what forum in which to determine damages is hereby reserved pending resolution of the liability question[.] 2
Based on admissions made by Boeing in a pretrial conference, the trial court entered a judgment dated July 24, 1987. The court found that Boeing admitted the following:
a. In 1978 Boeing repaired the aft pressure bulkhead of the accident airplane in Japan;
b. Boeing performed a portion of the bulkhead repair incorrectly;
c. The incorrect repair performed by Boeing was a proximate cause of the crash of the accident airplane on August 12, 1985; and
d. Boeing is liable to plaintiffs for compensatory damages resulting from the crash.
The trial court also found that Boeing admitted that a section of the final report of the Japanese Aircraft Accident Investigation Committee, which attributed the crash to fatigue cracks resulting from improper repairs made in 1978, accurately described the cause of the crash. Based on those findings, the court entered judgment that "Boeing [was] liable to plaintiffs for compensatory damages caused by the crash" and that "[the judgment was] a conclusive determination of Boeing's liability."
After the judgment was entered, JAL was dismissed from the suit on plaintiffs' motion. Boeing then renewed its motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds as to the issue of damages, limited to the Japanese nationals.
On September 10, 1987, the trial court granted Boeing's motion to dismiss. Conditions of the dismissal were that Boeing submit to jurisdiction in Japan, waive any statute of limitation defenses, admit liability for compensatory damages, and not oppose recognition in Japan of the judgment on liability entered on July 24, 1987. The trial court expressly granted plaintiffs the right to return to King County Superior Court for trial on damages if "the actions cannot be handled expeditiously in Japan." The court retained jurisdiction over the non-Japanese nationals "which were not the subject of Boeing's present forum non conveniens motion".
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in an unpublished opinion. 3 Myers v. Boeing Co., noted at 53 Wash.App. 1043 (1989). This court granted plaintiffs' petition for review.
This court first recognized the doctrine of forum non conveniens in Werner v. Werner, 84 Wash.2d 360, 371 526 P.2d 370 (1974). Under the doctrine, courts have discretionary power to "[decline] jurisdiction where, in the court's view, the difficulties of litigation militate for the dismissal of the action subject to a stipulation that the defendant submit to jurisdiction in a more convenient forum." Werner, at 370, 526 P.2d 370. The standard of review applicable to a decision to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is abuse of discretion. Such a dismissal may only be reversed if it is "manifestly unfair, unreasonable or untenable." General Tel. Co. v. Utilities & Transp. Comm'n, 104 Wash.2d 460, 474, 706 P.2d 625 (1985).
The doctrine presupposes that there are at least two forums in which the defendant is amenable to process. Werner, 84 Wash.2d at 370, 526 P.2d 370. In Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947), the United States Supreme Court set out the criteria for choosing the appropriate forum. This court adopted the Gulf Oil factors in Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp., 87 Wash.2d 577, 555 P.2d 997 (1976).
Recognizing that application of the doctrine is within the discretion of the trial court, the Supreme Court expressly declined to set up bright line rules. Instead, the Court set out a list of private and public interest factors to be considered and balanced.
The private interests to be considered are as follows:
the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.
Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508, 67 S.Ct. at 843.
The Court went on to say the following:
There may also be questions as to the enforcibility of a judgment if one is obtained. The court will weigh relative advantages and obstacles to fair trial. It is often said that the plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, "vex," "harass," or "oppress" the defendant by inflicting upon him expense or trouble not necessary to his own right to pursue his remedy. But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.
(Footnote omitted.) Gulf Oil, at 508, 67 S.Ct. at 843.
The Court also set...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kedy v. A.W. Chesterton Co.
...plaintiff's willingness to bring witnesses to the chosen forum is in the sound discretion of the trial justice. Myers v. Boeing Co., 115 Wash.2d 123, 794 P.2d 1272, 1278 (1990). 13. On July 6, 2006, this Court granted a joint motion of the parties to designate portions of the trial record f......
-
Radeljak v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.
...suit in Washington, has chosen a less convenient forum than a plaintiff from Florida bringing the same suit? [Myers v. Boeing Co., 115 Wash.2d 123, 138, 794 P.2d 1272 (1990) (emphasis in Treating foreign nationals differently in every case simply does not make logical sense. To offer a Mich......
-
Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Immunex Corp.
...distribute parties' property at the end of a meretricious relationship in order to avoid unjust enrichment); Myers v. Boeing Co., 115 Wash.2d 123, 138, 794 P.2d 1272 (1990) (holding that balancing various factors to determine whether to apply forum non conveniens “will lead to fair and equi......
-
Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc.
...adoption of Gulf Oil test); Lesser v. Boughey, 88 Hawai‘i 260, 263–64, 965 P.2d 802, 805–06 (1998) (same); Myers v. Boeing Co., 115 Wash.2d 123, 128, 794 P.2d 1272, 1275 (1990) (same); see also, e.g., State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Nibert, 235 W.Va. 235, 239–40, 773 S.E.2d 1, 5–6 (2015) (d......
-
Human Rights After Kiobel: Choice of Law and the Rise of Transnational Tort Litigation
...See Note, Cross-Jurisdictional Forum Non Conveniens Preclusion, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 2178, 2194 (2008).334. See Myers v. Boeing Co., 794 P.2d 1272, 1281 (Wash. 1990).335. See AT&T Corp. v. Sigala, 549 S.E.2d 373, 377-78 (Ga. 2001).336. Crowson v. Sealaska Corp., 705 P.2d 905, 908 (Alaska 1985)......