Case Title: Owens v. Griffin Wood Company, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1111598

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2013-01-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 
01/11/2013 
Notice: 
T h i s o p i n i o n i s 
s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
a d v a n c e 
s h e e t s o f Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e 
r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama 
A p p e l l a t e 
C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, 
Alabama 
36104-3741 
((334) 
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r 
o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may 
be 
made 
b e f o r e t h e 
o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF 
ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 
1111598 
Ex parte James Waltman 
PETITION FOR 
WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
(In re: John Owens 
v. 
G r i f f i n Wood Company, Inc., 
e t al.) 
1120080 
Ex parte Progressive Casualty Insurance Company 
PETITION FOR 
WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
(In re: John Owens 
v. 
G r i f f i n Wood Company, Inc., et al.) 
(Perry C i r c u i t Court, CV-11-900075) 
WISE, J u s t i c e . 
James Waltman and P r o g r e s s i v e C a s u a l t y I n s u r a n c e Company 
( " P r o g r e s s i v e " ) 
( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as "the 
p e t i t i o n e r s " ) s e p a r a t e l y p e t i t i o n 
t h i s C o u r t f o r a w r i t o f 
mandamus d i r e c t i n g the P e r r y C i r c u i t C o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s o r d e r 
d e n y i n g Waltman's and P r o g r e s s i v e ' s motions t o t r a n s f e r t h i s 
a c t i o n from the P e r r y C i r c u i t C o u r t t o t h e T u s c a l o o s a 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t and t o e n t e r an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n s . 
We 
g r a n t 
the p e t i t i o n s and i s s u e t h e w r i t s . 
F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 
On J u l y 14, 2011, John Owens, a r e s i d e n t of H a l e County 
and 
an employee of 
G r i f f i n 
Wood Company, I n c . 
( " G r i f f i n 
Wood"), was o p e r a t i n g a l o g t r u c k on Greensboro Avenue i n 
T u s c a l o o s a 
C o u n t y ; the l o g t r u c k was not c a r r y i n g any l o g s . 
A t t h e same t i m e , Waltman, a r e s i d e n t o f T u s c a l o o s a 
County, 
was o p e r a t i n g a v e h i c l e t h a t was t o w i n g a u t i l i t y 
t r a i l e r on 
Greensboro Avenue. 
The 
u t i l i t y 
t r a i l e r Waltman was 
t o w i n g 
d i s c o n n e c t e d 
from h i s v e h i c l e and 
s t r u c k Owens's 
t r u c k , 
r e s u l t i n g i n i n j u r i e s t o Owens. 
2 
1111598 and 1120080 
On December 20, 2011, Owens sued G r i f f i n Wood, Waltman, 
P r o g r e s s i v e , and GEICO Indemnity Company ("GEICO"). 
Owens 
i n c l u d e d a w o r k e r s ' compensation c l a i m a g a i n s t 
G r i f f i n Wood 
b a s e d on an a l l e g a t i o n t h a t he was w o r k i n g i n t h e l i n e and 
scope o f h i s employment f o r G r i f f i n Wood a t the time of t h e 
a c c i d e n t ; c l a i m s o f n e g l i g e n c e , wanton and r e c k l e s s conduct, 
and n e g l i g e n t , r e c k l e s s , and/or wanton v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e r u l e s 
of 
t h e r o a d 
a g a i n s t 
Waltman; and 
u n i n s u r e d / u n d e r i n s u r e d -
m o t o r i s t 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
P r o g r e s s i v e 
and GEICO.
1 
Owens 
a l l e g e d , i n p a r t , t h a t he 
f i l e d t h e a c t i o n i n P e r r y County 
because G r i f f i n Wood's p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s i s 
i n P e r r y 
County. 
See § 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . 
Code 1975.
2 
1Waltman 
a l l e g e s 
i n h i s 
p e t i t i o n 
t h a t 
GEICO 
was 
s u b s e q u e n t l y d i s m i s s e d from t h e case. 
2 W i t h 
r e g a r d 
t o 
t h e 
venue 
f o r 
a c t i o n s 
a g a i n s t 
c o r p o r a t i o n s , § 6-3-7 p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"(a) A l l c i v i l a c t i o n s a g a i n s t c o r p o r a t i o n s may 
be b r o u g h t i n any of t h e f o l l o w i n g c o u n t i e s : 
"  
"(2) 
In 
t h e 
c o u n t y 
o f 
t h e 
c o r p o r a t i o n ' s 
p r i n c i p a l 
o f f i c e 
i n 
t h i s 
s t a t e 
" 
3 
1111598 and 1120080 
On F e b r u a r y 8, 2012, 
Waltman f i l e d a motion t o t r a n s f e r 
the a c t i o n from P e r r y County t o 
T u s c a l o o s a County. 
I n s u p p o r t 
of 
h i s m o t i o n , 
Waltman 
contended 
t h a t 
venue 
would 
be 
a p p r o p r i a t e i n 
T u s c a l o o s a County p u r s u a n t t o 
§ 6-3-2(3), A l a . 
Code 1975, because t h e 
a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d i n 
T u s c a l o o s a County; 
because t h e " h i t c h on t h e tongue 
o f t h e u t i l i t y 
t r a i l e r 
Waltman was p u l l i n g had been a t t a c h e d t o h i s v e h i c l e by a 
company 
i n T u s c a l o o s a 
[ C o u n t y 
o n ] t h e morning 
o f " t h e 
a c c i d e n t ; and because Waltman was then r e s i d i n g i n T u s c a l o o s a 
County and 
he was a r e s i d e n t o f T u s c a l o o s a County a t 
t h e time 
the a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d and 
a t 
t h e 
time t h e 
c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d . 
Waltman a l s o argued 
t h a t 
P e r r y County's 
c o n n e c t i o n t o 
t h e 
c l a i m s was v e r y weak and t h a t T u s c a l o o s a County's c o n n e c t i o n 
t o t h e c l a i m s was much s t r o n g e r . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , he contended 
t h a t 
P e r r y County's 
o n l y c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e case i s t h a t 
G r i f f i n Wood has i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s i n P e r r y 
County 
and t h a t , 
a l t h o u g h Owens had a l l e g e d 
t h a t he was 
engaged i n 
t h e l i n e and scope o f h i s d u t i e s as an employee 
o f 
G r i f f i n Wood a t t h e time o f t h e a c c i d e n t , h i s 
l o g 
t r u c k was 
not c a r r y i n g any l o g s a t 
t h e 
time o f 
t h e 
a c c i d e n t . T h e r e f o r e , 
c i t i n g § 6-3-21.1, A l a . Code 1975, Waltman argued t h a t t h e 
4 
1111598 and 1120080 
a c t i o n s h o u l d be t r a n s f e r r e d t o T u s c a l o o s a County based on 
t h e 
i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e 
prong 
o f t h e d o c t r i n e 
o f forum non  
c o n v e n i e n s . 
On 
F e b r u a r y 9, 2012, P r o g r e s s i v e 
f i l e d 
a motion t o 
t r a n s f e r t h e case from P e r r y County t o T u s c a l o o s a County. I t 
adopted i n i t s 
e n t i r e t y t h e motion Waltman 
f i l e d . 
A l s o , 
c i t i n g § 6 - 3 - 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975, 
i t 
argued t h a t venue 
f o r 
an a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t i s n o r m a l l y p r o p e r i n t h e c o u n t y i n 
w h i c h t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d o r 
t h e 
c o u n t y i n 
w h i c h t h e a l l e g e d 
t o r t f e a s o r 
r e s i d e s , b o t h o f w h i c h , i n t h i s case, would be 
T u s c a l o o s a County. 
On 
A p r i l 
4, 2012, Owens 
f i l e d 
an o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e 
motions t o t r a n s f e r . 
He argued t h a t t h e c i t i z e n s o f P e r r y 
County have a s t r o n g i n t e r e s t i n t h e a f f a i r s o f one o f 
i t s 
r e s i d e n t 
c o r p o r a t i o n s 
and t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w o r k e r s ' 
compensation 
b e n e f i t s owed t o i t s 
employees. 
Owens 
a l s o 
argued t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n f o r 
s u b r o g a t i o n i n 
§ 25-5-11(a) o f 
the 
w o r k e r s ' compensation a c t 
" c l e a r l y s e t s f o r t h a s t r o n g i n t e r e s t and 
c o n n e c t i o n 
i n t h e 
motor v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t case t o P e r r y County. 
Namely, one o f t h e employers and p a r t i c i p a n t s i n 
P e r r y County's a l l - i m p o r t a n t t i m b e r b u s i n e s s has a 
r i g h t t o be 
f u l l y 
compensated 
f o r any 
b e n e f i t s 
5 
1111598 and 1120080 
extended t o Owens from t h e p a r t y r e s p o n s i b l e 
f o r 
Owens'[s] 
i n j u r i e s . " 
F i n a l l y , he argued t h a t "Alabama law i s r e p l e t e w i t h cases 
t r i e d i n a c o u n t y o t h e r t h a n where an [ a u t o m o b i l e ] a c c i d e n t 
o c c u r r e d . " 
Owens c o n c l u d e d 
t h a t P e r r y County d i d have a 
s t r o n g 
c o n n e c t i o n t o and i n t e r e s t i n t h e case and t h a t , 
t h e r e f o r e , t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e would n o t r e q u i r e a change 
of venue from P e r r y County t o T u s c a l o o s a County. 
On A p r i l 11, 
2012, Waltman f i l e d a r e p l y t o Owens's o p p o s i t i o n . 
G r i f f i n Wood moved t o b i f u r c a t e t h e 
w o r k e r s ' 
compensation 
count from t h e o t h e r counts i n 
t h e c o m p l a i n t . 
On A p r i l 29, 
2012, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e 
motion, o r d e r i n g t h a t 
" t h e 
w o r k e r s ' compensation 
c l a i m s h a l l be t r i e d w i t h o u t a j u r y and 
s e p a r a t e l y from t h e r e m a i n i n g counts i n t h i s 
l a w s u i t . " 
On May 16, 2012, 
Waltman f i l e d a supplement t o h i s motion 
t o 
t r a n s f e r . 
I n t h a t 
supplement, 
he 
c i t e d 
t h i s 
C o u r t ' s 
d e c i s i o n i n 
Ex p a r t e S o u t h e a s t Alabama Timber H a r v e s t i n g , 
LLC, 
94 So. 3d 371 ( A l a . 2012), as b e i n g on p o i n t and s u p p o r t i n g 
the t r a n s f e r t o T u s c a l o o s a County. 
On September 9, 2012, t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t d e n i e d t h e 
motions t o t r a n s f e r t h e case. 
These p e t i t i o n s 
f o l l o w e d . 
S t a n d a r d o f Review 
6 
1111598 and 1120080 
"A 
p e t i t i o n f o r a 
w r i t 
of mandamus i s t h e 
a p p r o p r i a t e 'method f o r o b t a i n i n g r e v i e w of a d e n i a l 
of a motion f o r a change of venue' p u r s u a n t t o § 
6-3-21.1. 
Ex p a r t e N a t i o n a l Sec. I n s . Co., 727 So. 
2d 788, 789 ( A l a . 1998). ... 
"  
"'A p a r t y moving f o r 
a t r a n s f e r under § 6-3-21.1 
has 
t h e 
i n i t i a l 
burden 
o f showing, 
among o t h e r 
t h i n g s , one of two f a c t o r s : 
(1) t h a t the t r a n s f e r 
i s 
j u s t i f i e d based on t h e c o n v e n i e n c e o f e i t h e r t h e 
p a r t i e s o r t h e w i t n e s s e s , or (2) t h a t t h e t r a n s f e r 
i s 
j u s t i f i e d 
" i n the i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e . " ' 
Ex 
p a r t e I n d i a n a M i l l s & Mfg., I n c . , 
10 So. 3d 536, 539 
( A l a . 
2008) 
. 
A l t h o u g h we 
r e v i e w a 
r u l i n g on a 
m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t exceeded i t s 
d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g o r d e n y i n g 
the 
m o t i o n , 
i d . , 
where 
'the c o n v e n i e n c e 
of t h e 
p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s or the i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e 
would be b e s t s e r v e d by a t r a n s f e r , § 6-3-21.1, 
A l a . 
Code 1975, compels t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o t r a n s f e r the 
a c t i o n t o t h e a l t e r n a t i v e forum.' 
Ex p a r t e 
F i r s t 
 
Tennessee 
Bank N a t ' l 
A s s ' n , 994 So. 2d 906, 912 
( A l a . 
2008) (emphasis added)." 
Ex p a r t e Wachovia Bank, N.A., 77 So. 3d 570, 573 ( A l a . 2011) 
. 
D i s c u s s i o n 
The p e t i t i o n e r s argue t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t exceeded i t s 
d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g t h e i r motions t o t r a n s f e r t h e 
a c t i o n 
from P e r r y County t o T u s c a l o o s a County. 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , c i t i n g 
§ 6-3-21.1, A l a . 
Code 1975, w h i c h governs when an a c t i o n must 
be t r a n s f e r r e d t o a n o t h e r venue under t h e d o c t r i n e o f forum 
non c o n v e n i e n s , t h e y c o n t e n d 
t h a t 
t h e i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e 
7 
1111598 and 1120080 
prong of the forum non c o n v e n i e n s s t a t u t e mandates a t r a n s f e r 
to T u s c a l o o s a 
County. 
S e c t i o n 6-3-21.1, A l a . Code 1975, 
p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t 
p a r t : 
"With 
r e s p e c t 
t o 
c i v i l 
a c t i o n s 
f i l e d 
i n 
an 
a p p r o p r i a t e venue, any c o u r t of g e n e r a l 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
s h a l l , f o r the c o n v e n i e n c e of p a r t i e s and 
w i t n e s s e s , 
or i n the 
i n t e r e s t of 
j u s t i c e , 
t r a n s f e r any 
c i v i l 
a c t i o n or any c l a i m i n any 
c i v i l a c t i o n t o any 
c o u r t 
of g e n e r a l 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
i n w h i c h the a c t i o n might 
have been p r o p e r l y f i l e d and the case s h a l l p r o c e e d 
as though o r i g i n a l l y 
f i l e d t h e r e i n . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
The 
p a r t i e s 
do 
not 
d i s p u t e 
t h a t 
the 
c o m p l a i n t 
was 
f i l e d 
i n an a p p r o p r i a t e venue, namely, 
P e r r y 
County. 
L i k e w i s e , t h e y do not d i s p u t e t h a t the a c t i o n c o u l d 
p r o p e r l y have been f i l e d i n T u s c a l o o s a County.
3 However, t h e y 
3 W i t h r e g a r d t o venue of a c t i o n s a g a i n s t i n d i v i d u a l s , 
§ 
6-3-2, A l a . Code 1975, 
p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"(a) 
In p r o c e e d i n g s 
of a l e g a l n a t u r e 
a g a i n s t 
i n d i v i d u a l s : 
"  
"(3) 
A l l o t h e r 
p e r s o n a l 
a c t i o n s , i f 
the d e f e n d a n t or one of the d e f e n d a n t s 
has 
w i t h i n the s t a t e a permanent r e s i d e n c e , 
may 
be 
commenced 
i n 
the 
county 
of 
such 
r e s i d e n c e or i n the county i n w h i c h the a c t 
or 
o m i s s i o n 
c o m p l a i n e d of may 
have been 
done or may have 
o c c u r r e d . " 
8 
1111598 and 1120080 
do d i s p u t e whether the i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e prong of § 6-3-21.1 
r e q u i r e s 
a 
t r a n s f e r 
of 
t h i s 
case 
from 
P e r r y 
County 
t o 
T u s c a l o o s a County. 
" H i s t o r i c a l l y , the p l a i n t i f f has had the 
i n i t i a l 
c h o i c e of venue under the system e s t a b l i s h e d by the 
l e g i s l a t u r e 
f o r 
d e t e r m i n i n g 
venue. 
B e f o r e 
the 
enactment of § 6-3-21.1 by the Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e 
i n 1987, 
a p l a i n t i f f ' s c h o i c e of venue c o u l d not be 
d i s t u r b e d on the b a s i s of convenience 
t o the p a r t i e s 
or 
the 
w i t n e s s e s 
or 
i n the 
i n t e r e s t 
of 
j u s t i c e . 
With 
the a d o p t i o n of § 6-3-21.1, 
t r i a l 
c o u r t s 
now 
have 
'the power and 
the d u t y 
t o t r a n s f e r a cause 
when "the i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e " r e q u i r e s a t r a n s f e r . ' 
Ex p a r t e F i r s t F a m i l y F i n . S e r v s . , I n c . , 718 So. 
2d 
658, 
660 
( A l a . 1998) 
(emphasis added). 
In 
F i r s t 
F a m i l y , t h i s C o u r t n o t e d t h a t an argument t h a t 
t r i a l 
judges 
have 
a l m o s t 
u n l i m i t e d 
d i s c r e t i o n 
i n 
d e t e r m i n i n g whether a case 
s h o u l d 
be t r a n s f e r r e d 
under § 6-3-21.1 'must be c o n s i d e r e d i n l i g h t of the 
f a c t 
t h a t 
the 
L e g i s l a t u r e used 
the word 
" s h a l l " 
i n s t e a d of the word "may" 
i n § 6-3-21.1.' 
718 
So. 
2d 
a t 
660. 
T h i s 
C o u r t 
has 
f u r t h e r h e l d 
t h a t 
'Alabama's 
forum 
non 
conveniens 
s t a t u t e 
i s 
compulsory.' 
Ex p a r t e Sawyer, 892 So. 2d 898, 
905 
n.9 
( A l a . 2004)." 
Ex p a r t e Autauga H e a t i n g & C o o l i n g , LLC, 58 So. 3d 745, 748-49 
( A l a . 
2010). 
"The 
' i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e ' prong of § 6-3-21.1 
r e q u i r e s 
'the t r a n s f e r of the a c t i o n from a 
county 
w i t h 
l i t t l e , 
i f any, 
c o n n e c t i o n t o the a c t i o n , 
t o 
the county w i t h a s t r o n g c o n n e c t i o n t o the 
a c t i o n . ' 
Ex p a r t e N a t i o n a l Sec. 
I n s . Co., 
727 
So. 2d 
[788,] 
790 
[ ( A l a . 
1 9 9 8 ) ] . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
' i n a n a l y z i n g 
the 
i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e prong of § 6-3-21.1, t h i s 
C o u r t 
f o c u s e s 
on 
whether 
the 
"nexus" 
or 
" c o n n e c t i o n " 
between 
the 
p l a i n t i f f ' s 
a c t i o n and 
the 
o r i g i n a l 
9 
1111598 and 1120080 
forum 
i s s t r o n g enough t o w a r r a n t b u r d e n i n g 
the 
p l a i n t i f f ' s forum w i t h the a c t i o n . ' 
Ex p a r t e F i r s t  
Tennessee 
Bank N a t ' l A s s ' n , 
994 
So. 
2d 906, 
911 
( A l a . 2008) 
. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t 
' l i t i g a t i o n s h o u l d be h a n d l e d i n the forum where the 
i n j u r y o c c u r r e d . ' Ex p a r t e F u l l e r , 955 So. 2d 414, 
416 
( A l a . 2006). 
F u r t h e r , i n e x a m i n i n g whether i t 
i s i n the i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e t o t r a n s f e r a c a s e , we 
c o n s i d e r "the burden o f p i l i n g 
c o u r t s e r v i c e s 
and 
r e s o u r c e s upon the p e o p l e o f a county t h a t i s not 
a f f e c t e d by the case and 
... the i n t e r e s t of the 
p e o p l e o f a c o u n t y t o have a case t h a t a r i s e s i n 
t h e i r c o u n t y 
t r i e d 
c l o s e t o p u b l i c view i n 
t h e i r 
c o u n t y . " 
Ex p a r t e Smiths Water & Sewer A u t h . , 
982 
So. 2d 484, 490 
( A l a . 2007)." 
Ex p a r t e I n d i a n a M i l l s & Mfg., I n c . , 10 So. 3d 536, 540 ( A l a . 
2008). 
The p e t i t i o n e r s r e l y p r i m a r i l y on t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n s 
i n Ex p a r t e Autauga H e a t i n g & C o o l i n g , LLC, s u p r a , Ex p a r t e  
Wachovia Bank, N.A., 
s u p r a , and Ex p a r t e S o u t h e a s t Alabama  
Timber 
H a r v e s t i n g , LLC, 
94 So. 3d 371 
( A l a . 2012), a l l of 
w h i c h 
i n v o l v e d 
r e q u e s t s f o r a change of venue under 
the 
i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e prong of the forum non c o n v e n i e n s s t a t u t e . 
In Ex p a r t e Autauga H e a t i n g & C o o l i n g , LLC, a v e h i c l e b e i n g 
d r i v e n 
by 
L o r i 
W r i g h t , a 
r e s i d e n t 
of Elmore 
County, 
was 
i n v o l v e d i n an a c c i d e n t i n Elmore County w i t h a v e h i c l e owned 
by Autauga H e a t i n g & C o o l i n g , LLC, w h i c h had i t s p r i n c i p a l 
p l a c e of b u s i n e s s i n Autauga County, and d r i v e n by 
R i c h a r d 
10 
1111598 and 1120080 
A l e x a n d e r Rogers, a Montgomery r e s i d e n t . 
W r i g h t sued Rogers 
and Autauga H e a t i n g & C o o l i n g i n Montgomery County, and Rogers 
and Autauga H e a t i n g & C o o l i n g f i l e d a motion t o t r a n s f e r the 
a c t i o n t o Elmore County based on the d o c t r i n e of forum non 
c o n v e n i e n s . 
A f t e r 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
d e n i e d 
the m o t i o n , 
Autauga H e a t i n g & C o o l i n g and Rogers p e t i t i o n e d t h i s C o u r t f o r 
a w r i t o f mandamus, and we 
i s s u e d the w r i t based on t h e 
i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e prong of the forum non c o n v e n i e n s s t a t u t e , 
r e a s o n i n g , i n p a r t : 
" A l t h o u g h we agree w i t h W r i g h t t h a t the case has 
a c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Montgomery County because Rogers 
i s 
a 
r e s i d e n t 
of Montgomery 
County 
and 
Autauga 
H e a t i n g & A i r may 
have some b u s i n e s s 
c o n n e c t i o n s 
t h e r e , we h o l d t h a t the o v e r a l l c o n n e c t i o n between 
Montgomery County and t h i s case i s weak and t h a t the 
c o n n e c t i o n between 
the case and Elmore County i s 
s t r o n g . 
" F i r s t , the a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d i n Elmore County. 
W r i g h t , 
the 
p l a i n t i f f , 
i s a 
r e s i d e n t 
o f 
Elmore 
County. 
F u r t h e r , Rebecca M c C u l l e r s , the emergency 
m e d i c a l t e c h n i c i a n who 
responded t o the a c c i d e n t , 
t e s t i f i e d 
i n h e r 
a f f i d a v i t 
t h a t 
she worked f o r 
Haynes Ambulance o f Wetumpka, I n c . , and t h a t she i s 
a r e s i d e n t o f Elmore County. 
The p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f 
b u s i n e s s of Haynes Ambulance of Wetumpka, I n c . , i s 
i n Elmore County. 
On the o t h e r hand, the c o n n e c t i o n 
between the case and Montgomery County, g i v e n the 
e v i d e n c e b e f o r e the t r i a l 
c o u r t , i s weak. 
B e s i d e s 
the 
f a c t 
t h a t Rogers i s a r e s i d e n t o f Montgomery 
County, t h e r e was no o t h e r e v i d e n c e b e f o r e the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t i n d i c a t i n g a c o n n e c t i o n between the case and 
Montgomery County. 
11 
1111598 and 1120080 
II 
"The a c c i d e n t u n d e r l y i n g t h i s a c t i o n o c c u r r e d 
i n 
Elmore 
County, 
and t h e emergency 
p e r s o n n e l who 
responded t o t h e a c c i d e n t were from Elmore County. 
The 
p l a i n t i f f 
h e r s e l f 
i s a 
r e s i d e n t 
o f Elmore 
County. 
T h i s 
C o u r t 
sees 
no 
need 
t o 
burden 
Montgomery County, w i t h i t s 
weak c o n n e c t i o n t o 
t h e 
case, w i t h an a c t i o n 
t h a t a r o s e i n Elmore 
County 
s i m p l y because t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t r e s i d e s i n 
Montgomery County and t h e c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t does 
some b u s i n e s s t h e r e . 
We thus c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e 
t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g t h e 
p e t i t i o n e r s ' 
motion f o r a change o f venue. 
The 
t r i a l c o u r t i s 
hereby d i r e c t e d t o t r a n s f e r t h e case 
t o t h e 
Elmore C i r c u i t C o u r t . " 
Ex p a r t e Autauga H e a t i n g & C o o l i n g , LLC, 
58 So. 3d a t 750-51. 
A l s o , i n 
Ex p a r t e Wachovia Bank, Tameka F l o y d and Adam 
Lee F l o y d were s i g n a t o r i e s on a b u s i n e s s - c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t 
i n 
the name o f Adam Lee F l o y d d/b/a Unique Image Pro Car Care 
("Unique") a t 
a b r a n c h o f Wachovia Bank i n 
Lee County. 
A f t e r 
d i s c o v e r i n g 
t h a t Tammy S i s t r u n k , 
"a sometime 
employee o f 
Unique," had t a k e n funds from Unique's a c c o u n t by 
f o r g i n g 
names on w i t h d r a w a l s l i p s , 
t h e F l o y d s 
sued 
S i s t r u n k and 
Wachovia i n 
Macon County, where S i s t r u n k l i v e d . 
The F l o y d s 
l a t e r added as a d e f e n d a n t James M. S u t h e r l a n d , an employee o f 
Wachovia, who a l s o r e s i d e d i n 
Macon County. 
Wachovia moved 
t o 
t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n t o Lee County under t h e i n t e r e s t - o f -
j u s t i c e prong o f t h e forum non c o n v e n i e n s s t a t u t e , b u t 
t h e 
12 
1111598 and 1120080 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n . 
Wachovia then p e t i t i o n e d 
t h i s C o u r t f o r 
a w r i t o f mandamus, and we i s s u e d t h e w r i t , 
r e a s o n i n g , i n p a r t : 
"Lee County i s t h e s i t u s o f a l l 
t h e a l l e g e d a c t s 
or o m i s s i o n s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' 
c l a i m s . 
Any 
a l l e g e d l y u n a u t h o r i z e d 
w i t h d r a w a l s 
were made 
from a Wachovia 
b r a n c h i n Lee County. 
P o l i c e 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e m a t t e r was c o n d u c t e d i n Lee 
County. 
Lee County i s F l o y d ' s p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e , 
as w e l l as t h e l o c a t i o n o f Unique. 
Thus, Lee County 
i s t h e p l a c e where a l l t h e i n j u r y a l l e g e d i n 
t h e 
c o m p l a i n t o c c u r r e d . 
A l t h o u g h 
i t i s 
n o t a t a l i s m a n , 
the 
f a c t t h a t t h e i n j u r y o c c u r r e d i n t h e p r o p o s e d 
t r a n s f e r e e 
c o u n t y i s o f t e n 
a s s i g n e d 
c o n s i d e r a b l e 
w e i g h t i n an i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e a n a l y s i s . 
See Ex  
p a r t e Autauga H e a t i n g & C o o l i n g , LLC, 
58 So. 3d 
745, 
748 
( A l a . 
2010) 
( ' " [ T ] h i s 
C o u r t 
has h e l d 
t h a t 
' l i t i g a t i o n s h o u l d be h a n d l e d i n 
t h e forum where t h e 
i n j u r y o c c u r r e d . ' " ' 
( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e I n d i a n a 
M i l l s  
[& 
Mfg., 
I n c . ] , 
10 So. 3d 
[536,] 
540 
[ ( A l a . 
2 0 0 8 ) ] ) ) ; Ex p a r t e McKenzie O i l , I n c . , 
13 So. 3d 
346, 349 ( A l a . 2008) (same). 
" I n 
s h o r t , 
n o t h i n g 
m a t e r i a l 
t o 
t h i s 
case 
t r a n s p i r e d i n Macon County. 
Macon County's 
s o l e 
m a t e r i a l 
c o n t a c t 
w i t h 
t h i s 
case i s t h a t t h e two 
i n d i v i d u a l 
d e f e n d a n t s , 
S i s t r u n k and 
S u t h e r l a n d , 
r e s i d e t h e r e . " 
77 So. 3d a t 573-74. 
F i n a l l y , i n 
Ex p a r t e S o u t h e a s t Alabama Timber, 
P a t r i c i a 
G a i l Webster was i n j u r e d i n an a c c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g a v e h i c l e 
t h a t was owned by S o u t h e a s t 
Alabama Timber H a r v e s t i n g , LLC 
("Southeast"), and d r i v e n by one o f i t s employees, M i c h a e l J . 
13 
1111598 and 1120080 
Smith. 
A l t h o u g h the a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d i n Lee County, Webster 
sued 
S o u t h e a s t and 
the 
d r i v e r 
o f i t s v e h i c l e 
i n Chambers 
County, where S o u t h e a s t had i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s . 
A f t e r 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t d e n i e d the d e f e n d a n t s ' motion 
t o 
t r a n s f e r the case t o Lee County, t h e y p e t i t i o n e d t h i s C o u r t 
f o r a w r i t of mandamus, and we i s s u e d the w r i t , r e a s o n i n g , i n 
p a r t : 
" [ T ] h i s 
a c t i o n 
was 
f i l e d 
i n 
the 
c o u n t y 
of 
a 
d e f e n d a n t ' s r e s i d e n c e or p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s 
-- Chambers County -- a l t h o u g h the a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d 
i n a n o t h e r county -- Lee County. 
As t h i s C o u r t has 
o b s e r v e d : 
'Although i t i s not a t a l i s m a n , the f a c t 
t h a t the i n j u r y o c c u r r e d i n the p r o p o s e d 
t r a n s f e r e e 
c o u n t y i s o f t e n a s s i g n e d c o n s i d e r a b l e w e i g h t i n an 
i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e 
a n a l y s i s . ' 
Ex p a r t e Wachovia  
Bank, N.A., 
77 
So. 
3d 
570, 
573-74 
( A l a . 2011) . 
A l s o , 
... the emergency p e r s o n n e l who 
responded t o 
the a c c i d e n t i n which Webster was 
i n j u r e d work i n 
the c o u n t y t o which S o u t h e a s t and Smith seek t o have 
the a c t i o n t r a n s f e r r e d . 
F u r t h e r , the o n l y n o n p a r t y 
e y e w i t n e s s t o t h e a c c i d e n t l i v e s and works i n Lee 
County, 
and Webster was 
l i v i n g and w o r k i n g i n Lee 
County a t the time o f the a c c i d e n t . 
"  
" T h i s 
C o u r t 
has 
h e l d 
t h a t 
the 
' i n t e r e s t 
o f 
j u s t i c e ' r e q u i r e s t r a n s f e r r i n g an a c t i o n t o a c o u n t y 
w i t h a s t r o n g c o n n e c t i o n t o the case as opposed t o 
k e e p i n g 
i t i n 
a 
county 
w i t h 
an 
o v e r a l l 
weak 
c o n n e c t i o n . 
Chambers County's s o l e c o n n e c t i o n w i t h 
t h e 
case 
-- 
t h a t 
i t i s the 
p r i n c i p a l 
p l a c e 
o f 
b u s i n e s s of S o u t h e a s t -- i s weak i n comparison 
t o 
Lee County's c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the case. 
14 
1111598 and 1120080 
"Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we c o n c l u d e 
t h a t t h e 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t exceeded 
i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g 
S o u t h e a s t and Smith's motion f o r 
a change o f venue 
based on t h e d o c t r i n e o f forum non c o n v e n i e n s . 
We 
t h e r e f o r e g r a n t S o u t h e a s t and Smith's p e t i t i o n 
f o r 
the w r i t o f mandamus and d i r e c t t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t , 
i n 
t h e i n t e r e s t 
o f j u s t i c e , t o e n t e r 
an 
o r d e r 
t r a n s f e r r i n g 
t h e case 
from t h e Chambers 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t t o t h e 
Lee C i r c u i t C o u r t . " 
Ex p a r t e S o u t h e a s t Alabama Timber, 94 So. 2d a t 375-77. 
Based on t h e r e a s o n i n g i n Ex p a r t e Autauga H e a t i n g &  
C o o l i n g , Ex p a r t e 
Wachovia Bank, and Ex p a r t e 
S o u t h e a s t 
 
Alabama 
Timber, 
t h e 
p e t i t i o n e r s 
have 
e s t a b l i s h e d 
t h a t 
T u s c a l o o s a County has a s t r o n g e r c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e c l a i m s i n 
t h i s case than has P e r r y County. 
The a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d i n 
T u s c a l o o s a 
County; t h e h i t c h on t h e tongue o f t h e u t i l i t y 
t r a i l e r Waltman was p u l l i n g had been a t t a c h e d t o h i s v e h i c l e 
by a company i n T u s c a l o o s a 
County on t h e morning o f t h e 
a c c i d e n t ; and Waltman c u r r e n t l y r e s i d e s i n T u s c a l o o s a 
County 
and he was r e s i d i n g t h e r e a t t h e time t h e a c c i d e n t 
o c c u r r e d 
and a t t h e time t h e c o m p l a i n t was 
f i l e d . 
In c o n t r a s t , t h e o n l y c o n n e c t i o n t h e case has t o P e r r y 
County i s t h a t 
G r i f f i n Wood has i t s 
p r i n c i p a l 
p l a c e o f 
b u s i n e s s 
t h e r e . 
Owens argues t h a t t h e c i t i z e n s o f P e r r y 
County have a s t r o n g i n t e r e s t i n t h e a f f a i r s o f one o f i t s 
15 
1111598 and 1120080 
r e s i d e n t 
c o r p o r a t i o n s 
and t h e 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n 
of 
w o r k e r s ' 
compensation b e n e f i t s owed t o i t s employees and any p o s s i b l e 
s u b r o g a t i o n 
r i g h t s of G r i f f i n Wood. 
However, t h e 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
b i f u r c a t e d the w o r k e r s ' compensation 
c l a i m 
from t h e 
r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s and o r d e r e d t h a t t h e w o r k e r s ' compensation 
c l a i m be t r i e d w i t h o u t a j u r y . 
T h e r e f o r e , a j u r y would not be 
h e a r i n g 
t h o s e c l a i m s i n P e r r y County. 
A l s o , 
t h e r e was no 
e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t 
G r i f f i n Wood had p a i d any w o r k e r s ' 
compensation b e n e f i t s and f i l e d any c l a i m f o r 
s u b r o g a t i o n . 
C i t i n g Ex p a r t e Yocum, 963 So. 2d 600 ( A l a . 
2007), and Ex 
p a r t e C i t y o f H a l e y v i l l e , 827 So. 2d 778 ( A l a . 
2002), Owens 
argues t h a t t h e r e a r e numerous d e c i s i o n s t h a t d i d 
not r e q u i r e 
t h a t an a c t i o n be 
t r i e d i n t h e c o u n t y where the i n c i d e n t 
o c c u r r e d . 
However, i n Ex p a r t e S o u t h e a s t Alabama Timber, 94 
So. 3d a t 376, t h i s C o u r t d i s t i n g u i s h e d Ex p a r t e Yocum and Ex 
p a r t e H a l e y v i l l e as f o l l o w s : 
" I n Yocum, t h e p l a i n t i f f , a r e s i d e n t of D a l l a s 
County, 
f i l e d h e r a c t i o n i n J e f f e r s o n County, t h e 
r e s i d e n c e or p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s o f two of 
the d e f e n d a n t s . 
S e v e r a l d e f e n d a n t s who r e s i d e d i n 
D a l l a s County f i l e d a motion t o t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n 
t o D a l l a s County on t h e b a s i s o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f 
forum non c o n v e n i e n s . 
The J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t 
d e n i e d the motion t o t r a n s f e r , and t h i s C o u r t d e n i e d 
the d e f e n d a n t s ' subsequent p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f 
mandamus. 
U n l i k e 
t h i s 
case, 
Yocum 
i n v o l v e d 
a 
16 
1111598 and 1120080 
c o n t r a c t 
d i s p u t e 
i n which the 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
the 
J e f f e r s o n 
County 
d e f e n d a n t s 
i n c l u d e d 
f r a u d , 
s u p p r e s s i o n , 
c o n v e r s i o n , 
and 
i n t e r f e r e n c e 
w i t h 
b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s . 
T h i s C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t the 
J e f f e r s o n 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
d i d 
not 
exceed 
i t s 
d i s c r e t i o n 
i n 
d e n y i n g 
the 
motion 
t o 
t r a n s f e r 
'[b]ecause of the nexus between J e f f e r s o n County and 
the 
a l l e g e d 
p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f 
the 
two 
J e f f e r s o n 
County 
d e f e n d a n t s 
i n 
the 
a l l e g e d 
scheme 
t o 
o v e r c h a r g e 
Cahaba 
Timber 
so 
as 
t o 
d e f l a t e i t s 
p r o f i t s and hence the amount due 
[the 
p l a i n t i f f ] . ' 
Ex p a r t e Yocum, 963 So. 2d a t 603. 
Thus, t h i s C o u r t 
d e n i e d the p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandamus s e e k i n g 
a t r a n s f e r of t h e case from 
J e f f e r s o n 
County 
not 
s i m p l y because two of the d e f e n d a n t s r e s i d e d or had 
a p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s i n J e f f e r s o n 
County, 
but 
because 
J e f f e r s o n 
County 
had 
a 
s u b s t a n t i a l 
c o n n e c t i o n t o the m a t t e r s g i v i n g r i s e t o the a c t i o n . 
[Two 
of the a l l e g e d p r i n c i p a l wrongdoers o p e r a t e d 
out o f J e f f e r s o n 
County.] 
" H a l e y v i l l e i n v o l v e d an a c t i o n 
f i l e d i n M a r i o n 
County by a p l a i n t i f f who 
f e l l a t the Downtown M a l l 
of H a l e y v i l l e , which i s l o c a t e d i n Winston 
County. 
The 
d e f e n d a n t , 
the 
C i t y 
of 
H a l e y v i l l e , 
f i l e d 
a 
motion f o r a change o f venue t o Winston County based 
on 
§ 
6-3-11, 
A l a . Code 
1975, 
the 
s t a t u t e 
t h a t 
c o n t r o l s 
venue 
f o r 
c i v i l 
a c t i o n s 
f i l e d 
a g a i n s t 
m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . 
Webster argues t h a t i n H a l e y v i l l e 
'the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t and 
t h i s C o u r t d i d not f e e l 
t h a t 
the i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e r e q u i r e d t h a t the 
p l a i n t i f f 
must p r o s e c u t e her case i n the county where she 
f e l l 
r a t h e r than her chosen forum.' 
Webster's 
b r i e f , p. 
10. 
I n 
f a c t , 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
d i d not 
a d d r e s s 
the 
i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e f a c t o r i n H a l e y v i l l e because the 
d e f e n d a n t ' s 
motion 
t o 
t r a n s f e r 
the 
case was 
not 
based upon the d o c t r i n e 
of forum non 
c o n v e n i e n s . 
The 
C i t y of 
H a l e y v i l l e contended 
t h a t 
venue 
was 
improper i n M a r i o n County, not t h a t Winston 
County 
was 
a more a p p r o p r i a t e 
o r more c o n v e n i e n t 
forum. 
T h e r e f o r e , 
H a l e y v i l l e 
p r o v i d e s 
no 
s u p p o r t 
f o r 
Webster's p o s i t i o n . " 
17 
1111598 and 1120080 
F i n a l l y , 
a l t h o u g h Owens makes r e f e r e n c e t o P e r r y County's 
t i m b e r i n d u s t r y and c i t e s Ex p a r t e Siemag, 53 So. 3d 974 ( A l a . 
C i v . App. 2010), t o compare t h a t i n d u s t r y t o t h e c o a l - m i n i n g 
i n d u s t r y i n 
Walker County, he d i d n o t p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e t o 
the c i r c u i t c o u r t t o s u p p o r t h i s 
a l l e g a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g P e r r y 
County's t i m b e r i n d u s t r y . 
" ' " I n 
c o n s i d e r i n g a mandamus p e t i t i o n , we 
must l o o k a t o n l y those 
f a c t s b e f o r e t h e 
t r i a l c o u r t . " Ex p a r t e American Res. I n s .  
Co., 
663 So. 2d 932, 936 ( A l a . 
1995) 
(emphasis added). Of c o u r s e , f a c t s must be 
based upon " e v i d e n t i a r y m a t e r i a l , " w h i c h 
does n o t i n c l u d e s t a t e m e n t s o f c o u n s e l i n 
m o t i o n s , 
b r i e f s , and arguments. 
Ex p a r t e  
McCord-Baugh, 894 So. 2d 679, 686 ( A l a . 
2004). 
See a l s o P r o v i d i a n N a t ' l Bank v.  
Conner, 898 So. 2d 714, 719 ( A l a . 2004).' 
"Ex p a r t e ADT Sec. S e r v s . , I n c . , 933 So. 2d 343, 
345 
( A l a . 
2006) . 
See a l s o Ex p a r t e Verbena 
U n i t e d 
 
M e t h o d i s t Church, 953 So. 2d 395, 399 ( A l a . 2006). 
Because t h e i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t r e g a r d i n g 
W r i g h t ' s 
a s s e r t i o n s i s c o n t a i n e d i n 'statements o f 
c o u n s e l 
i n m o t i o n s , 
b r i e f s , 
and arguments,' i t 
cannot be c o n s i d e r e d ' e v i d e n t i a r y 
m a t e r i a l ' and thus 
w i l l not 
be c o n s i d e r e d by t h i s 
C o u r t . " 
Ex p a r t e Autauga H e a t i n g & C o o l i n g , LLC, 
58 So. 3d a t 749-50. 
T h e r e f o r e , we have n o t c o n s i d e r e d t h o s e a s s e r t i o n s about t h e 
p r e s e n c e o f 
t h e 
t i m b e r b u s i n e s s i n 
P e r r y County i n d e t e r m i n i n g 
P e r r y County's c o n n e c t i o n t o t h i s 
case. 
18 
1111598 and 1120080 
Because 
P e r r y 
County has o n l y a v e r y 
weak 
o v e r a l l 
c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e c l a i m s and T u s c a l o o s a 
County has a much 
s t r o n g e r 
c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e c l a i m s , t h e i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e 
prong o f t h e forum non c o n v e n i e n s s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e 
a c t i o n be t r a n s f e r r e d t o T u s c a l o o s a 
County. 
C o n c l u s i o n 
For 
t h e a b o v e - s t a t e d 
r e a s o n s , 
we 
c o n c l u d e 
t h a t t h e 
c i r c u i t c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n 
d e n y i n g Waltman's and 
P r o g r e s s i v e ' s motions f o r 
a change o f venue based on t h e 
i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e prong o f 
t h e 
forum non c o n v e n i e n s s t a t u t e . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , we g r a n t Waltman's and P r o g r e s s i v e ' s 
p e t i t i o n s 
f o r t h e 
w r i t o f 
mandamus and d i r e c t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , i n t h e 
i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e , t o e n t e r an o r d e r t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e case 
from t h e P e r r y C i r c u i t C o u r t t o 
t h e T u s c a l o o s a 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t . 
1111598 -- PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. 
1120080 -- PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. 
Malone, C . J . , 
and S t u a r t and P a r k e r , J J . , concur. 
Shaw, J . , 
concurs i n 
t h e r e s u l t . 
19