Title: April M. Kurzke v. Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., et als.

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). VERNIERO, J., writing for a unanimous Court. In this appeal, the Court considers whether plaintiff April M. Kurzke's complaint should be dismissed on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which is an equitable doctrine that allows a court to decline jurisdiction when it would be inappropriate to try the case in the forum selected by the plaintiff. In November 1992, plaintiff, April Kurzke, and her husband, Hartmut Kurzke, were living in Warren, New Jersey. During that month, they purchased a Nissan Quest minivan, from Bristol Motors Company in North Plainfield. They purchased the minivan after the salesman assured them that, although not equipped with air bags, the Quest had a collapsible steering column, which effectively would function as an a air bag in a collision. Relying on those assurances and on the supporting Nissan advertisements, the Kurzkes purchased the Quest. The Quest was designed and manufactured in the United States. In 1993, Hartmut's employer offered him a transfer to Germany. He accepted the transfer with the expectation of living in Germany with his family for four or five years, after which they would return to New Jersey , where Hartmut would assume an administrative position in his employer's New Jersey headquarters. Hartmut arrived in Germany in August 1994, and April and their two children joined him soon thereafter. They had their Nissan Quest shipped to them overseas. On August 14, 1995, Hartmut was driving the Quest on the Autobahn near Olpe, Germany. April and Brendan, their four-year-old son, were passengers in the vehicle. The Kurzke's were on a portion of the Autobahn undergoing construction when a vehicle driven in the opposite direction by Frieda Adler unexpectedly crossed into the Kurzke's lane, ultimately causing a collision. Adler was pronounced dead at the scene. Hartmut, though conscious, was trapped and compressed between the seatback and the steering column for nearly two hours before he died. Although April and Brendan escaped serious injury, they both observed Hartmut's slow and painful death. An expert retained by April Kurzke concluded that the steering column was defectively designed and failed to collapse. The expert further concluded that Hartmut could have survived the accident had it not been for the defective steering column, which crushed his chest and lungs. In March 1997, April Kurzke filed suit in the Law Division in Middlesex County against several defendants, including Nissan Motor Corporation and Bristol Motors. She also instituted a negligence action against Adler's estate in Germany, which is still pending. During the early stages of the litigation, Nissan, Bristol, and the other defendants moved to dismiss the New Jersey action on the basis of forum non conveniens. After weighing the private-interest and public-interest factors set forth in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, the trial court concluded that New Jersey was not the proper forum for Kurzke's suit. The court specifically accepted the defendants' contention that discovery of documents and witnesses would be severely hampered if the case were tried in New Jersey. The court further emphasized that all of the witnesses to the crash and its aftermath live in Germany, and that all of Hartmut's medical records are there. The court also noted that the fact-finder might need to view the crash site and that the Quest itself was still in Germany. Thus, the trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed Kurzke's complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, concluding that although the public-interest factors strongly favored retaining the litigation in New Jersey, the private-interest factors weighed more heavily in favor of resolving the litigation in Germany. One member of the panel dissented, finding that it was too early in the proceedings to reach the conclusion that the private-interest factors required the granting of the motion. The dissenting member specifically found that the record did not demonstrate that the defendants had made any effort to conduct any investigation in Germany into the circumstances surrounding the accident and that they should be compelled to create a factual record that would support their mere assertion that their investigation efforts would be ineffective. The matter is before the Supreme Court as of right, based on the dissent in the Appellate Division. HELD: It was premature and an abuse of discretion for the trial court to conclude that Nissan and the other defendants had satisfied the burden of showing plaintiff Kurzke's choice of forum in New Jersey to be demonstrably inappropriate. 2. Decisions concerning the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens ordinarily are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court should not substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge, unless there is a showing of clear abuse of that discretion. (p. 7) 3. Relevant factors in determining whether a plaintiff's choice of forum is appropriate include both public and private-interest elements, such as: administrative difficulties; the imposition of jury duty on members of a community having no relation to the litigation; the local interest in the subject matter; the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; the relative ease of access to sources of proof; the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses and the cost thereof; whether a viewing of the premises is appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems relative to the conduct of a trial, including the enforceability of the ultimate judgment. (pp. 7-9) 4. Given the fact that Nissan and the other defendants made no attempt to substantiate their claims concerning the difficulty of obtaining discovery and the testimony of witnesses, the balancing process employed by the trial court, although diligent, was premature and, therefore, an abuse of its discretion. (pp. 9-10) 5. As a general rule, a motion for dismissal due to forum non conveniens should not be heard unless the movant has made a good faith effort to obtain discovery and can provide the court with a record verifying that discovery is unreasonably inadequate for litigation in the forum chosen by the plaintiff. Mere speculation about potential inadequacies ordinarily is not a sufficient basis to deny the plaintiff the choice of forum. (pp. 11-12) 6. Although late dismissal should be avoided, forum non conveniens questions should not be deemed waived by a defendant's failure to raise them immediately. Trial courts should have discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis when motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens should be foreclosed on timeliness grounds, consistent with the broad outlines expressed by the Court. (pp. 12-13) 7. Because New Jersey has an undeniable and vital interest in assuring the safety of automobiles bought and sold here, and because it has a compelling interest in assuring that representations made to its consumers are truthful, it is appropriate to involve the State's judiciary. (pp. 13-14) 8. The private-interest factors do not weigh heavily in favor of litigating this case in Germany. (pp. 14-15) 9. A plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. (pp. 15-16) 10. Although domestic residence is not decisive, there is a strong presumption in favor of retaining jurisdiction where the plaintiff is a resident who has chosen his or her home forum. (p. 16) 11. When an alternative forum would present as many obstacles as does the forum chosen by the plaintiff, a dismissal should not be granted. (p. 17) 12. It was premature for the trial court to conclude that Nissan and the other defendants have shown Kurzke's choice of forum to be demonstrably inappropriate; pre-discovery is ordinarily an inappropriate point in the litigation at which to consider the private and public-interest factors set forth in Gulf Oil. (pp. 17-18) 13. The relevant factors in this case, at best, show that Nissan's alternative forum would present as many obstacles as the one chosen by Kurzke, which showing is insufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of the forum selected by the resident plaintiff. (p. 18) Judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES O'HERN, STEIN, COLEMAN, and LaVECCHIA join in JUSTICE VERNIERO's opinion. JUSTICE LONG did not participate. APRIL M. KURZKE, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Hartmut Kurzke and BRENDAN KURZKE, an infant by his Guardian ad Litem, APRIL M. KURZKE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NISSAN MOTOR CORPORATION IN U.S.A., NISSAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., and BRISTOL MOTORS, INC., Defendants-Respondents, and JOHN DOES (1-10), fictitious names, and ABC CORPORATIONS (1 8), fictitious names, Defendants. Argued February 28, 2000 -- Decided June 15, 2000 On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 320 N.J. Super. 386 (1999). Peter L. Korn argued the cause for appellants (McDonough, Korn & Eichhorn, attorneys; R. Scott Eichhorn and Danielle M. Verrastro, on the brief). Gerard Cedrone argued the cause for respondents (Lavin, Coleman, O'Neil, Ricci, Finarelli & Gray, attorneys; Jo E. Peifer, on the brief). The opinion of the Court was delivered by NO. A-127 APRIL M. KURZKE, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NISSAN MOTOR CORPORATION IN U.S.A., et al., Defendants-Respondents, and JOHN DOES (1-10), etc., et al., Defendants. DECIDED June 15 , 2000 Chief Justice Poritz