St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, Creek County

• Decision Date: 12 April 1955
• Docket Number: LOUIS-SAN,No. 36414,36414
• Citation: St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, Creek County, 290 P.2d 118, 1955 OK 111 (Okla. 1955)
• Parties: ST.FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMAPNY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT, CREEK COUNTY, and the Judge thereof, Respondents.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 118

290 P.2d 118

1955 OK 111

ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMAPNY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT, CREEK COUNTY, and the Judge thereof, Respondents.

No. 36414.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 12, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 1955.

Application for Leave to File Second Petition for Rehearing

Denied Nov. 22, 1955.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where action was commenced by Missouri resident in Oklahoma for injuries resulting from accident on Missroui premises of defendant Missouri corporation, and all witnesses are residents of Missouri and cost to defendant of defending action in Oklahoma would greatly exceed cost of defending same action in Missouri, action should be dismissed under rule of forum non conveniens in absence of any valid and proper reason for having chosen this state as the forum for such action.

2. The expectation of obtaining a higher verdict does not constitute a valid reason for selecting an otherwise inappropriate and inconvenient forum for the trial of a case, nor does the employment of medical experts within the selected forum convert an otherwise inappropriate and inconvenient forum into a convenient and appropriate forum.

Original proceeding by St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company to obtain writ of mandamus to enforce remedial order and opinion heretofore entered herein.

Writ granted in part and denied in part as per supplemental opinion.

James L. Homire, St. Louis, Mo., Satterfield, Franklin & Harmon, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Arthurs & Blackstock, Bristow, Bishop & Driscoll, Seminole, for respondents.

Rainey, Flynn, Green & Anderson, Oklahoma City, Gen. Sols., A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., amicus curiae.

Savage, Gibson, Benefield & Shelton, Oklahoma City, for Oklahoma, C., R. I. & P. R. Co., amicus curiae.

Dan M. Welch, Oklahoma City, Gen. Atty. for Oklahoma, M.-K.-T. R. R. Co., amicus curiae.

WILLIAMS, Vice Chief Justice.

This is an application by petitioner for an order or writ of mandamus directed to respondent to enforce the remedial order and opinion issued by this court herein on July 13, 1954.

The pertinent facts are essentially as follows:

This action was originally instituted as an original proceeding in this court to prohibit respondent from proceeding in the cases of J. E. Murphey v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, No. 4816, in the Superior Court of Creek County, and Adolphus L. Kirk v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, No. 4815, in said court, on the ground that said court was an inappropriate and inconvenient forum for the trial of said transitory actions. In the alternative, petitioner asked this court to assume jurisdiction and issue such proper remedial order directed to respondent as might be necessary to insure uniformity of decision among the various inferior courts of record. Petitioner had filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds of inappropriate and inconvenient forum in each of the two cases above mentioned, which respondent court had overruled on the sole ground that it had no power to dismiss said actions on the grounds of inappropriate and inconvenient forum. In an opinion promulgated July 13, 1954, we held that respondent did have the power to dismiss said actions and issued a remedial order directing respondent to reconsider said motions to dismiss in the light of the views expressed in such opinion. Said opinion became final on November 1, 1954, and may be found at 276 P.2d 773.

On January 5, 1955, petitioner's motions to dismiss were again considered by respondent court, at which time some additional evidence was presented. Respondent then again overruled petitioner's motions to dismiss.

Petitioner alleges that respondent overruled such motions to dismiss in complete disregard of this court's opinion and in an arbitrary, capricious and summary manner and through mistake of law and seeks enforcement of the opinion and remedial order heretofore issued, by mandamus or other appropriate writ.

Respondent judge contends that he complied with the opinion and order of this court and reconsidered the motions to dismiss in the light of such opinion, and in the exercise of his discretion and on the basis of the evidence presented determined that such motions should be denied. Respondent further contends that the decision on such motions to dismiss lies in the discretion of the trial court and that if there has been an abuse of such discretion it can be corrected only by appeal and not by mandamus.

We have already determined in the previous opinion herein that the dismissal of an action on the grounds of forum non conveniens is within the discretion of the trial court but that this court will review and correct an abuse of such discretion on the part of the trial court. It now appears that we must determine how a review of the action of the trial court in such matter may be obtained.

It is apparent that if a trial court should sustain a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens and dismiss the action, the plaintiff could appeal therefrom and thus obtain a review of the trial court's action, since such order on the part of the trial court would constitute a final order as defined by 12 O.S.1951 § 953. It is equally apparent, however, that an order overruling a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens would not constitute a final order within the terms of the statute and would not be an appealable order. A defendant desiring to obtain a review of an order denying a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens would therefore be required to submit to trial and appeal from the final judgment rendered on the merits in order to obtain a review of the trial court's order by appeal and error. Such a review would be of no value to a defendant, however, since he would have already been forced to trial in the allegedly inappropriate and inconvenient forum and the question would have become moot. We therefore conclude that under such circumstances a defendant has no adequate remedy at law and in order to obtain relief must resort to this court for exercise by it of its powers of superintending control. While generally mandamus will not issue to control the exercise of discretion on the part of a trial court, mandamus may issue where there has been an arbitrary abuse of such discretion and the complaining party has no adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Reirdon v. County Court of Marshall County, 183 Okl. 274, 81 P.2d 488.

We come then to the decisive question presented here: Has there been an arbitrary abuse of discretion or has there been in fact no actual exercise of discretion because of a mistaken view of the law? In order to answer such question it becomes necessary to review the evidence presented to the trial court.

Petitioner, who is defendant in the two cases in question, presented evidence in support of its motions to dismiss reasonably tending to establish the following situation in the Murphey case:

Defendant is a Missouri Corporation and operates a large railway shop in Springfield, Missouri. Plaintiff Murphey, a resident of Springfield, Missouri, was allegedly injured in defendant's shop in Springfield, Missouri, where he was employed. Eight witnesses needed at the trial reside at Springfield, Missouri, one witness needed lives at St. Louis, Missouri, and one witness lives at Kansas City, Missouri. None of the interested parties or witnesses are residents of the State of Oklahoma. Defendant is amenable to service of process in both state and federal courts in Springfield, Missouri, and those courts are available to plaintiff for a prompt hearing and determination of his claim. A view of the premises where plaintiff was allegedly injured would be a material benefit to the jury trying the case, but would not be available to a jury sitting in Creek County, Oklahoma. The cost to defendant of defending the action in creek County, Oklahoma, would exceed the cost of defending the same action in Springfield, Missouri, by some $1900. Some of the doctors who examined and treated plaintiff following his alleged injury are not in the employ of defendant and if they are unable or unwilling to attend trial in Creek County, Oklahoma, defendant has no means to enforce such attendance or to present them personally for the benefit of the court and...