Walker v. Ohio River Co.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1964 |
| Citation | 205 A.2d 43,416 Pa. 149 |
| Parties | Evelyn WALKER, Appellant, v. The OHIO RIVER CO. Lyndell WILSON, Appellant, v. The OHIO RIVER COMPANY, a corporation. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 16, 1964.
Harry Alan Sherman, Pittsburgh, for appellants.
Harold R. Schmidt, Anthony J. Polito, Rose, Houston, Cooper & Schmidt, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before BELL C. J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN and O'BRIEN, JJ.
We have here two separate appeals in two separate suits involving the same issue.
The two plaintiffs, Evelyn Walker and Lyndell Wilson, were both employees (seawomen) of the defendant company, each claiming that she sustained personal injuries while performing services in behalf of the defendant on a vessel owned by the defendant; their injuries having been caused by the defendant's negligence and unseaworthiness of the vessel involved.
Their separate complaints alleged a cause of action in trespass both under the Act of Congress known as the Merchant Marine Act (Title 46 U.S.C., Chapter 18, § 688) allowing an action for damages at law for personal injuries and under the 'Doctrine of Seaworthiness'. Each Complaint also alleged in a second count a claim under the maritime type of employment contract requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiffs' maintenance and cure for the past and into the future.
The plaintiff Lyndell Wilson in her Complaint alleged she was injured on September 16, 1961, while an employee on a merchant marine vessel (M/V Bob Benter) plying the Ohio, moving upriver toward Pittsburgh, when the vessel was so negligently navigated that it jolted and jerked, causing her to slip stumble and fall backwards while carrying a container of potatoes from the storeroom in the galley to the main deck via a flight of stairs, in pursuance of peremptory orders.
The plaintiff Evelyn Walker averred that she was injured as an employee on the defendant towboat, the 'Robert P. Tibolt', as the vessel moved upboard on the Ohio from Cincinnati, the vessel suddenly lurching, impelling her to lose balance as she was lifting a 60-pound mattress, an operation usually performed by a man.
The defendant, the Ohio River Company, filed, in each action, Preliminary Objections, including, inter alia, a motion to dismiss, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which the Court below granted. The plaintiffs appealed. In dismissing the Walker lawsuit the Court pointed out that the plaintiff resides in Manchester, Ohio, some 70 miles from Cincinnati where the defendant has a place of business, that most of the shipboard witnesses are residents of Ohio, and that the plaintiff was hospitalized in Ohio although now obtaining further treatment in Pittsburgh. It then said that:
'In view of the fact that service of process on this defendant can be had in a state court much nearer the plaintiff's own residence, which for that reason is patently more convenient for her and more appropriate for the trial of her cause, it is our opinion that this Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in this matter.'
In dismissing the Wilson Complaint, the Court stated:
In dismissing the actions the Court in effect ordered Evelyn Walker to file her lawsuit in Huntington, West Virginia, and Lyndell Wilson to prosecute her litigation in Cincinnati, Ohio, supposedly for their own convenience, even though contrary to the desires and wishes of the plaintiffs. Since the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County concededly has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, and valid service has been made upon the defendant company within its jurisdiction, the plaintiffs cannot, without compelling reason, be ousted of their admitted right to bring their actions under the Merchant Marine Act and for maintenance and cure in a state court and/or in a federal court where the defendant can be effectively brought within the court's jurisdiction. This Court clearly stated in Plum v. Tampax, Inc., 399 Pa. 553, 160 A.2d 549, that '* * * since it is for the plaintiff to choose the place of suit, his choice of a forum should not be disturbed except for weighty reasons.'
We do not find in the record any 'weighty reasons' which will support the dismissals of the plaintiffs' actions in the court below. The Court has dwelt on the inconvenience which the plaintiffs would have to undergo if their cases were tried in Allegheny County, but such solicitude is irrelevant since the plaintiffs themselves voluntarily chose this forum. As for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westerby v. Johns-Manville Corp.
...supra. While we admit that the specific holding of Rini arguably conflicts with a prior unanimous pronouncement of our Supreme Court, see Walker, supra, plaintiff cannot seriously that the factors and guideposts recited therein, which serve to assist the court in exercising its discretion, ......
-
Springle v. Cottrell Engineering Corp.
...State courts, if jurisdiction over the parties is obtained. See Jordine v. Walling, 185 F.2d 662 (3rd Cir., 1950); Walker v. Ohio River Co., 416 Pa. 149, 205 A.2d 43 (1964); Dwyer v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., This is the nature of the action before us. Appellant was employed as a merchant seama......
-
Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp.
..."to choose the place of suit (and its) choice of a forum should not be disturbed except for weighty reasons.' " Walker v. Ohio River Co., 416 Pa. 149, 152, 205 A.2d 43, 45 (1964), quoting Plum v. Tampax, Inc., 399 Pa. 553, 561, 160 A.2d 549, 553 (1960). A change of venue may be required for......
-
Shears v. Rigley
...is given great weight and a defendant has the burden in asserting a challenge to the plaintiff's choice of venue. Walker v. Ohio River Co., 416 Pa. 149, 205 A.2d 43 (1964). Nonetheless, the trial court is vested with discretion in determining whether or not to grant a petition to transfer v......