Case Title: Ex parte Navistar, Inc., f/k/a International Truck and Engine Corporation, and Navistar International Corporation. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re:Brooklyn Price, administratrix of the estate of Edward M. Stewart, deceased v. International Truck and Engine, Corporation, and Navistar International Corporation)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1071457

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2009-02-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 2-6-09
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2008-2009
____________________
1071457
____________________
Ex parte Navistar, Inc., f/k/a International Truck and
Engine Corporation, and Navistar International Corporation
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: Brooklyn Price, administratrix of the estate of
Edward M. Stewart, deceased
v.
International Truck and Engine Corporation and Navistar
International Corporation)
(Barbour Circuit Court, CV-08-900004)
STUART, Justice.
1071457
2
Navistar, Inc., f/k/a International Truck and Engine
Corporation, 
and 
Navistar 
International 
Corporation
(hereinafter 
referred 
to 
collectively 
as 
"Navistar"),
defendants in an action pending in the Barbour Circuit Court,
petition for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to
transfer the action to the Colbert Circuit Court.  We grant
the petition and issue the writ.
Facts and Procedural Background
The underlying action arises out of a single-vehicle
heavy-truck rollover accident in which Edward M. Stewart, a
Georgia resident and the driver of the truck, was killed.  The
accident occurred in Colbert County.  Brooklyn Price,
Stewart's daughter and the administratrix of his estate, sued
Navistar in the Barbour Circuit Court.  According to the
complaint, the truck Stewart was driving at the time of the
accident was designed, engineered, manufactured, and marketed
by Navistar.  Price claims damages for Navistar's alleged
negligence and wantonness and its alleged violation of the
Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine, asserting
that the truck was not "crashworthy."  Navistar moved to
transfer the action to the Colbert Circuit Court on the basis
1071457
3
of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.  See § 6-3-21.1, Ala.
Code 1975.  The trial court denied Navistar's motion. 
Standard of Review
"In Ex parte Kane, 989 So. 2d 509, 511 (Ala.
2008), we stated the standard of review in a similar
setting as follows:
"'"The proper method for obtaining
review of a denial of a motion for a change
of venue in a civil action is to petition
for the writ of mandamus."  Ex parte
National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d 788, 789
(Ala. 1998).  A writ of mandamus is
appropriate 
when 
the 
petitioner 
can
demonstrate "(1) a clear legal right to the
order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon
the respondent to perform, accompanied by
a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another
adequate remedy; and (4) the properly
invoked jurisdiction of the court."  Ex
parte BOC Group, Inc., 823 So. 2d 1270,
1272 (Ala. 2001).  Additionally, this Court
reviews mandamus petitions challenging a
ruling on venue on the basis of forum non
conveniens by asking whether the trial
court exceeded its discretion.  Ex parte
Fuller, 955 So. 2d 414 (Ala. 2006); Ex
parte Verbena United Methodist Church, 953
So. 2d 395 (Ala. 2006).  Our review is
limited to only those facts that were
before the trial court.  Ex parte Pike
Fabrication, Inc., 859 So. 2d 1089, 1091
(Ala. 2002).'"
Ex parte Bama Concrete, [Ms. 1071376, October 17, 2008] ___
So. 2d ___, ___ (Ala. 2008).
Analysis
1071457
Because Navistar does not present any venue argument
1
other than a forum non conveniens argument, Navistar has
waived any venue argument pursuant to § 6-3-7, Ala. Code 1975,
which 
provides 
the 
venues 
for 
civil 
actions 
against
corporations.
4
Navistar, among other arguments, contends that the trial
court exceeded the scope of its discretion in denying
Navistar's motion to transfer, which was based on the
"interest of justice" prong of the doctrine of forum non
conveniens, because, it says, Colbert County has a connection
to this action and Barbour County has little or no connection
other than that an unrelated purchaser of Navistar trucks of
the same model is located in  Barbour County.  
1
In Ex parte McKenzie Oil Co., [Ms. 1071011, August 22,
2008] ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (Ala. 2008), this Court set forth
the applicable law, stating:
"Alabama Code 1975, § 6-3-21.1, Alabama's forum
non conveniens statute, provides when an action must
be transferred under the doctrine of forum non
conveniens:
"'With respect to civil actions filed in an
appropriate venue, any court of general
jurisdiction shall, for the convenience of
parties and witnesses, or in the interest
of justice, transfer any civil action or
any claim in any civil action to any court
of general jurisdiction in which the action
might have been properly filed and the case
1071457
5
shall proceed as though originally filed
therein. ...'
"Ala. Code 1975, § 6-3-21.1(a).
"A party moving for a transfer under § 6-3-21.1
has the initial burden of showing, among other
things, that the transfer is justified based either
on the convenience of the parties and witnesses or
in the 'interest of justice.'  Ex parte Masonite
Corp., 789 So. 2d 830, 831 (Ala. 2001); Ex parte
National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d 788, 789 (Ala.
1998). ...
"...  Furthermore, the 'interest of justice'
prong of § 6-3-21.1 requires 'the transfer of the
action from a county with little, if any, connection
to the action, to the county with a strong
connection to the action.' Ex parte National Sec.
Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d at 790.  Thus, 'in analyzing
the interest-of-justice prong of § 6-3-21.1, this
Court focuses on whether the "nexus" or "connection"
between the plaintiff's action and the original
forum is strong enough to warrant burdening the
plaintiff's forum with the action.'  Ex parte First
Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 994 So. 2d 906, 911
(Ala. 2008). ..."
(Footnote omitted.)
Navistar contends that transfer of this action to Colbert
County is in the "interest of justice" because, it argues,
Colbert County, the county in which the accident occurred, has
a legal connection to the action while Barbour County does
not.  In support of its argument that there is no legal nexus
between this case and Barbour County, Navistar points out that
1071457
6
Price does not reside in Barbour County, that the allegedly
defective truck driven by Edwards was not purchased in Barbour
County, and that the accident did not occur in Barbour County.
Navistar acknowledges that it has a customer in Barbour County
that purchases its trucks; however, it reasons that this fact
does not create a legal nexus in a forum non conveniens
analysis to warrant burdening Barbour County with the action
and that the interest of justice requires the transfer of the
case to Colbert County.  
Price disagrees, arguing that Barbour County has a
connection to the action and that the interest-of-justice
prong of § 6-3-21.1, Ala. Code 1975, does not require the
transfer of the case to Colbert County.  Price maintains that
in a product-liability action such as this one the location of
the accident is not the focus of a venue analysis because 
"in an action for injuries caused by an allegedly
defective product, the 'wrongful acts or omissions
of the corporate defendant' are acts such as
'designing, 
manufacturing, 
assembling, 
distributing,
and selling' the allegedly defective product ...."
Ex parte Volvo Trucks North America, Inc., 954 So. 2d 583, 587
(Ala. 2006).  Thus, Price concludes that Colbert County, where
1071457
7
the accident occurred, has little to no connection with the
action.  According to Price, the
"broader 
implications of the general public's
interest in the safety of this defective product
overcomes any local interest in Colbert County, in
light of the fact that it was only happenstance that
the accident occurred in Colbert County."
(Price's response at pp. 26-27.)
In support of her argument, Price states that in the last
5 years Navistar has sold approximately 735 of the same model
trucks as the one Edwards was driving at the time of the
accident to Boyd Brothers Transportation, Inc., a trucking
company whose headquarters are located in Barbour County.  The
materials before us indicate that Boyd Brothers negotiated the
purchase of these trucks over the telephone, that a Navistar
representative mailed the sales contracts to Boyd Brothers to
execute their purchases, and that these trucks were delivered
by 
Navistar 
to 
Boyd 
Brothers' 
facilities 
in 
either
Springfield, Ohio; Cincinnati, Ohio; or Atlanta, Georgia.
Price maintains that 
"[t]he large volume of these defective vehicles
purchased and used by Boyd Brothers Transportation,
Inc., in Barbour County 'touch the affairs of many
persons,' giving the trial court and the Barbour
County community a strong safety interest in having
issues related to the claims of defective Navistar
1071457
8
trucks tried in their county close to public view.
At worse, this evidence demonstrates that Barbour
County has an equal nexus in the product liability
claims alleged in this case as [does] the community
of Colbert County."
(Price's response at p. 28.)
We reject Price's argument and, under facts like these,
where the allegedly defective product was not sold in the
selected venue and the only connection between the plaintiff's
selected venue and the product-liability action is the facts
that a purchaser of other Navistar trucks of the same model is
located in the selected venue and that those other trucks are
used in the selected venue, we conclude that a legal
connection does not exist to warrant burdening the plaintiff's
selected forum with the action and that, in the interest of
justice, the action must be transferred.  The facts that a
purchaser of other Navistar trucks of the same model, who has
no involvement in the action, resides in the venue selected by
Price and that other Navistar trucks of the same model are
used in the selected venue but have not exhibited the alleged
defect in that venue do not provide a legal connection in a
product-liability action to overcome a motion to transfer
based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.  The venue in
1071457
9
which the product evidenced its alleged defect -- the place
where the accident occurred and potential witnesses reside  --
has a legal connection that in the interest of justice
requires a transfer of this case to that venue. 
Here, Colbert County has a legal connection to this
action because, even though it may have been happenstance that
the alleged defect evidenced itself in Colbert County, that
happenstance at a minimum has already impacted the lives of
the employees and citizens of Colbert County and provides a
legal connection to warrant transfer of this action to Colbert
County.  The facts that a purchaser of other Navistar trucks
of the same model resides in Price's selected venue -- Barbour
County -- and that those other trucks are used in the selected
venue are too tenuous to establish a legal connection
justifying burdening Barbour County with the trial of this
case.  Consequently, Navistar has shown that having the case
heard in Colbert County serves the interest of justice.  See
Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d 788, 790 (Ala.
1998)(holding that interest of justice required transfer of
action from a county where "no witness, no document, no
transaction, or anything else ... would give the action a
1071457
10
nexus with [the county selected by the plaintiff] that would
justify  burdening that county with the trial of the case").
Because Navistar has demonstrated that the interest of justice
requires a transfer of this case, we do not address the other
arguments presented.
Conclusion
We hold that the interest-of-justice prong of § 6-3-21.1
requires the transfer of this action from Barbour County to
Colbert County.  We therefore grant Navistar's petition for
the writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to enter an
order transferring the case from the Barbour Circuit Court to
the Colbert Circuit Court.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, Woodall, Smith, Bolin, Parker, and
Shaw, JJ., concur.
Murdock, J., concurs in the result.
1071457
11
MURDOCK, Justice (concurring in the result).
 This Court stated in Ex parte National Security
Insurance Co., 727 So. 2d 788, 790 (Ala. 1998), that the
"interest of justice" prong of § 6-3-21.1, Ala. Code 1975,
requires "the transfer of the action from a county with
little, if any, connection to the action, ... to the county
with a strong connection to the action ...."  Because I
conclude that this standard is met in the present case, I
concur in the result reached by the main opinion.
It bears repeating that this Court is not presented in
this case with a venue argument pursuant to § 6-3-7, Ala. Code
1975.  ___ So. 2d at ___ n.1.