Case Title: Dawdy, Jr. v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 93710

State: illinois

Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Date: 2003-08-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
Docket No. 93710-Agenda 13-January 2003.
WILLIAM DAWDY, JR., Appellee, v. UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY et al., Appellants.
Opinion filed August 21, 2003.
	 
	JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the opinion of the court:
	Plaintiff, William Dawdy, Jr., brought a personal injury action
in the circuit court of Madison County against defendants, the
Union Pacific Railroad Company and Rodney Riederer. Plaintiff
sought damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident
that occurred in Macoupin County. Defendants moved to transfer
the action to Macoupin County under the doctrine of forum non
conveniens. The circuit court denied the motion and the appellate
court affirmed. No. 5-00-0293 (unpublished order under Supreme
Court Rule 23).
	We allowed defendants' petition for leave to appeal (177 Ill.
2d R. 315(a)). We now reverse the appellate and circuit courts and
remand this cause to the circuit court of Madison County with
directions to transfer the cause to Macoupin County.

BACKGROUND
	On the morning of May 20, 1997, plaintiff was driving a
tractor westbound on Illinois Highway 108 in Macoupin County.
At the same time, Riederer, acting within the scope of his
employment with Union Pacific, was driving a truck eastbound on
the same highway. The vehicles collided, causing plaintiff to be
seriously injured.
	On May 19, 1999, plaintiff filed a two-count complaint in the
circuit court of Madison County. Count I alleged negligence in the
operation of defendants' vehicle. Count II, addressed solely to
Union Pacific, alleged that the railroad was negligent also for
failing to train and supervise Riederer and for failing to ensure that
vehicle attachments would not extend beyond the width of their
vehicles when operated on public thoroughfares.
	Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue from Madison
County to adjacent Macoupin County under the doctrine of forum
non conveniens. In their motion, defendants alleged as follows.
Plaintiff resides in Greene County. The action arose in Macoupin
County. Riederer resides in Macoupin County. Union Pacific is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Omaha, Nebraska. Union Pacific does business in Macoupin
County. Of the 18 witnesses who may be called to testify at trial,
most of them reside in or near Macoupin County, and none of
them reside in Madison County. Also, the docket of the Madison
County circuit court is more congested than that of the Macoupin
County circuit court. Thus, according to defendants, Macoupin
County would be the most convenient forum to try this case.
Defendants argued that "this case has absolutely no connection
whatsoever with Madison County, Illinois. There is no basis or
reason for filing this case in this court other than 'forum
shopping.' "
	In his memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion to
transfer venue, plaintiff argued that venue in Madison County is
just as convenient as in Macoupin County. Plaintiff alleged as
follows. Union Pacific operates a facility in Madison County. Of
the 18 potential witnesses, 14 reside in neither Madison County
nor Macoupin County and, accordingly, will be required to travel
regardless of where the case is tried. The average additional miles
required for the 18 potential witnesses to travel to Madison County
rather than to Macoupin County is approximately 18 miles per
witness. Most of the witnesses conduct business regularly in
Madison County. Plaintiff's attorney resides in Madison County,
and defendants' attorneys reside closer to Madison County than to
Macoupin County. According to plaintiff, his choice of forum is
entitled to deference and defendants failed to show that the factors
in a forum non conveniens analysis strongly weigh in favor of
transfer.
	The circuit court of Madison County denied defendants'
motion to transfer. Defendants appealed. Initially, the appellate
court reversed the circuit court's order and remanded the cause
with directions to transfer venue to Macoupin County. However,
on plaintiff's motion for rehearing, the appellate court vacated its
decision and affirmed the circuit court's denial of defendant's
motion to transfer venue. The appellate court held that, in light of
this court's decision in First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511 (2002), it was "compelled" to vacate its previous decision and
issue a new decision affirming the circuit court's order denying
defendants' motion to transfer venue to Macoupin County.
	This court allowed defendants' petition for leave to appeal.
177 Ill. 2d R. 315(a). We subsequently granted the Illinois Trial
Lawyers Association leave to submit an amicus curiae brief in
support of plaintiff. 155 Ill. 2d R. 345.

ANALYSIS
	Defendants contend that the appellate court erred in affirming
the circuit court's denial of defendants' motion to transfer venue.
Defendants argue, inter alia, that Macoupin County, and not
Madison County, is the most convenient forum to try this case.

I. Forum Non Conveniens: Controlling Principles
	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, or (2) in the county in which the cause of
action arose. 735 ILCS 5/2-101 (West 2000). If there exists more
than one potential forum, the equitable doctrine of forum non
conveniens may be invoked to determine the most appropriate
forum. Griffith v. Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc., 136 Ill. 2d 101, 105 (1990); Bland v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 116 Ill. 2d 217, 223 (1987). The doctrine is based on considerations of
fundamental fairness and sensible and effective judicial
administration. The doctrine allows the court in which the action
was filed to decline jurisdiction and direct the lawsuit to an
alternative forum that the court determines can better serve the
convenience of the parties and the ends of justice. Vinson v.
Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306, 310 (1991); Wieser v. Missouri Pacific
R.R. Co., 98 Ill. 2d 359, 365 (1983), quoting Adkins v. Chicago,
Rock Island & Pacific R.R. Co., 54 Ill. 2d 511, 514 (1973); see
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507, 91 L. Ed. 1055,
1062, 67 S. Ct. 839, 842 (1947).
	Although the forum non conveniens doctrine has a long
history at common law, its general application crystallized
following Gulf Oil. See Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 515; Wieser, 98 Ill. 2d  at 365. Illinois courts employ the analytical framework of Gulf
Oil in forum non conveniens cases. See, e.g., Meyers v. Bridgeport
Machines Division of Textron, Inc., 113 Ill. 2d 112, 118-19 (1986)
(collecting cases), quoting Gulf Oil, 330 U.S.  at 508-09, 91 L. Ed. 2d  at 1062-63, 67 S. Ct.  at 843; People ex rel. Compagnie
Nationale Air France v. Giliberto, 74 Ill. 2d 90, 110-11 (1978),
quoting Gulf Oil, 330 U.S.  at 508-09, 91 L. Ed.  at 1062-63, 67 S. Ct.  at 843.
	In Gulf Oil, the Court discussed private interest factors
affecting the litigants and public interest factors affecting court
administration. Gulf Oil, 330 U.S.  at 508, 91 L. Ed.  at 1062, 67 S. Ct.  at 843. A court must balance the private and public interests in
determining the appropriate forum in which the case should be
tried. Private interest factors include the convenience of the
parties; the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial,
documentary, and real evidence; the availability of compulsory
process to secure attendance of unwilling witnesses; the cost to
obtain attendance of willing witnesses; the possibility of viewing
the premises, if appropriate; and all other practical considerations
that make a trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. See Cook v.
General Electric Co., 146 Ill. 2d 548, 557 (1992); Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d  at 310.
	The relevant public interest factors include: the administrative
difficulties caused when litigation is handled in congested venues
instead of being handled at its origin; the unfairness of imposing
jury duty upon residents of a county with no connection to the
litigation; and the interest in having local controversies decided
locally. Gulf Oil, 330 U.S.  at 508-09, 91 L. Ed.  at 1062-63, 67 S. Ct.  at 843; see Cook, 146 Ill. 2d  at 557; Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d  at 311.
	An additional consideration under the forum non conveniens
doctrine is deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum. A
plaintiff's right to select the forum is substantial. Unless the
factors weigh strongly in favor of transfer, the plaintiff's choice of
forum should rarely be disturbed. Griffith, 136 Ill. 2d  at 106,
quoting Jones v. Searle Laboratories, 93 Ill. 2d 366, 372-73
(1982), quoting Gulf Oil, 330 U.S.  at 508, 91 L. Ed.  at 1062, 67 S. Ct.  at 843; Moore v. Chicago & North Western Transportation
Co., 99 Ill. 2d 73, 77 (1983) (collecting cases); see Gulf Oil, 330 U.S.  at 508, 91 L. Ed.  at 1062, 67 S. Ct.  at 843. "This deference to
plaintiff's choice of forum is commonly referred to as an unequal
balancing test." Wieser, 98 Ill. 2d  at 366.
	However, the plaintiff's choice of forum is not entitled to the
same weight or consideration in all cases. "When the home forum
has been chosen, it is reasonable to assume that this choice is
convenient." Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255-56,
70 L. Ed. 2d 419, 436, 102 S. Ct. 252, 266 (1981). "Similarly,
when the site of the accident or injury is chosen, the choice is
convenient because the litigation has the aspect of being 'decided
at home.' " Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 518; see Brummett v. Wepfer
Marine, Inc., 111 Ill. 2d 495, 499-500 (1986). "When the plaintiff
is foreign, however, this assumption is much less reasonable.
Because the central purpose of any forum non conveniens inquiry
is to ensure that the trial is convenient, a foreign plaintiff's choice
deserves less deference." Piper, 454 U.S.  at 256, 70 L. Ed. 2d  at
436, 102 S. Ct.  at 266; see McClain v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R.
Co., 121 Ill. 2d 278, 289 (1988); Bland, 116 Ill. 2d  at 227-28
(collecting cases). Indeed, as a panel of our appellate court has
observed:
		"[W]hen the plaintiff is foreign to the forum chosen and
the action that gives rise to the litigation did not occur in
the chosen forum, this assumption [of convenience] is no
longer reasonable. Instead, it is reasonable to conclude
that the plaintiff engaged in forum shopping to suit his
individual interests, a strategy contrary to the purposes
behind the venue rules." Certain Underwriters at Lloyds,
London v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 329 Ill. App. 3d 189,
196 (2002).
We agree.
	Courts have long acknowledged the existence of forum
shopping:
				" '[A]ll choices of tribunal are commonly used by all
plaintiffs to get away from judges who are considered
to be unsympathetic, and to get before those who are
considered more favorable; to get away from juries
thought to be small-minded in the matter of verdicts,
and to get to those thought to be generous; to escape
courts whose procedures are burdensome to the
plaintiff, and to seek out courts whose procedures make
the going easy.'
		We would add that ordinarily plaintiffs' zeal in those
respects is matched only by defendants' efforts in seeking
to avoid such fora." Espinosa v. Norfolk & Western Ry.
Co., 86 Ill. 2d 111, 123 (1981), quoting Miles v. Illinois
Central R.R. Co., 315 U.S. 698, 707, 86 L. Ed. 1129,
1135, 62 S. Ct. 827, 832 (1942) (Jackson, J., concurring).
This court has acknowledged that a plaintiff, in choosing a forum,
might shop for the most favorable forum. Wieser, 98 Ill. 2d  at 368;
Espinosa, 86 Ill. 2d  at 123.
	However, courts have never favored forum shopping:
			" 'The judiciary has never favored this sort of shopping
for a forum. It has sought to protect its own good name as
well as to protect defendants *** against the practice of
seeking out soft spots in the judicial system in which to
bring particular kinds of litigation. But the judges with
lawyerly indirection have not avowed the interest of the
judiciary in orderly resort to the courts as a basis for their
decision, and have cast their protective doctrines in terms
of sheltering defendants against vexatious and harassing
suits. This judicial treatment of the subject of venue leads
Congress and the parties to think of the choice of a forum
as a private matter between litigants, and in cases like the
pressent [sic] obscures the public interest in venue
practices ***.' " Espinosa, 86 Ill. 2d  at 122-23, quoting
Miles, 315 U.S.  at 706, 86 L. Ed.  at 1135, 62 S. Ct.  at
831-32 (Jackson, J., concurring).
Accordingly, while courts acknowledge that plaintiffs forum shop,
courts may not consider this practice in a forum non conveniens
analysis. Wieser, 98 Ill. 2d  at 368; Espinosa, 86 Ill. 2d  at 123. By
itself, forum shopping "furnishes no legal reason for sustaining"
a plaintiff's choice of forum. Pruitt Tool & Supply Co. v.
Windham, 379 P.2d 849, 850 (Okla. 1963). " ' "[D]ecent judicial
administration could not tolerate [forum shopping] as a persuasive
or even legitimate reason for burdening *** communities with
litigious controversies which arose elsewhere and should in all
justice be tried there." ' " Pruitt Tool, 379 P.2d  at 850, quoting St.
Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, Creek County,
290 P.2d 118, 121 (1955). A plaintiff's right to choose a forum
"cannot be permitted to override the public interest in, and need
for, an orderly, efficiently operated judicial system." Espinosa, 86 Ill. 2d  at 123.
	In Griffith, this court explained the forum non conveniens
unequal balancing test when the plaintiff chooses a foreign forum:
		"Under our current forum non conveniens analysis,
deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum is but one
factor, along with other relevant private and public
interest factors, to be considered in the balancing process.
The deference given to plaintiff's choice of forum is a
factor which may be given more or less weight within the
test, depending on whether the plaintiff is a resident of the
forum selected. In deciding a forum non conveniens
motion, a court is to take all the relevant factors into
account, giving each factor, including plaintiff's choice of
forum, proper deference or weight under the
circumstances. If the plaintiff is foreign to the forum
selected, the forum choice should be given less deference
than it would be given if the plaintiff were a resident of
the forum selected. The test, then, is whether the relevant
factors, viewed in their totality, strongly favor transfer to
the forum suggested by defendant.
			By giving plaintiff's choice of forum more or less
weight within the formula, the current test takes into
account the plaintiff's status as a resident or a nonresident
of the forum chosen. We are satisfied that the current test
ensures that a nonresident plaintiff's choice of forum will
not be accorded undue deference ***." Griffith, 136 Ill. 2d  at 107-08.
"If central emphasis were placed on any one factor, the forum non
conveniens doctrine would lose much of the very flexibility that
makes it so valuable." Piper, 454 U.S.  at 249-50, 70 L. Ed. 2d  at
432, 102 S. Ct.  at 263; see Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 518; Peile v.
Skelgas, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 323, 336-37 (1994); Bland, 116 Ill. 2d  at
227.
	Forum non conveniens is applicable on an intrastate as well
as on an interstate basis. In other words, the doctrine may be
applied where the choice is between forums in the same state as
well as when the choice is between forums in different states. The
same considerations of convenience and fairness apply in deciding
the question of the forum for trial. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 517;
Bland, 116 Ill. 2d  at 224; Meyers v. Bridgeport Machines Division
of Textron, Inc., 113 Ill. 2d 112, 119 (1986); Torres v. Walsh, 98 Ill. 2d 338, 350-51 (1983); see Peile, 163 Ill. 2d  at 330-36
(upholding intrastate application of forum non conveniens).
	The determination of a forum non conveniens motion lies
within the sound discretion of the trial court. On review, the trial
court's decision will be reversed only if it can be shown that the
court abused its discretion in balancing the relevant factors. Bland,
116 Ill. 2d  at 223; Meyers, 113 Ill. 2d  at 117-18 (collecting cases);
Wieser, 98 Ill. 2d  at 365. An abuse of discretion will be found
where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the
trial court. Schwartz v. Cortelloni, 177 Ill. 2d 166, 176 (1997); see
People v. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d 353, 364 (1991); In re Possession &
Control of the Commissioner of Banks & Real Estate of
Independent Trust Corp., 327 Ill. App. 3d 441, 476 (2001).

II. The Present Case
	Applying the forum non conveniens factors to this case, we
conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying
defendants' motion to transfer to Macoupin County. Although we
acknowledge plaintiff's right to choose the forum, we conclude,
after considering the record, that the factors weigh strongly in
favor of transfer. See Griffith, 136 Ill. 2d  at 106. The record
strongly indicates that a trial in Macoupin County would better
serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice. See
Bland, 116 Ill. 2d  at 223.
	Turning to the private interest factors, we begin by examining
the facts regarding the relative ease of access to evidence. We note
plaintiff's argument that we may not consider mileage distances
because this information was not part of the record. "However, an
appellate court may take judicial notice of matters not previously
presented to the trial court when the matters are capable of instant
and unquestionable demonstration." Boston v. Rockford Memorial
Hospital, 140 Ill. App. 3d 969, 972 (1986), citing May Department
Stores Co. v. Teamsters Union Local No. 743, 64 Ill. 2d 153, 159
(1976). "Courts often take judicial cognizance of the distances
between two or more locations *** and the customary routes and
usual time required for travel between them." 1 C. Fishman, Jones
on Evidence §2:56, at 120 (7th ed. 1992); accord M. Graham,
Cleary & Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence §202.2, at 60
(7th ed. 1999); 1 R. Steigmann, Illinois Evidence Manual §2:21
(3d ed. 1995); see, e.g., City of Chicago v. Waters, 363 Ill. 125,
131 (1936).
	In the present case, the accident occurred in Macoupin
County. Although only two of the potential witnesses actually
reside in Macoupin County, most of the potential 18 witnesses
identified by defendant reside closer to Macoupin County than
Madison County. Although two of the potential witnesses work at
the Illinois State Police headquarters in Collinsville, part of which
is in Madison County, none of the potential witnesses reside in
Madison County. Four out of the ten medical providers are located
in Macoupin County or adjacent Greene County. The remaining
six medical providers are located in either Sangamon County or
Macon County, both of which are closer to Macoupin County than
to Madison County. Because the location of the accident is in
Macoupin County, and the location of the identified witnesses are
on a whole closer to Macoupin County than Madison County,
these factors slightly weigh in favor of the convenience of
Macoupin County over Madison County.
	Another private interest factor is the possibility of viewing the
premises, if appropriate. The appellate court apparently gave this
factor no weight. The court concluded: "although the accident
occurred in Macoupin County, there is nothing in the record to
indicate that a view of the accident site will be necessary."
	This reasoning misses the mark. This convenience factor is
not concerned with the necessity of viewing the site of the injury,
but rather is concerned with the possibility of viewing the site, if
appropriate. See Gulf Oil, 330 U.S.  at 508, 91 L. Ed.  at 1062, 67 S. Ct.  at 843. Adhering to Gulf Oil, this court has recognized that
"the possibility of having a jury view the scene of an accident is an
important consideration in ruling upon a forum non conveniens
motion." (Emphasis added.) Moore, 99 Ill. 2d  at 80. Further, the
necessity or propriety of viewing the scene is a decision left within
the discretion of the trial court. See Cook, 146 Ill. 2d  at 559;
Washington, 144 Ill. 2d  at 403.
	In this case, if the trial court later determines that viewing the
accident site is appropriate, the accident occurred in Macoupin
County. Although Macoupin County adjoins Madison County, it
would be irrational for a jury composed of Madison County
residents to travel to Macoupin County to view the accident scene.
See, e.g., Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d  at 312-13. Further, such viewing
arguably could be accomplished more expeditiously if the case
were tried in Macoupin County. See, e.g., Evans v. MD Con, Inc.,
275 Ill. App. 3d 292, 296 (1995).
	We next weigh all other practical considerations that make a
trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Plaintiff observes that his
attorneys maintain an office in Madison County, and defendants'
attorneys are located only a short distance away in neighboring St.
Clair County. While a court may consider this factor, "little weight
should be accorded it." Boner v. Peabody Coal Co., 142 Ill. 2d 523, 534 (1991).
	Also, according to plaintiff, "the fact that Macoupin County
adjoins Madison County must be taken into consideration in the
analysis. Where the distance is so minimal, it becomes incredulous
to argue inconvenience in the county chosen by Plaintiff." He
asserts that "because the two counties are adjoining any difference
in mileage would be insignificant for purposes of determining
convenience."
	We note that amicus "[s]upports the Plaintiff's position that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in keeping the case in
Madison County." Amicus additionally contends "that on a motion
to transfer between adjacent counties, the private interest
'convenience' factors should conclusively be weighed in
plaintiff's favor." Amicus observes that "[t]he doctrine of forum
non conveniens concerns convenience at trial" and posits that
"travel between adjacent counties is common and not
inconvenient." Therefore, according to amicus, trial in an adjacent
county is not inconvenient to a defendant as a matter of law.
	We cannot accept the contention that trial in an adjacent
county is conclusively not inconvenient for a defendant. In
upholding denials of forum non conveniens motions to transfer
venue, this court has observed that the forums chosen by plaintiffs
and those suggested by defendants were located in adjacent
counties. See, e.g., Griffith, 136 Ill. 2d  at 113. However, this court
has repeatedly recognized that no single forum non conveniens
factor should be accorded central emphasis or conclusive effect.
Jones v. Searle Laboratories, 93 Ill. 2d 366, 373 (1982). "Mileage
is but one factor of convenience. 'If central emphasis were placed
on any one factor, the forum non conveniens doctrine would lose
much of the very flexibility that makes it so valuable.' " Bland,
116 Ill. 2d  at 227, quoting Piper, 454 U.S.  at 249-50, 70 L. Ed. 2d 
at 432, 102 S. Ct.  at 263. Illinois courts have transferred venue to
adjacent counties based on forum non conveniens. See, e.g.,
Washington, 144 Ill. 2d  at 404 (Madison County to Bond County);
Evans, 275 Ill. App. 3d at 298 (Cook County to Will County).
	On the whole, we conclude that the private interest factors
favor the convenience of Macoupin County over Madison County.
	The relevant public interest factors include judicial
administration and court congestion, imposing jury duty on the
residents of a community unrelated to the litigation, and the local
interest in local controversies. See Gulf Oil, 330 U.S.  at 508-09,
91 L. Ed.  at 1062-63, 67 S. Ct.  at 843. The public interest factors
strongly weigh against Madison County as the appropriate forum
in which this case should be tried.
	The court congestion factor, by itself, is relatively
insignificant (Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 517; Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 342-43) and is not sufficient to justify transfer of venue when none of
the other relevant factors weigh strongly in favor of transfer.
Griffith, 136 Ill. 2d  at 114. Nonetheless, this court has repeatedly
recognized that it is appropriate to consider the congested
conditions of the docket in the plaintiff's chosen forum. Bland,
116 Ill. 2d  at 229; Wieser, 98 Ill. 2d  at 372-73 (and cases cited
therein).
	This court has found the annual report of the Administrative
Office of the Illinois Courts (Annual Report) to be a proper
reference in assessing court congestion. This court has already
taken notice of Madison County's congested court docket. See
Washington, 144 Ill. 2d  at 403.
	Plaintiff does not dispute that the docket of the Madison
County circuit court is more congested than that of Macoupin
County. Indeed, he cannot. The Annual Report for 1998 reveals
that there were 1,867 jury actions for damages in excess of
$50,000 pending in Madison County, while only 137 of such cases
were pending in Macoupin County. Further, in such cases, the
average time lapse between filing and verdict in Madison County
was 29.3 months, but only 17.3 months-one year less-in
Macoupin County. These statistics demonstrate that the docket of
the circuit court of Madison County, through the time that plaintiff
filed his complaint, continued to be "crowded to the point where
congestion is of great concern." Bland, 116 Ill. 2d  at 230.
	Another public interest factor concerns the local interest in
local controversies. The appellate court reasoned as follows: "the
accident occurred in Macoupin County, and defendant Riederer is
a resident of said county. However, the facts also demonstrate that
Madison County has a legitimate interest in this case because
defendant Union Pacific conducts business in Madison County."
Plaintiff additionally points to the fact that Riederer maintains a
post office box in Madison County and travels there "nearly daily
for his mail."
	This reasoning is erroneous. Merely conducting business, or
maintaining a post office box, in Madison County does not affect
the forum non conveniens issue. It is assumed on a forum non
conveniens motion that the plaintiff's chosen forum is a proper
venue for the action. If defendant Union Pacific did no business in
Madison County, that county would have been an improper venue
for the case. See 735 ILCS 5/2-101 (West 2000) (action must be
commenced in county of residence of a defendant or the county
where the action arose); 735 ILCS 5/2-102(a) (West 2000)
(foreign corporation is only resident of those counties in which it
has an office or does business). Accordingly, the fact that the
defendant conducts business within Madison County is not a
dispositive factor in this case. A forum non conveniens motion
causes a court to look beyond the criteria of venue when it
considers the relative convenience of a forum. See Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d  at 311; Bland, 116 Ill. 2d  at 226. If the fact that the defendant
conducts business, or maintains a post office box, in the plaintiff's
chosen forum were dispositive, the forum non conveniens
"doctrine itself would be entirely vitiated, and no transfer would
ever be obtained. Rather, plaintiff's choice would be elevated to
the stature of a dispositive consideration, which is patently not to
be allowed." Franklin v. FMC Corp., 150 Ill. App. 3d 343, 347
(1986); accord Evans, 275 Ill. App. 3d at 296-97 (collecting
cases).
	Turning to the relevant facts, the accident occurred in
Macoupin County and not Madison County. Neither plaintiff nor
Riederer reside in Madison County. Although some of the
witnesses may work in Madison County, there is little else
connecting them to Madison County. Clearly, Madison County has
little or no interest in trying the action of a nonresident whose
claim arose in Macoupin County.
	Conversely, unlike Madison County, Macoupin County has a
strong connection with and interest in this action. In addition to
Riederer, some of the witnesses reside in Macoupin County. Most
significantly, the fact that the accident occurred in Macoupin
County gives the action a local interest. See Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 
at 518; Washington, 144 Ill. 2d  at 403; Bland, 116 Ill. 2d  at 229.
	Addressing the public interest factor of jury duty, we conclude
that the residents of Madison County should not be burdened with
jury duty given the fact that the action did not arise in, and has no
relation to, their county. See Washington, 144 Ill. 2d  at 404;
Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d  at 313. Rather, the accident occurred in
Macoupin County. This gives Macoupin County a significant
interest in the dispute and, therefore, it would not be unfair to
burden the residents thereof with jury duty in this case. Cook, 146 Ill. 2d  at 558-59.
	As we noted earlier, the appellate court ultimately held that,
in light of our decision in Guerine, it was "compelled" to affirm
the circuit court's denial of defendant's motion to transfer venue
to Macoupin County. However, Guerine is readily distinguishable
from this case.
	In Guerine, we concluded that the balance of the forum non
conveniens factors did not strongly favor transfer from the
plaintiff's chosen forum. We held that where the potential trial
witnesses are scattered among several counties, including the
plaintiff's chosen forum, and no single county enjoys a
predominant connection to the litigation, the plaintiff may not be
deprived of his or her chosen forum. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 526.
Plaintiff conceded at oral argument that Guerine was based on the
totality of the circumstances of that case and did not alter forum
non conveniens principles in Illinois.
	In this case, however, none of the witnesses reside in Madison
County and Macoupin County has a predominant connection to
this case. The sole fact that one defendant maintains a post office
box in Madison County does not give Madison County a
legitimate interest in or connection to this case.
	Further, nothing in Guerine can be read to condone forum
shopping. In Guerine, we observed that "[a] concern animating our
forum non conveniens jurisprudence is curtailing forum shopping
by plaintiffs." Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 521, citing Torres, 98 Ill. 2d 
at 351. As our appellate court has observed:
		"An integral part of the forum non conveniens analysis is
fairness to the litigants and convenience to those that will
be called to testify at trial. Realigning parties for the
purpose of fixing venue in a county where there may be a
more favorable outcome to plaintiffs does not reinforce or
complement the principles of forum non conveniens.
Instead, it perverts them." Certain Underwriters, 329 Ill.
App. 3d at 199.
We agree. See Torres, 98 Ill. 2d  at 351.
	In the present case, the weight of the private interest factors
favors Macoupin County. The weight of the public interest factors
greatly favors Macoupin County. Further, the deference to
plaintiff's choice of Madison County is reduced because he does
not reside there and the action did not arise there. Considering all
relevant private and public interests, we conclude that the balance
of factors strongly favors transfer to Macoupin County. This
determination rested within the discretion of the circuit court,
subject to reversal only upon a showing of abuse, i.e., that no
reasonable person would take the circuit court's position. See, e.g.,
Bland, 116 Ill. 2d  at 223; Schwartz, 177 Ill. 2d  at 176. We
conclude that this standard was met in this case. Accordingly, we
hold that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying
defendants' motion to transfer venue from Madison County to
Macoupin County based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

III. Remaining Contentions
	We note defendants' additional contention that the circuit
court's denial of their motion to transfer venue violates various
federal and state constitutional provisions. However, our reversal
of the circuit court on forum non conveniens grounds obviates
discussion of defendants' constitutional claim. See Beahringer v.
Page, 204 Ill. 2d 363, 369-70, 378 (2003); City of Detroit v.
Gould, 12 Ill. 2d 297, 304 (1957) (both holding that constitutional
questions will not be decided if case can be determined on other
grounds).

CONCLUSION
	For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the appellate court
and the order of the circuit court of Madison County are reversed,
and the cause is remanded to the circuit court of Madison County
with directions to transfer the cause to Macoupin County.



Appellate court reversed;
circuit court reversed;
cause remanded with directions.



	JUSTICE RARICK took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.


	JUSTICE KILBRIDE, dissenting:
	I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The majority
flatly disregards this court's repeated pronouncements that the
forum non conveniens doctrine gives courts broad discretionary
power that should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances
when the interests of justice require a trial in a more convenient
forum. Boner v. Peabody Coal Co., 142 Ill. 2d 523, 527-28 (1991),
citing Bland v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 116 Ill. 2d 217, 223
(1987); First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511, 520
(2002), quoting Peile v. Skelgas, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 323, 335 (1994),
quoting Torres v. Walsh, 98 Ill. 2d 338, 346 (1983), citing Gulf Oil
Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 91 L. Ed. 1055, 67 S. Ct. 839
(1947). This case does not present a situation where, as indicated
by the majority, "[t]he record strongly indicates that a trial in
Macoupin County would better serve the convenience of the
parties and the ends of justice" and "no reasonable person would
take the view adopted by the trial court." (Emphasis added.) Slip
op. at 8. The trial court noted all of the relevant factors, assessed
their relative importance under the circumstances of this case, and
concluded that a transfer was not warranted. Thus, it cannot be
held that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to transfer
this case to Macoupin County.
	The majority discounts that defendant Union Pacific, a foreign
corporation, is a resident of Madison County for venue purposes.
See 735 ILCS 5/2-102(a) (West 2000) (in the case of a foreign
corporation, residence is defined as any county where the
corporation has an office or is doing business). Union Pacific's
contact with Madison County is not minimal or marginal. The
record demonstrates that Union Pacific does not merely conduct
business in Madison County, it operates a facility there and
employs numerous citizens of Madison County, including some of
the potential witnesses who work out of this facility.
	I also disagree with the majority's conclusion that in a forum
non conveniens analysis, the court should not consider the fact that
the defendant conducts business in Madison County. Slip op. at
13. This court has held that the "extent and type of business"
conducted in the forum are certainly appropriate considerations for
the court in a forum non conveniens analysis. Boner, 142 Ill. 2d  at
540. Thus, the majority's conclusion that the court should not
consider the fact that Union Pacific conducts business in Madison
County is inexplicable.
	In Boner, this court recognized that, where a defendant
company has offices and conducts active operations in a county,
its activities in that county are "by no means marginal." Boner,
142 Ill. 2d  at 540. Thus, when weighing the relative "convenience"
of Madison County to the defendants, the fact that Union Pacific
operates facilities in Madison County militates against finding the
forum "inconvenient" to the defendants.
	Certainly the residents of Madison County have an interest in
the resolution of this litigation involving a corporation that
operates facilities within its borders. Presumably, Union Pacific
and its numerous Madison County resident employees pay taxes
in Madison County. Hence, the county's resources would not be
overburdened with the trial of a case involving the alleged
negligence of one of its corporate residents. See Boner, 142 Ill. 2d 
at 540. Although plaintiff did not file suit in his home forum and,
thus, his choice of forum is given less deference, his choice of
forum is, nevertheless, still accorded considerable weight. Boner,
142 Ill. 2d  at 542. This is especially true where, as here, the
defendants' forum choice is neither plaintiff's home forum nor
Union Pacific's home forum. See Boner, 142 Ill. 2d  at 542.
	It is also unfair and inaccurate for the majority to suggest that
the plaintiff in this case has somehow engaged in " '[r]ealigning
parties for the purpose of fixing venue in a county where there
may be a more favorable outcome' " to him. Slip op. at 14,
quoting Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Illinois
Central R.R. Co., 329 Ill. App. 3d 189, 199 (2002). The plaintiff
in this case did not "realign the parties." Plaintiff was simply
injured in an accident with a truck owned by Union Pacific, driven
by a Union Pacific employee. Nor did plaintiff include Union
Pacific as a defendant for any improper forum shopping purpose.
Union Pacific is a necessary and indispensable party to this
litigation. Not only was Union Pacific the owner of the truck and
the employer of defendant Riederer, but plaintiff's complaint also
specifically alleges that Union Pacific was negligent for failing to
train and supervise Riederer and for failing to ensure that vehicle
attachments would not extend beyond the width of its vehicles
when operated on public thoroughfares.
	I also acknowledge the majority's concerns regarding the
number of cases filed in Madison County. Nevertheless, just as
plaintiffs sometimes choose a forum because of a perceived
advantage, some defendants move for dismissal or transfer under
the doctrine of forum non conveniens not because of genuine
concern with convenience but because they believe that an
alternative forum would be more friendly to their interests.
Accordingly, this court should be hesitant to supplant a trial
court's forum non conveniens ruling where, as here, such a transfer
will not " 'better "serve the convenience of the parties and the
ends of justice." ' " Wieser v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 98 Ill. 2d 359, 365 (1983), quoting Adkins v. Chicago Rock Island & Pacific
R.R. Co., 54 Ill. 2d 511, 514 (1973), quoting Lonergan v. Crucible
Steel Co. of America, 37 Ill. 2d 599, 606 (1967); accord Vinson v.
Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306, 310 (1991); see Gulf Oil Corp., 330 U.S. 
at 507, 91 L. Ed.  at 1062, 67 S. Ct.  at 842.
	On a forum non conveniens motion, the burden is on the
defendant to show that relevant private and public interest factors
"strongly favor" the defendant's choice of forum to warrant
disturbing plaintiff's choice. Griffith v. Mitsubishi Aircraft
International, Inc., 136 Ill. 2d 101, 107 (1990). " 'In most
instances, the plaintiff's initial choice of forum will prevail,
provided venue is proper and the inconvenience factors attached
to such forum do not greatly outweigh the plaintiff's substantial
right to try the case in the chosen forum.' " (Emphasis added.)
Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 520, quoting Peile, 163 Ill. 2d  at 335-36.
Although this is a difficult standard for defendants to meet, "it
does not foreclose legitimate transfers when the balance of factors
strongly favors litigation in another forum." (Emphases added.)
Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 521.
	In this case, the existing record does not support defendants'
claim that the trial court did not properly consider or apply the
relevant forum non conveniens factors. Defendants have not
produced a verbatim record of the proceedings. In ruling on a
forum non conveniens motion, a court must engage in a fact-sensitive analysis. In Guerine, this court strongly cautioned that
trial courts "give more careful consideration to forum non
conveniens motions" and "leave a better record of their analyses"
so that reviewing courts can make more informed decisions.
Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 520-21. Implicit in this court's admonition
was a directive that litigants provide the trial court with a record
of the relevant factors, supported by facts and evidence, as
opposed to supposition or conjecture, in support of or in
opposition to the forum non conveniens motion. See Gridley v.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 329 Ill. App. 3d
422, 425 (2002), appeal allowed, 201 Ill. 2d 566 (2002).
	Here, no affidavits have been filed stating that Madison
County would be an inconvenient forum for any of the witnesses.
In fact, defendants' counsel would be required to travel from their
office in St. Clair County through Madison County to try this case
in Macoupin County, and plaintiff's counsel maintains an office
in Madison County. Other than generic and conclusory allegations
regarding cost and inconvenience of bringing witnesses from
adjacent counties to Madison County and perceived difficulties
scheduling witnesses to testify at trial in a county with a busy court
docket, defendants have not asserted facts indicating any actual
impediments to accessing sources of testimonial, documentary,
and real evidence.
	None of defendants' arguments assert any real inconvenience
to the defendants or any practical problems militating against
trying this case in Madison County. Accordingly, there was
sufficient evidence on the relevant interests to sustain the trial
court's ruling. See Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92
(1984) (if the record is insufficient to support defendant's claim of
error, then the reviewing court must presume that the trial court's
order was in conformity with established legal principles and had
a sufficient factual basis).
	Nevertheless, the majority completely sidesteps this court's
latest discussion of the forum non conveniens doctrine that
occurred barely one year ago in Guerine. In Guerine, a Kane
County resident was killed in an accident that occurred in De Kalb
County. A lawsuit was filed in Cook County. One of the
defendants was a Cook County resident, and the other defendant
resided in Indiana, but would have to drive through Cook County
to trial in either Kane or De Kalb County. The potential witnesses
were scattered among several counties in the same area of the
state, including Kane and De Kalb Counties, although several
witnesses filed affidavits stating that they would be willing to
travel to Cook County for trial. There was nothing in the record to
indicate that a jury view of the accident site would be necessary.
In determining that the trial court abused its discretion in granting
the defendants' motion to transfer venue from Cook County to
De Kalb County, this court noted that both counties had significant
ties to the case and potential witnesses were scattered among
several counties, including the plaintiff's chosen forum. Guerine,
198 Ill. 2d  at 526.
	This case is factually indistinguishable from Guerine. In both
cases, the accident did not occur in plaintiff's chosen forum,
neither the plaintiff nor one of the defendants resided in plaintiff's
chosen forum, and some of the witnesses lived or worked in
plaintiff's chosen forum. In the instant case, like Guerine, both
Madison and Macoupin County have significant ties to the case,
and the potential witnesses are scattered throughout several
counties in the same area of the state. The only distinguishing
factors between these cases are that Guerine was filed in Cook
County rather than Madison County, and plaintiff's chosen forum
in Guerine happened to be the residence of the individual
defendant rather than residence of the corporate defendant. The
majority in this case does not provide any reason to distinguish
between the residence of an individual defendant and that of a
corporate defendant. These minor differences alone do not justify
a different result here.
	In Guerine, this court acknowledged "the frustrating litigation
quagmire created in the wake of Torres v. Walsh, 98 Ill. 2d 338
(1983), where we first applied the forum non conveniens doctrine
to intrastate transfers" and, noting that Illinois forum non
conveniens law is "less than clear," this court attempted to clarify
the doctrine. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 519, 526. Today's decision
takes two steps backward. Not only does it cast doubt on the
validity and applicability of Guerine to future cases, but it also
further complicates and confuses an area of the law that is already
"less than clear."
	Since Madison County adjoins Macoupin County, I agree with
plaintiff that it is incredulous for defendants to argue
inconvenience in the county chosen by plaintiff. When adjoining
counties are involved, " ' "[t]he battle over the forum results in a
battle over minutiae." ' " Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 519-20, quoting
Peile, 163 Ill. 2d  at 335, quoting Peile, 242 Ill. App. 3d at 522
(Lewis, J., specially concurring).
	Macoupin County undoubtedly has an interest in deciding a
controversy involving an accident that occurred within its borders.
Nonetheless, Madison County also has a legitimate interest in
deciding a controversy involving one of its residents, Union
Pacific, a company that operates facilities there and employs
numerous citizens of Madison County, including some potential
witnesses. 
	Contrary to the majority view, transfer to Macoupin County
is not required by the heavier court docket of Madison County,
particularly when one of the defendants is a resident of Madison
County. See Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 525. In taking notice of
Madison County's congested court docket, the majority relies on
Bland, 116 Ill. 2d  at 230, Washington v. Illinois Power Co., 144 Ill. 2d 395, 403 (1991), and the 1998 annual report of the
Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC), rather than on
the record of this case. While the AOIC reports may be helpful, the
trial court is in the best position to assess the current burdens on
its own docket. See Boner, 142 Ill. 2d  at 538-39. In ruling on
defendants' motion, the Madison County circuit court did not note
any administrative problems in its docket or in its ability to try this
case in an expeditious manner. "Court congestion is a relatively
insignificant factor, especially where the record does not show the
other forum would resolve the case more quickly." (Emphasis
added.) Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 517, citing Brummett v. Wepfer
Marine, Inc., 111 Ill. 2d 495, 503 (1986). Moreover, court
congestion should be afforded little consideration in a case that is
legitimately filed in the resident forum of one of the defendants.
	On balance, considering the totality of the circumstances, I
believe that the private and public interest factors do not strongly
favor Macoupin County over Madison County. Defendants have
failed to meet their burden of showing, as they allege in their brief,
that there is "no connection" to Madison County. In fact,
defendants' assertion that this case has absolutely no connection
to Madison County is factually inaccurate and misleading. This is
not a case of exceptional circumstances where sensible judicial
administration and the interests of justice require a trial in a more
convenient forum. See Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 520; Peile, 163 Ill. 2d  at 335; Torres, 98 Ill. 2d  at 346. Furthermore, I believe that the
resources of this court are more profitably spent deciding fully
developed controversies than unnecessarily micromanaging forum
non conveniens rulings. See Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d  at 520. The
majority's conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying an intrastate forum non conveniens motion to transfer the
case to an adjacent county is unsupported by both the law and the
record.
	For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.