## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## RE P O R T S Appellate Court

Fennell v. Illinois C

entral R.R . Co. , 2012 IL App (5th) 100504

Appellate Court Caption WAL TER FEN NEL L
, Plaintiff-Appellee
, v. I L L I NOI S CENTRAL RAI L ROAD COMPANY, De fenda nt-Appellant.

District & N o. Fifth District Docke t No. 5-10-0504

Filed J anuar y 3, 2012

Held (Note : Thi s syl lab us

con s t it ute s no par t of the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed b y the Repo rt er of D e c i s i o n s f

o r t h e

c o n v e n i e n c e o

f t h e

rea der

. ) In plaintiff’s action under FELA alleg ing that he develope d respirat o ry ailments as a result of his exposure to asbestos and other tox ic substances while employed with de fenda nt r ailroad, the trial court did not a buse its discretion in deny

ing defe ndant’s mo t i o n t o dismiss on the basis of interstate forum non conve niens, since the trial court properly conclude d that afte r weighing the rele v ant public- and private- interest fac tors, defe ndant failed to m ee t i t s burden of demonstrating that the fac tors strong ly favor ed dismissal in favor of a Mississ ippi forum.

Dec ision Under Review Appea l from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County
, No. 09-L -19; the Hon. L loyd A. Cueto, J udg e, pre siding.

J udg ment Affir med.Counsel on

Appea l Michae l C. Her mann and Thomas R. Peters, both of Boy le Br asher L L C, of B elleville, for a

ppellant.

Wil liam P. Gavin, of Gavin L aw F irm, of B elleville, for a ppellee.

Panel 

### JU S T I C E CHAPMAN delivered the judgm ent of the court, with

opinion. Presiding Justice Donovan concurred in the judgm ent and opinion. Justice W elch dissented, with opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 The defe ndant, I llinois Central Railroad Company
, appea ls a trial court order denying its motion to dismi ss the plaintiff’s complaint in favor of a Mi ssissippi forum. The defe ndant argues that the c ourt abused its discre tion. W e af firm. ¶ 2 The plaintiff, Walter Fe nnell, worke d in various capa cities for the defe ndant from 1970 until 2007. In his complaint, he alleg es that he suf fer s from respiratory ailments as a r esult of exposure to asbestos, diesel exhaust, sand, environmenta l tobacc o smoke, and tox ic dusts, fumes, and g ases. He alleg es that this exposure occur red throughout the course of his 37-year

car eer with the defe ndant. The plaintiff resides in Hazelhurst, Mississ ippi, located in Copiah County

. Whil e working for the defe ndant, he was based at its fac ility in J ackson, Mississ ippi, which is in Hinds County

. He wo rked on trains that ran “mostly in and out of J ackson, M i s s i s s i p p i, to Gulfport, L ouisiana, and McComb, Mississ ippi.” He also alleg es that he “we nt to Memphis, Tenne ssee, Mobile, Alabama
, and New Orlea ns” and atten d ed eng ineer ing sc hool in Homewood, I llinois

. ¶ 3 In 2002, the plaintiff and 84 other plaintiffs filed an action ag ainst the defe ndant in Pike County
, Mississ ippi. All 85 plaintiffs lived in Mississ ippi or L ouisiana and wer e curr ent or former employees of the defe ndant. The alleg ations in that litigation wer e essentially the

same as the alleg ations in the case befor e us. In J une 2006, the Mississ ippi trial court grante d

a motion to dismiss filed by the defe ndant. The court dismiss ed the action without prejudice

. The rec ord in this appea l does not reve al the basis for the defe ndant’s motion to dismiss the Mississ ippi action. ¶ 4 In 2009, the plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in St. Clair County
, I llinois

. He brought his claims under the Fe dera l Employ ers’ L iability Act (F ELA) (45 U .S.C. § 51 et seq. (2000)) and the L ocomotive Boiler Inspection Act (49 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq. (2000))

. As previously stated, he alleg ed that he develope d respiratory ailments as a result of exposure to a sbestos and other tox ic substance s over the c ourse of his employ

ment with the defe ndant.

-2-¶ 5 The defe ndant filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of interstate forum non conve niens

.

The defe ndant argued in its motion, as it does in this appea l, that trial in the plaintiff’s home county o f C opiah County
, Mississ ippi, would be more convenie nt for all parties. The defe ndant argued that dismiss al in f avor of a Mississ ippi f

orum was wa

rra nted beca use (1) the plaintiff was a lifelong resident of Mississ ippi who worke d out of the defe ndant’s J ackson, Mississ ippi, fac ility
, (2) the plaintiff did not alleg e that an y part of his injury

occur red in St. Clair County or elsewhe re in I llinois
, (3) numerous potential witnesses lived in Mississ ippi, and (4) trial in Copiah County
, Mississ ippi, would be more convenie nt for the defe ndant’s repr esentatives m o s t likely to testify or attend the trial, who wer e based at its fac ility in Memphis, Tennessee

. ¶ 6 In support of its motion, the defe n d an t at t ache d interrog atories in which the plaintiff identified 13 individuals who wer e at least potential witnes s es , al l of whom live in Mississ ippi. These individuals include the plaintiff’s wife and t hree adult children, four phy sicians who had trea

ted the plaintiff, and five of his cowor kers. We note that the plaintiff identified these individuals in response to questions asking him to identify family members,
treating phy sicians, and cowor kers. It is unclea

r how many of these individuals the plaintiff intends to call as witnesses. We further note that the defe ndant has not alleg ed that it intends to call any

of these individuals as witnesse s. ¶ 7 T he defe ndant also attache d the aff idavit of Charles Gar

rett, t h e d ef

en d an t ’s ri s k mitigation manag er for occupational disease claims. Gar rett stated that he and sever al other I llinois Cen t ral repr esentatives likely to attend the trial or testify live in or near Memphis, Tenne ssee. He stated that it would be a hardship for these employees to tr avel to B elleville for a St. Clair County trial and that it would be “substantially more convenie nt” for them to trave l to Copiah County
, Mississ ippi

. He d i d not identify any witnesses or repr esentatives likely to attend the trial other than himself, and he did not elabor ate on the rea sons trave l to Copiah County would be more convenie nt. A s we will discuss in mor e detail later, the two counties ar e nea

rly the same distanc e fr om Memphis. ¶ 8 The plaintiff filed a response to the defe ndant’s motion to dismiss

. The plaintiff pointed
out that the defe ndant was repr esente d in this lawsuit by a Be lleville law firm that had previously repr esente d it in simil ar litigation in I llinois
, Mississ ipp i, L ouisiana, and Tenne ssee. The plaintiff emphasized that, as a result of this repr esentation, the defe ndant’s counsel had collecte d numerous items of evidenc e that would be rele vant in this case

. This evidenc e–consisting of documents and tang ible items–was voluminous and was stored in the Be lleville office s of the defe ndant’s counsel. In support of these allegat i o n s , t h e plaintiff attache d photographs o f s o m e of the evidenc e involved and an aff idavit in which his own attorney stated that he had repr esente d other former employees of the defe ndant in numerous prior ac tions in which the same B elleville law f irm had represe nted the def endant. ¶ 9 In addition, the pl aintiff identified two witnesses that he intends to call, both of whom

are employees of the defe ndant. Specifica lly
, he intends to call Ly ndle Bur ton, the defe ndant’s manag er of industrial hyg iene, and Charles Gar rett, the defe ndan t’s risk mitigation manag er for occupational disease c laim s

. G a r r e tt , a s previously noted, is a resident of Memphis, T ennesse e. Bur ton is a resident of J oliet, I llinois . The plaintiff a lso identified Dr. Alvin Schonfield a s an expert witness. Dr. Schonf ield resides in Chicag o, I llinois

.

-3-¶ 10 T h e co u rt d en i ed t h e defe ndant’s motion to dismiss in a written order

. The c ourt

expressly found that the St. Clair County court would be a co n v en i ent forum beca use (1) “almost 80 year s of rele vant evidenc e” is located “just five miles from the St. Clair County Courthouse,” (2) Bur

ton and Gar

rett, whose testimony

would be important to the plaintiff, could be compelled to testify if the trial wer e held in I llinois b u t n o t i f it wer e held in Mississ ippi, (3) St. Clai r C o u n t y i s closer and more convenie nt for the plaintiff’s expert witness from Chicag o, and (4) the citizens of St. Clair County have an interest in litig ation involving asbestos and other tox ic substances in railca rs that trave l throughout the country

. In addition, the court found as follows: “St. Clair County no longe r has cong ested trial dockets. In fac t, there are so few trials that as a matter of policy in Courtroom 4 0 4 if the attorney s agree on a jury wee k they g et it. Guar antee d!” The defe ndant then filed the instant appea l pursuant to I llinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2) (ef f. F eb. 26, 2010). ¶ 11 F

o r u m n o n co n ve n i en s is an equitable doctrine that allows a trial court to dec l i n e jurisdiction if trial in a differ ent forum would be more convenie nt and “ ‘would better serve the ends of justice.’ ” Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.
, 219 I ll. 2d 430, 441, 848 N.E.2d 927, 934 (2006) (quoting Vinson v. All state , 144 I ll. 2d 306, 310, 579 N.E.2d 857, 859 (1991))

. The doctrine i s applicable whether t h e d ef endant seeks t ransf

er to a differe nt county within the state (intrastate forum non conve niens ) or dismiss al in favor of a proposed fo ru m in another state (interstate forum non conve niens ). Both ty pes of forum case s are g overne d by the same principles. Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.
, 207 I ll. 2d 167, 176, 797 N.E.2d 687, 696 (2003)

. ¶ 12 Although this doctrine g ives trial courts the discretion to decline jurisdiction, they should do so “only in exceptional circ umstances.” (Emphasis omitted.) Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 442, 848 N.E.2d at 934. This is beca use a plaintiff “has a substantial interest in choosing the forum wher e his rights will be vindicated.” First American Bank v. Guerine
, 198 I ll. 2d 511, 517, 764 N.E.2d 54, 58 (2002). The plaintiff’s choice
, there fore
, should be disturbed only if

a defen d ant can demonstrate that the plaintiff’s chosen forum is inconvenient to the defe ndant and that a differ ent forum would be more convenie nt to all parties. Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 444, 848 N.E.2d at 935. The burden of proving tra nsfer or dismissal in favor of a differ ent forum is on the defe ndant ( Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 444, 848 N.E.2d at 935), and it is a difficult burde n to meet ( Langenhorst , 219 I ll. 2d at 443, 848 N.E.2d at 935). ¶ 13 In deter

mining whether a defe ndant has met t h i s b u rd en , t ri al courts must consider various fac tors identified by our supre me cour

t. T hese include both private-inter est fac tors related to th e convenie nce of the parties and public-intere st fac tors related to the eff icient administration of the courts. Erwin v. Motorola, Inc.
, 408 I ll. App. 3d 261, 274, 945 N.E.2d 1153, 1166 (2011). The private- interest fa ctors include: ( 1) the c onvenienc e of the parties, (2) the compar ative ease of acc ess to witnesses, documents, and other evidenc e, and (3) “all other prac t i ca l p ro b l ems that make trial of a case easy , expeditious and inexpensive.” Guerine
, 198 I ll. 2d at 516, 764 N.E.2d at 58. The p ub l i c- i n t erest fac tors include: (1) the interest in d ec i ding local controversies locally
, (2) the unfairne ss of i mposing the expense of a trial and the burden ofjury duty on a county with littl e or no connec tion to the litigation, and (3) the re lative cour

t cong estion. Guerine , 198 I ll. 2d at 516-17, 764 N.E.2d at 58. ¶ 14 One additional considera tion is the plaintiff’s choice of forum. As previously discussed,

-4-the plaintiff has a substantial interest in choosing the forum in wh i ch to have his claims

resolved. Thus, the pl aintiff’s choice of fo ru m is alway s acc orded some defe renc e. Brown

v. Cottrell, Inc.
, 374 I ll. App. 3d 525, 529, 871 N.E.2d 63, 67 (2007) (citing Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
, 217 I ll. 2d 158, 170, 840 N.E.2d 269, 277 (2005))

. Where, as here
, the p l aint iff’s chosen forum is neither his home county nor the county in which the events g iving ri s e to his cause of action occur red, this choice is acc orded less defe renc e than it otherwise would rec eive. Langenhorst , 219 I ll. 2d at 442-43, 848 N.E.2d
at 934. Howeve r, less defe renc e does not mean no defe renc e. Brown
, 374 I ll. App. 3d at 529, 871 N.E.2d at 67 (citing Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 448, 848 N.E.2d at 938 ). Unl ess, on balanc e, the r eleva

nt fac tors strongly favor transfe r to the defe ndant’s proposed forum, the plaintiff’s choice should not be disturbed. Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 444, 848 N.E.2d at 935. ¶ 15 The trial court must consider and balanc e all rele vant forum fac t o rs wi t h o u t p lacing undue emphasis on any one fac tor. Eac h case is unique and must be decide d based on its own particula r set of facts. Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 443, 848 N.E.2d at 935. On appe al from an orde r grantingor deny ing a forum mot ion, we will reve rse only if the trial cour t abused its considera

ble discretion in balanc ing the rele vant fac tors. Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 441- 42, 848 N.E.2d at 934. This occur s if no rea sonable person could take the view taken by the trial court. Langenhorst , 219 I ll. 2d at 442, 848 N.E.2d at 934. ¶ 16 Turning to the fac ts of the case b ef o re u s , we wi l l first consider the private -intere st fac tors. These fac tors include the convenie nce of the parties, the compar ative ease of acc ess t o witnesses and evidenc e, and all of the other prac tical considerations that make trying a

case easy , expeditious , and inexpensive. ¶ 17 W e fi rs t co n s i d er the convenie nce of the parties. The plaintiff in this case resides in Copiah Coun t y , M ississi ppi, the defe ndant’s proposed alternative forum. Howeve r, the defe ndant must demonstrate inconvenienc e to the defendant ; it cannot preva il by pointing
to inconvenienc e to the plaintiff. Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 444, 848 N.E.2d at 935. We find that the defe ndant has failed to meet its burden of s h o wi n g that trial in St. Clair County would be less convenie nt for it than trial in Copiah County
, Mississ ippi. The defe ndant has
not identified any of its own witnesses or repr esentatives in Mississ ippi who would need to attend the trial, and the rec ord demonstrates t h at t he defe ndant’s Memphis-based repr esentatives will face a similar degree of inconve nience attendingtrial in either f orum. ¶ 18 We acknow ledg e th at t h e d ef en d an t p re s en t ed t h e af fi d av i t o f o n e o f those repr esentatives, who specific ally stated that attending trial in Copiah County would be “substantially

more c onvenient” for him a nd the other unnamed r epre sentatives. Howe ver,

a search of MapQue st shows that the distance betwee n Memp h i s , T en n essee , and Copiah County seat Hazelhurst, Mississ ippi, is 245 miles, while the distance betwee n Memphis and Be lleville, I llinois
, is 268 miles. MapQue st, http://www.mapque st.com (last visited Oct. 21, 2011). We may take judicial notice of matters that are rea dily verifia ble, such as the distances betwee n cities. See Hoskin v. U nion Pacific R.R. Co.
, 365 I ll. App. 3d 1021, 1024-25, 851 N.E.2d 646, 650 (2006) (citing Dawdy
, 207 I ll. 2d at 177, 797 N.E.2d at 696). The defe ndant offe rs no support for Gar rett’s bald asser

tio n th at t he 23 additional miles would make
tra v e lin g to St

. Clair County substantially more burdensome than trave ling to Copiah Cou nty

. As a practica l matter, travel t o either forum would involve a drive of approx imately half a

-5-day . We do not believe this fac tor favor s either f orum. ¶ 19 We will n ex t co n s i d er t he rela tive ease of acc ess to witnesses and other source s of evidenc e. The defe ndant relies heavily on the fac t that there are 13 individuals in Mississ ippi who are at least potential witnesses, while the plaintiff emphasizes the voluminous documentar

y evidenc e in the pos session of the defenda nt’s Be llevil l e at t orney s. Whil e we agree with the parties that these fac ts are rele vant, we place far less weight on them than do the par ties. ¶ 20 As previously discussed, the 1 3 p o te ntial Mississ ippi witnesses are the plaintiff’s tre ating phy sicians, cowor

kers, and family members. Obviously
, Copiah County
, Mississ ippi, would be the more convenie nt forum for any of these individuals who are actua lly called to testify
at trial. Although the rec ord does not indicate which, if any , of these witnesses the plaintiff intends to call, it is likely that at least some of them will be called. The plaintiff will need the testimony of at least some of his medical providers to establish that he suffe red damag es linked to his alleg ed exposure to tox ic substances on the job

. As i d e from the plaintiff’s medical providers, h o w e v e r, we cannot speculate as to how many of these potential witnesses may be called or how important their testimony will be to the plaintiff’s case

. See Boner v. Peabody Coal Co. , 142 I ll. 2d 523, 533, 568 N.E.2d 883, 888 (1991); Brant v. Rosen
, 373 I ll. App. 3d 720, 728, 869 N.E.2d 232, 240 (2007). ¶ 21 We also emphasize the fac t that the defendant has not indicated that it intends to call any of these individuals as witnesses. As we have discussed, the defe ndant cannot overc ome the plaintiff’s choice of forum by demonstrating that the plaintiff will be inconvenienc ed. Thus, it is appropriate to acc ord less weight to this list of potential Mississ ippi witnesse s than we otherwise might. ¶ 22 The only other witnesses identified in the rec ord are the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Schonfie ld, and two of the d ef

en d an t ’s employees, Gar rett and Bur

ton. Dr. Schonfield is a Chicag o resident for whom t ri al i n S t. Clair County will be much closer and more convenie nt. Although we consider his convenie nce, we place very littl e weight on this consideration. See Bland v. Norfolk & W

estern Ry. Co.
, 116 I ll. 2d 217, 227, 506 N.E.2d 1291, 1295-96 (1987). Trial in S t

. C l ai r County would also be more convenie nt for Bur ton, a resident of J oliet, I llinois

. As pre v i o usly discussed, Gar rett lives in Memphis, Tenne ssee, and trial in either proposed f

orum would be e qually

convenie nt. ¶ 23 The testimony of witnesses is not the only source of evidenc e we consider in evaluating this fac tor. As previously noted, t h e p l ai n t iff has place d heavy emphasis on the need to introduce documentar

y evidenc e rele vant to the fore seea bility of his injuries. This evidenc e is in the Be lleville of

fice s of the defe ndant’s law firm. This cour t ha s found the location of documentar

y evidenc e to be a rele vant but insi gn i fi ca nt fac tor beca use i t is relatively easy for witnesses to bring documents with them to the trial. Brown v. Cottrell, Inc.
, 374 I ll. App. 3d 525, 532, 871 N.E.2d 63, 69 (2007)

. ¶ 24 Her e, the plaintiff arg ues that it would be difficult to bring the require d documents to a trial in Copiah County
, Mississ ippi, due to the volume of the nece ssary documents and the ag e and f railty of some of the rele vant documents. He specifica lly points to a collec tion of documents from the 1930s known as the “Alton Railroad D ocuments.” We note
, howeve r,

-6-that the rec ord shows that attorney s for both parties have tried numerous simil ar case s in

Tenne ssee, Mississ ippi, and L ouisiana over the year s. This demonstrates that while it is obviously more convenie nt t o bring these documents to a trial in St. Clair County
, transportingthem to an out-of- state for um is not an insurmountable burden. ¶ 25 Considering the comparative ease of acc ess to witnesses and documentar y evidenc e in this case , we do not believe this fac tor strong ly favor s either forum. The need for the plaintiff
to prese nt medical evidenc e from his M i s s i s s i p p i medical providers tips the balanc e very slightly in favor of a Mississ ippi forum, but we do not believe that the defe ndant car ried its burden of demonstratingthat this factor strong ly favor s its chosen forum. ¶ 26 The final private- interest fac tor we consider is all of the other prac tical issues that make

a case easy , expeditious
, and inexpensive to litigate. This fac tor includes the availability of compulsory proce ss to compel the tes t i mony of unwilling witnesses and the fea sibili ty of viewing the site of the incide nt g iving rise to the pl aintiff’s claim, if appropriate. Guerine
, 198 I ll. 2d at 516, 764 N.E.2d at 58. We may al s o co n s ider the location of the parties’ attorney s, althoug h this is not a weighty consideration. Dawdy
, 207 I ll. 2d at 179, 797 N.E.2d at 697; Boner , 142 I ll. 2d at 534, 568 N.E.2d at 888. ¶ 27 As previously noted, the trial court found that the defe ndant’s ag ents, Bur ton and Ga

rre tt, would be subject to compulsory proce ss if the trial is held in I llinois but would not be subject
to compulsory proce ss if the trial is in Mississ ippi, although we note that it appea rs likely that the defe ndant also intends to call bo t h o f these people as witnesses. The defe ndant argues that the plaintiff’s doctors, family memb er s , an d cowor kers would not be subject to compulsory proce ss in I llinois ; howeve r, as previously d i s cussed, the defe ndant has not specific ally

alleg ed that it intends to call any of these people, and we can presume t hat the plaintiff will call some of his medica l providers. ¶ 28 We also consider the fea sibili ty of a jury view. Her e, the plaintiff has not alleg ed that he suffe red a site-spec ific injury

. Rather, he alleg ed that he suffe rs from respiratory ailments as

a result of cumulative exposure to various tox ic substances over the course o f h i s 3 7-year

car eer working for the defe ndant. M uch of his work was performed aboard moving t rains. We acknow ledg e that our supreme court has held that courts must co n s i d er the possibili ty of a jury view of a rele vant site eve n if the proba bility of such a view is very

slim. Dawdy
, 207 I ll. 2d at 178-79, 797 N.E.2d at 697. Neve rtheless, we need not g ive much consideration
to this fact o r wh en a jury view is not possible beca use the injury is not site-spec ific. See Brown , 374 I ll. App. 3d at 534, 871 N.E.2d at 70. ¶ 29 Finally
, we can consider the fac t that both parties’ attorney s are based in St. Clair County
, althoug h, as noted, this is not a particula rly signific ant fac tor. On balanc e, we find that this fac tor weighs slightly

in favor of

a St. Clair County

trial. ¶ 30 We next consider the public-intere st fac tors. These include the interest in deciding local
controve rsies locally
, the unfairne ss of imposing the expense of trial and the burden of jury duty on residents of a county wi t h l i t t l e connec tion to the litigation, and the compar ative
court cong estion in th e al t ernative fora

. We first note that this case does not involve a controve rsy of a particula rly lo ca l n at ure. The plaintiff seeks relief under two fede ral statutory scheme s from a defe ndant who operates rail lines in multipl e states. This is not the

-7-ty

pe of inhere ntly local controve rsy that must be resolved in either Mississ ippi or I llinois

. See Hoskin
, 365 I ll. App. 3 d at 1025-26, 851 N.E.2d at 650-51. This fac tor, there fore
, favor s neither f orum. ¶ 31 In addition, we do not believe it would be unfair t o burden residents of either St . Clair County or Copiah County with the expense of a trial in this matter or the burden ofjury duty

. Both coun t i es h ave a leg itimate interest in litigating this case beca use the problems of exposure to a sbestos and other tox ins by railroa d worke rs is a national, not local, proble m. See Hoskin
, 365 I ll. App. 3d at 1026, 851 N.E.2d at 651. However
, Copiah County has an additional interest in resolving the claim of one of its residents. We also note that the plaintiff alleg es that his work-r elated exposure to tox ic substances took place primarily in Mississ ippi and L ouisiana, although it is notclea r how much–if a

ny –took place w ithin C opiah County itself. This fac tor weighs somewhat in fa vor of tria l in Copi ah County

. ¶ 32 Fi n al l y , we co mp ar e t h e burdens of crow ded dockets in both counties. Her e, t h e defe ndant prese nted evidenc e that a highe r number of case s are filed in St. Clair County eac h
year than in Copiah County

. Howeve r, it did not prese nt any evidenc e as to how long it takes
to resolve case s in Copiah County

. Court conges tion is not a signific ant fac tor, espec ially when a d ef

en d an t cannot show that one forum can resolve the case more quickly than the other. Guerine
, 198 I ll. 2d at 517, 764 N.E.2d at 58. Moreove r, the trial court expressly found that its dockets were not overburde ned. We g ive def ere nce to this express finding beca use the trial court is i n a better position than we are to assess the burdens of its own docket. Boner
, 142 I ll. 2d at 538-39, 568 N.E.2d at 891; see also Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 452, 848 N.E.2d at 940 (g iving deference to a court’s express finding that overc rowde d dockets are
not a conc ern)

. ¶ 33 W eighing all rele vant public- and private- interest fac tors, we find that t h e t ri al co u rt properly conclude d that the defe ndant failed to m eet its burden of demonstrating that the fac tors strongly favor dismiss al in favor of a Mississ ippi forum. The defe ndant, howeve r, argues that the instant case is analog ous to the supreme court’s decision in Gridley and this court’s de cisions in Laverty v . CSX Transpor tation, Inc

. , 404 I ll. App. 3d 534, 956 N.E.2d 1 (2010), and Skidmore v. Gateway W estern Ry. Co.
, 366 I ll. App. 3d 238, 852 N.E.2d 857 (2006). In all three of thes e case s, the revie wing court found that a trial court abused its discretion in deny

ing a forum motion. We are not pe rsuade d. ¶ 34 We find Gridley and Skidmore rea dily distinguishable. Gridley involved alleg ations that the defe ndant had violated L ouisiana statutes by failing to obtain a salvag e title on a vehicle that had been involved in an acc ident and handled as a total loss befor e the plaintiff purcha sed the vehicle. Gridley
, 217 I ll. 2d at 171, 840 N.E.2d at 278

. T h e s upreme court emphasized both L ouisia n a’ s i ntere st in applying L ouisiana law in its own courts and I llinois ’s interest in not being burdene d with th e n ee d t o apply the law of another state in deter mining that this wa s the ty pe of dispute that should be resolved locally by a L ouisiana
court. Gridley
, 217 I ll. 2d at 175, 840 N.E.2d at 280. Skidmore involved a collision betwee n

an automobil e and a train at a railroa d crossing in Missouri. Skidmore
, 366 I ll. App. 3d at 239, 852 N.E.2d at 859. Our supreme court has previously found that automobile acc idents have an i nhere ntly local flavor. Dawdy
, 207 I ll. 2d at 183, 797 N.E.2d at 699. By contra st, as pre viously

discussed, this case involves a controve rsy with a dec idedly

nonlocal flavor.

-8-¶ 35 In addition, in both Gridley and Skidmore
, the parties had identified numerous witnesses

t h ey intended to call, most of whom wer e residents of the defe ndants’ chosen for a. S ee Gridl ey , 2 1 7 I ll. 2d at 174, 840 N.E.2d at 279 (noting that most witnesses lived in L ouisiana); Skidmo r e , 3 6 6 I ll. App. 3d at 241-42, 852 N.E.2d at 861 (noting that all witnesses lived in the Missouri county wher e the acc ident took place ). This case , by contra st, involves few spe cified w itnesses, includingtwo who live in I llinois

. ¶ 36 Laverty merits further discussion

. T h at case was brought under FELA and involved a claim that the plaintiff’s dece dent had co ntrac ted mesothelioma as a result of cumulative exposure to asbestos over the course of his car eer working for the d ef en d an t railroa d. Laverty
, 404 I ll. App. 3d at 534, 956 N.E

. 2 d at 3

. The defe ndant there filed a forum non

conve niens motion, arguing that trial in Michig an would be more convenie nt. Laverty
, 404 I ll. App. 3d at 535, 956 N.E.2d at 4. The trial court denied the m o t i o n , b u t a p anel of this
court re verse d that decision. Laverty , 404 I ll. App. 3d at 534, 956 N.E.2d at 3. ¶ 37 Some fa ct s re l ev an t t o resolution of the defe ndant’s forum motion in Laverty wer e simil ar to the fac ts befor e us. Neither the plaintiff nor the dece dent was an I llinois resident. The plaintiff was a resident of Texas. The dece dent was a resident of Texas at the time of his death, but he was a resident of Michig an and Oh i o wh i l e he worke d for the defe ndant railroa d. Laverty
, 404 I ll. App. 3d at 535, 956 N.E.2d at 3. The defe ndant ar gued that most of the dece dent’s alleg ed exposure to asbestos occur red in Michig an (although we note that the Laverty court does not discuss whether the rec ord supported this claim). Laverty
, 404 I ll. App. 3d at 535, 956 N.E.2d at 4. As here
, none of the injury was alleg ed to have occur red in I llinois

. Laverty , 404 I ll. App. 3d at 538, 956 N.E.2d at 6. ¶ 38 There w e re also some important distinctions. In Laverty
, all witnesses identified by either party lived outside of I llinois (although we note that the Laverty court did not discuss wher e they did live or indicate whether all or most rele vant witnesses wer e in Michig an). Laverty
, 404 I ll. App. 3 d at 535-36, 956 N.E.2d at 4. Indeed, the plaintiff t here conce ded that there

wer e no I llinois witnesses. Laverty , 404 I ll. App. 3d at 539, 956 N.E.2d at 7. Her e, Ly ndle Bur ton, an employee of the defe ndant and a witness identified as important by both parties, lives in J oliet, I llinois

. The plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Schonfield, also lives in I llinois , residing in Chicag o. ¶ 39 Additionally
, in Laverty
, the court considere d the fac t t h at n o n e o f th e i d enti fied witnesses would be subjec t to subpoena powe r in I llinois

. Laverty
, 404 I ll. App. 3d at 538, 956 N.E.2d at 6. In the case befor e us, Charles Gar rett, who both the p l ai n t i ff an d the defe ndant have indicated would be called as a witness, lives in Memphis, Tenne ssee, as do

sever al ot her unidentified I llinois Central represe ntatives who Ga rre tt attests would testify and/or attend the trial. Her e, in contra st to Laverty
, the trial court found that both Gar rett and Bur ton would be subject to subpoena power in I llinois but not in Mi ssissippi

. ¶ 40 Unlike the defen d an t in Laverty
, the defe ndant here has not identified any of its own witnesses or repr ese n t ati ves who live in its proposed alternative forum of Mississ ippi. Fur thermore
, Gar

r e tt ’ s b a ld a s s e r

ti o n th a t M is s is s ipp i is “substantially more convenie nt” than I llinois for the Tenne ssee witnesses, without any fac tual basis, does nothing to demonstrate how the plaint i ff’s chosen forum of I llinois is inconvenient to the defe ndant. This is

-9-particula rly true in light of the fac t that St. Clair County
, I ll i n o i s , and Copiah County
, Mississ ippi, are roug hly

the same distanc e fr om Memphis, Tennessee

. ¶ 41 A final distinction betwe en the case befor e us and Laverty is that he re, there is no need
to consider the possibili ty of a jury view of the situs of the injury

. The plaintiff did not suffe r

a site-spec ific injury
, as much of his work was perf ormed aboard moving trains. Thus, a jury view would not be possible. ¶ 42 As we have discussed at leng th, it is the defe ndant’s burd en t o s h o w b o th t h at the plaintiff’s chosen forum is inconvenient to the defe ndant and that the defe ndant’s proposed alternative forum is substantially mor e convenie nt for all parties. For the rea sons we have discussed, we conclude that the defe ndant here has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating ei t h er o f these propositi ons. We find nothing in Laverty
, Gridley
, or Skidmore to alter our conclusion. ¶ 43 For the foreg oing reas o n s, we conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defe ndant’s for um motion. Thus, we affir m the court’s r

uling.

¶ 44 Affir

med.

¶ 45 J USTI CE WEL CH, dissenting: ¶ 46 I dissent. It is my belief that the circ uit court abused i t s discretion when it denied the defe ndant’s motion to dismiss based on the grounds of forum non conve niens

. It is the duty of this court to g ive the circ uit court guidance

. Although I llinois has not adopted horizontal
stare decisis
, the appellate cou rt s o f t his district should interpre t finding s of the I llinois Supreme Court in such a way as t o g ive guidance to the circuit courts. The Fifth District’s
most rec ent case involving forum non conve niens is Laverty v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
, 404 I ll. App. 3d 534, 956 N.E.2d 1 (2010). Laverty is a case very simil ar to this case and should be instructive. ¶ 47 The majority discusses all of the private- a nd public-intere st factor s and the amount of defe renc e that must be given to eac h fac tor. A reading of the ma j o ri ty opinion shows how the circ uit court abused its discretion when it den i ed the defe ndant’s motion. In this case , there was not one fac tor that the supreme court has advised the appellate courts to consider that could only

be conside red slight de fer ence or very slight defe renc e. It is difficult, if not impossib l e, to find any nexus to I llinois
, let alone to St. Clair County
, in a forum non

conve niens setting. The ref ore, I dissent.

-10-