1 NOTI CE Decisi on fi led 04 /24/ 07. The textof this dec ision m ay be changed or
corrected prior to the filing of a Petit ion for Re hea ri ng o r th e dispos it ion of

the s ame. NO. 5-04-0099 IN T HE AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS

FIF TH DIST RICT

______________

_____________________________________________________________ RA YM ON D B RO W N a nd G EO RG IA BR OW N, ) Appeal from the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiffs- Appellees, ) M ad iso n C ou nt y. ) v. ) No. 02-L-1569 ) COTTRE LL, INC ., an d FOR D MOTOR COMPANY, ) ) Defendan ts-Appellants, ) ) and ) ) CASSENS & SONS , I

NC. , C ASSE NS CORP ORATI ON, ) AL BE RT CA SS EN S, A LB ER T C AS SE NS TR US T, ) GENERAL MOTORS COR PORATI ON, an d Un kno wn ) Chain and R atchet Syst em Com ponent Distributors/ ) Man ufacturers, ) Ho nora ble ) A . A. M atoe sian , Defendan ts. ) Judge, presi ding.

________________________________ ___________________________________________ JUS TIC E C HA PM AN delive red the opin ion o f the c ourt: This a ppe al involves int erst ate forum non con veniens mo tions in a pro duct lia bility suit against

the manufact

urer of an auto-haul ing tr aile r. Raymond Brown, a truck dr iver resi ding in Missouri , was injured wh ile lo ad in g a ca r o nt o t he tra ile r in Lo ui sv ille , K en tu ck y. Co ttrell, Inc., the Georgia -based manufact urer of the traile r, fi led a moti on to dis miss the laws uit Bro wn and his wife fi ledin Illinois, a rguin g that e ither K entuc ky or M issouri w ould be a more convenient

forum. Other de fendants a lso movedto dis miss. The tri al court denied the moti ons, and t

his cour t affi rmed. The Il linoi s Supreme Court vacated our earli erorder and d irected us to r econsider our holdi ng in li ght of it s recent decisi ons in Langenh orst v
. No rfolkSouthern Ry. Co. , 219 Il l. 2d 430, 848 N.E.2d 927 ( 2006), and Gridley v. State Farm2

MutualAutomobile I

nsurance Co. , 217 Ill. 2d 158 , 840 N.E .2d 2 69 ( 200 5). Brown v. Co ttrell, Inc. , 219 Ill . 2d56 2, 8 47 N .E .2d 51 1 ( 20 06 ). W e o nc e a ga in af fir m th e tr ial co ur t's ruli ng, and we grant , in part, the pla inti ffs' motion t o strike Cottre ll, Inc.' s brie f. On June 20, 20 02, pla intiff R aymon d B row n w as injur ed w hile loadin g veh icles on to
an auto-hauling trai ler in Louisv ill e, Kent uc ky . B ro wn r es id es inDex te r, Mis so ur i. He recei ved medical t

reatment and phys icaltherapy

for his injuries in St. Louis, Miss ouri, the St. L oui s su bur b of

Fen ton , M isso uri, a nd C ape Gir ard eau , M isso uri. On November 22, 2002, Brow n and his w ife, G eorg ia Bro wn , filed a c om plaint in M ad iso n C ou nt y, Ill in oi s, s ee ki ng da m ag es fo r R aym on d's inju ries. The complaint named
as defend ants Co ttrell, Inc. (Cottrell), the man ufacturer of the trailer; Ford Motor Company (Ford); General Motors Corp. (GM); Cassens & Sons, Inc. ; Cassens Corp.; Albert Cassens; and the Albert

Cassens Trust. Cottrel l is headquart eredin G eorg ia. Th e Ca ssens defe ndan ts
are all l ocat ed in Madison County , as i s Brown's employer, Cass ens Transport Company (Cassens Tran sport). W hile not a part y, Cassens Transpor

t maint ains docu men ts relating to the maintenance of the trail er and Brown's injur y. Although the record does not discl ose the locat ions of Ford and GM, we may take j udicia l noti ce of the fac t that these com panies are headquart eredin Michigan. See Dawdy v. Union Pacifi c R.R. Co. , 207 Il l. 2d 167, 177, 797 N.E.2d 687, 696 (2003) (noti ng that we may take j udicia l noti ce of matte rs capabl e of inst ant and indispu table dem onstration). On August 26, 20 03, the plaintiffs fi led an amended complaint. On Septe mber 9, Co ttrell file d a motion t o dismis s on the bas is offorum non convenie ns . It argu ed thatthe
case should be fi led in e ither Bullit t County , Kentucky , where the accident occurred , or i n Stodda rd County, Missouri, where the pl ainti ffs resi de. Later in September

2003, GM and Ford file d separat e motions to jo in C ottre ll's fo rum mo tion

. On Ja nuary 2, 2004 , the court deniedthe forum moti ons. The defendant s appeale d that r uling, and o n M ay 25, 20 05, this3

court aff irme d. Brown v. Cottrell, Inc. , No. 5-04-0099 (2005) (unpubl ished or der pursuant to S upr em e C our t Ru le 23 (16 6 Ill. 2 d R . 23) ). On Ma y 24, 2006, the Illinois Sup reme C ourt vacated our decisio n and directe d us to
r econside r in li ght of it s recent forum decisi ons in Langenhorst and Gridley . On July 14, 2006, Cottrel l fil ed a supplement al bri ef, which Ford adopted. The plaintiffs fi led a moti on to di sm iss th e a pp ea l o r, a lte rn ati ve ly, to str ik e C ot tre ll's supplementa l brief. They ar gued that Cottrel l refe renced many matter s outsi de t he or ig in al r ec or d o n a pp ea l– sp ec ifi ca lly, Co ttrell re fe re nc ednum er ous "o th er ca se s" fi le d a ga in st

it inMadi so n Co unt

y . O n August 28, 2006, thi s court

denied the motion t o dismis s but gra nted the motion to strike the entire brief with leave to fi le a subs tit ute suppl emental brief. On September 11, 2006, Cottrel l fil ed
a substi tute s upplementalbrief, which was also a do pt ed by F ord. On September 13, the plaintiff s file d a m otion to dism iss the a ppea l or, altern atively, strike th e entire subs titute supplementa l bri ef. We ordered t hat moti on taken with the case

. The plaintiffs al lege that the su bstitute su pplem ental b rief still co ntains r efere nces to other Cottrel l cases , inc luding t hose fil ed after

the cour t ruled o n the forum mo tions in this
case. The y further a lle ge that the subs titute sup plem ental b rief m isstates th e reco rd w ith respect to the residences of some of the plainti ffs' potenti al witnesse s. The pl ai ntiff s acknowledge that we have t he discr etion to strike the o ffending portions of the bri ef (see Allstate InsuranceCo. v. Kovar , 363 Il l. App. 3d 493, 499, 842 N .E.2d 126 8, 1273 (2 006)), but they argu e that w e sho uld dismis s the appea l orstrike the bri ef in i ts entiret y because (1) the chall enged statements were the very same stat ements that appeared i n the ear lier brief– in other words, this is a r epeat offens e–and (2) if w e read the state men ts in the b rief in o rder to dete rmin e w hich state me nts n eed to b e stric ken , the d am age is alre ady d one . We agree with the pla inti ffs that Cottrel l' s refer ence to mate rialoutsi de the record and misst atementof evidence in the rec ord are s erious matter s–part icul arly after w e struc k its4

initial sup pl ementa l b ri ef f orth e s ame problems. Nevertheless, we believ e that w e sho uld add ress the d ef

en da nt s' pr ope r arg ume nt s, to pr ovi de gui da nc e t o tri al co urts . F urth er , w e findmisplace d the pla intiffs' co ncern s with the ne cessity for this court r eading the enti re bri ef in orderto dete rmine which portions to st ri ke . We ar e c ap ab le of

di sr eg ar di ng s tate men ts we findto be im prop er, and we are ca pable of revie wing the rec ord to det ermine whether each party accurat ely

charact erize s the r ecord in its bri ef. We deny t he plai nt iffs' mo tion to dismiss the appeal . We gran t, in part , the ir moti on to strike Cott rell 's brief, and we order stri cken from the bri ef allreferenc es to ot her Cottrell c ases fi ledin M adiso n C oun ty and all stat ements cl aiming t

hat the resi dences of the plai ntiff s' potentia l witnes ses are unknown. We now turn to the merits o f this appeal an d reconsid er whe ther the trial court prop erly d eni ed th e de fen dan ts' for um mo tion s. Forum non conveniens is a doct rine t hat al lo ws a court to dec line jurisdiction over a case, e ven though jurisdi ction would be proper, if it appears that a

differe nt court

would provide a more convenient for um . Gridley , 217 I ll. 2d at169, 840 N.E.2d at 277. A plai ntiff

has a subst antia l int erest in choosi ng the fo rum in which to br in g hi s or

her cl ai m ( Gridley , 217 Ill. 2d at 170, 84 0 N.E .2d at 277); thu s, the pl ain tif f's choic e sho uld o nly be distu rbed if a defendant can de monstrat e that (1) the p lai nt iff's chosen forum is inconven ient to the defen dant and (2) a propo sed alternative fo ru m
wo uld be more con ven ient t o all p artie s. Langenhorst , 219 Il l. 2d at 444, 848 N.E. 2d at 935. In decid ing w hethe r a defenda nt has met th is burd en, co urts consider all t he relevant public- and private-int erest factor s. The publ ic-interes t fact ors inc lude the following: (1) the interest in res olving inherently l ocal cont roversi es local ly , (2) the unfai rness of imposing the burden of jury du tyand the expense of a tri al on a count y wit h lit tle meaningful connection to the c ase , and (3) th e rela tive c ong estio n of the d ock ets in the p rop ose d fo ra. First American Bank v. Guerine , 198 Ill. 2d 511 , 516 -17 , 764 N.E .2d 5 4, 58 (20 02)

. The privat einterest factor s include the fol lowing: ( 1) the conve nien ce of the p arti es, ( 2) the ea se of5

access t o witnesse s and evidenc e, and (3) all t he other practi cal consi derati ons that make a t rialeasy , expedi tious , or inexpensive, including the abi lit y t o view the pre mises i f appropri ate. Gridley , 217 Il l. 2d at 170, 840 N.E. 2d at277. Because forum non convenie ns is a flex ib l e doc trine, the factors mu st be co nside red in th eir entire ty, and no one factor is decisive. Gridley , 217 Il l. 2d at 169, 840 N.E. 2d at277. Unless these fa ctors weigh heav ily in favor of a transfer

or a dismis sal, the moti on should be deni ed. Gridley , 217 Il l. 2d at 170, 840 N.E .2d a t 27 7. A further consider ationin rul ing on any forum motion i s the defe rence du e a pl ain tif f's choice of foru m. Gridley , 217 Il l. 2d at 170, 840 N.E. 2d a t 277. A lth ou gh th e p lai nt iff's choice of forum is always ent itl ed to som e deferen ce, the amo unt of de ference v aries. Whe re
a plaintiff

choo ses his o r her h om e cou nty or the s itus of the inc ident g iving ri se to t he litigati on, the pla inti ff's cho ice is en tit led to greater deference t

han where, as he re, t

he plaintiff chooses a for

um that i s neit

her his or her home nor t he sit e of t h e events at is sue. Gridley , 217 Ill . 2d at

170 , 840 N .E.2d at 277 ; Schwalbach v. Millikin Kappa Sigma Corp. , 363 Ill . App. 3d 926, 930, 845 N. E.2d 677, 681 ( 2005). However, a s the supreme court has repea tedly emphasized, less deferen ce d oes not me an n o de fere nce . Langenhorst , 219 Ill . 2d at 448, 848 N.E.2d at 938 ( relying on Guerine , 198 Ill. 2d at 518, 76 4 N.E .2d at 59). On appeal, we will reve rse a t rialcourt' s ruling on a forum motion on lyif the tri al court abused it s conside rab le discre tion in balanci ng the rel evant factors. An abuse of discr etionoccurs only where no r easonable person coul d take the view adoptedby t he tri al
cou rt. Gridley , 217 Ill. 2d at 16 9, 84 0 N .E.2 d at 2 76. The supreme c ourt r ecently cons idered t he doctrine of forum non con veniens in Gridleyand Langenhorst

. Gridl ey invo lv ed alle gation s that the defe ndan t autom obile insurance company fr audulent ly sold aut omobiles at

aucti on withoutreveal ing that they had prev iously been declar ed "tot al loss " ve hicle s. Gridley , 217 Il l. 2d at 161, 840 N.E.2d at 272.6

The plaintiff was a Louisiana resi dent, all of the rel evant event s occurr ed in Louisi ana, and
mos t of the w itnes ses r esid ed in Lo uisia na. Gridley , 217 Il l. 2d at 173-74, 840 N.E.2d at 279. The supreme court found that

any evi dence rel ating to the claim would likely be found in Lo uisia na. Gridley , 217 Ill. 2d at 17 4, 84 0 N .E .2d at 280. The court further found that Louisiana

law w ould go vern the p laint iff's c laim

. Gridley , 217 Il l. 2dat 175, 840 N.E.2d at 280. In li ght of the se ov erw helm ing co nnec tions to the S tate of Lou isiana, it is not surprisi ng that the court

found, on bal ance, t

hat the forum factor s str on gly favored a di smissalso the actio n co uld be b rou ght in L oui sian a. Gridley , 217 Il l. 2d at 171, 840 N.E. 2d at 277. In Langenhorst , the de fend ant railro ad so ugh t t o trans fer a wrongful de ath act ion from St. Cla ir C oun ty to ne igh bor ing Clin ton Co unt y. Langenhorst , 219 Il l. 2d at 433, 848 N.E.2d at929. Cli nton County

was both the l ifel ong resi dence of the decede nt and the p lace wh ere the accident

occurred, although t

he accident

took pl ace near the St. Cla ir County line. Langenhorst , 219 Ill . 2d at 433-34, 848 N.E .2d a t 92 9-3 0. In balancing the forum factors, h owe ver, the suprem e court con cluded tha t they did not strongly favor a transfer. Langenhorst , 219 Ill . 2d at 448, 848 N.E.2d at

937. In r eaching t

his conclusion, the court notedthat t

he witness es were scat

tered among seve ral Illinois c oun ties as w ell as M issouri and Ind iana

. Lange nhorst , 219 Ill. 2d at 4 49, 84 8 N .E.2d at 938 . The cour t also fo und it signi ficant

that t he d efendant fi led no affi davits stating that St. Cla ir County

would be inconveni entfor any

of its intende d witnesse s and that t he defendant di d not demonstr ate any impedimentto obtaining necessar y evi dence or any

other inconvenience it would encount er if the trial w ere h eld th ere. Langenhorst , 219 Il l. 2d at 450, 848 N.E. 2d at 938. For our purposes , it

is espe cia lly importa nt to no te that the majo rity opinion in Langenhorst warned against shift ing from our t

raditional f

ocus on "the conveni ence of the parti es as the t ouchstone of forum non con veniens analysis to focu sing on the m ore appr opriate forum based on where the cause of action aros e." ( Inter nal quot at ion marks7

om itted .) Langenhorst , 2 19 Il l. 2d at 453, 848 N.E.2d at 941. Su ch a shift, the cou rt explai ned, would be unwarrante d and would obliterate the ven ue s tatut e. Langenhorst , 219 Ill . 2d at 453, 848 N.E .2d at 9 41. W e note that it would also obl iterate t he util ity of forum

non conveniens as an equitable doct rine t hat promote s convenienc e a nd the effi cient administ rati on of just ice. See Langenhorst , 219 I ll. 2d at 4 41, 84 8 N .E.2d at 934 ; Gridley , 217 Ill . 2d at

169, 840 N.E.2d at 276. In light of this stat ement, we maynot assume t hat the defendants' proposedalternative fora are "more appropriate" because one is the place whe re the accident

occurred and the othe r is where the pla inti ffs resi de; rather , we consider all t he relev ant facto rs an d de term ine w heth er th ey stro ngl y fav or a dism issal

. The defe ndan ts argu e that Gridleyis more anal ogous to the inst ant case than Langenhorst because Gridley involved an inter stat e forum motion, as does the inst ant case , wh ile Lange nho rst involved a battl e between adjoining counti es withi n Ill inois . We d isagree . The sup reme c ourt has previous ly held that int erst ate for

um motions are governed by the same principles app licab le to i ntra state mo tion s. Dawdy , 207 Il l. 2d at 176, 797 N.E.2d at 696. The re are s ituation s in w hich th is distinctio n plays a r ole in the a naly sis of t

he rele vant circumstances. For example, as the cour t noted in Gridley , the need to ap ply the law of a foreignstat e–which can sometimes be an issu e in an interstate forum case–i s a fact or that can
we igh in fav or o f a d ism issal on foru m g rou nds

. Gridley , 217 Il l. 2d at 175, 840 N.E.2d at 280 (citing Moore v. Chicago & North West ern Transport

ation Co. , 99 I ll. 2d 73, 8 0, 4 5 7 N.E.2d 417, 420 (19 83) ). F urther , as t he court not ed in Langenhorst , a choi ce between adjoining Illinois co un tie s o fte n " ' " 're su lts in a b att le o ve r m in ut iae .' " ' " Langenhorst , 219 Ill . 2dat 450, 848 N.E.2d at 939 ( quoting Guerine , 198 Il l. 2d at 519-20, 764 N.E.2d at 60 (quoti ng Peile v. Skelgas, Inc. , 163 Ill. 2d 323 , 335 , 645 N.E .2 d 184, 190 (1994) (quoti ng Peile v. Skel

gas, I nc. , 242 Il l. App. 3d 500, 522, 610 N.E.2d 813, 829 (1993) (Lew is, J., spec iallyconcu rring)))). How ever, we find nothin g in either Gridleyor Lan ge nho rst to8

indica te a depart

ure from the establ ished pr ecedent t hatinterstate and intrastate mo tions are governed by the same principles. We firs t consi der the private -int erest factor of the conveni ence of the parti es. The plaintiffs resi de in D exter, M issouri. P resum ably, a trial in th eir hom e cou nty wou ld be mo re convenient

for them than a trial in either Madi so n C ou nt y or B ul litt C ou nt y, K en tu ck y; how ever, the defen dants ma y not pre vail on a forum motion by arguing t

hat a trialin the plaintiffs'cho sen for um wo uld inco nve nien ce th e pla intiffs. Langenhorst , 219 Il l. 2d at 444, 848 N.E .2d a t 93 5. No defe ndant is ba sed in M issouri o r Ke ntuck y. Cottrell is h eadq uartere d in Gainesvil le, Georgia, whil e the C assens def e ndant s are ba se d i n Mad is on C ounty . A s p reviou slynoted, both GM and Ford have their corporat e headquart ers i n Michigan. N atu ra lly, a Mad ison County tri al would be most con ven ient for th e C asse ns d efe nda nts. We findthis fact r elevant

but not di spositive. See Gridley , 217 Il l. 2d at 173, 840 N.E. 2d at 279. The cor por ate re pre sen tativ es o f C ottre ll, Fo rd, and GM will have to tr avel si gnific ant dist ances to attend a trial in any of the three possible venues. Bec ause they wo uld m ost likely travelby plane, holding the trialin proximity to a large cit

y with an airport

would be m ost convenient

for th em. This makes ei ther Bull itt County, which include s the Cit y of Loui svil le,
or Madison County, locat ed direc tly adjacent to St. Louis, Miss ouri, more convenient for these defendants than a trialin Dexter, Missouri. On the whole, t hen, this fa ctor does not
seem to favor an y one of t he three proposed for a over the others . Most si gnific antly , no defendanthas su bm itted an y affida vits explai ning why a Madison County tri al would be incon venie nt. As n oted, it is the defendant' s burden t o prove that the plaintiff' s chosen for um is inc onv enie nt. Langenhorst , 219 Il l. 2d at 450, 848 N.E. 2d at939 . Here , the de fend ants have fail ed to meet t

hat burden. We next consi der the e ase of a ccess t o witnesse s and evidenc e. The only evidence9

mentionedin th e r ec or d i s d oc um en tar y evide nce rel ating to Raymond Brown's i njury and treat ment an d r ec or ds re lat in g t o o th er sim ila r in ju rie s. B ec au se it is ea sy f o r tes tifying wit ne sses to tr ansport

documentary

evidence wit

h them to a t

rial , we do not consi der the locat ion of

doc um ents to b e a p artic ular ly we igh ty fact or. Neverthel ess, we note that much of the evi dence mentione d is maint ained by plaintiff Raymo nd B rown 's employer, Cassens Tran sport, at its M ad iso n C ou nt y he ad qu ar ter s. P re su m ab ly, records relating to t he treatment Brow n recei ved for his injuries would be l ocated at the offi ces of his treating ph ysi cians

. Alt hough all of h is physician s prac tice in M issouri, m ost of them are in th e St. L ouis metropolitan area, which is act ually closer to Madi sonCo un ty th an to St od da rd C ou nt y, M issouri. The others are loc ated in Cap e G irardea u, M issouri, which is closestto Stodda rd C ou nt y. More important ly , the defendants have not poi nted to anyparti cular di fficul ty they
wo uld face in acc essing doc umen taryor other evidence i f the trialis hel d in Madison C ou nt y. See Langenhorst , 219 Il l. 2d at 450, 848 N.E. 2d at 939. As we men tioned , we find the parties' ac cess to wit ness es a far more signi ficant
concern than the ir acc ess to doc umentary evidence. The plaintiffs have l ist ed numerous potenti al witn esses f

rom Illinois an d M issouri. Nearly all of the pote ntialMissouri wit nesses live in the St . Lou i s area, which, as pr eviously not ed, i s close st t o Madison County. The plaintiffs also list

potenti al witne sses fr om M ichiga n, Flor ida, Pe nnsylva nia, G eorg ia, Sou th Ca rolin a, O hio , Ne w J erse y, Ore gon , and Ne w Y ork Sta te. The only po tential witness es na med by the de fend ants– wh ose b urde n it is to dem onstra te the pro priety of a dismis sal–ar e (1) t he plai ntiff

s and their son, Eugene Brown, all of whom re sid e in D ex ter , M iss ou ri, ( 2) six of R aym on d B ro w n's med ical pro viders with offices in or near S t. Louis, M issouri, (3) o ne m edicalprovider from Cape Girardeau, M issouri, (4) a C assen s Tra nspo rt em ploy ee who lives in the St. Louis suburb of Fenton, M issouri, (5) anot

her Cassens Tr ansport

employe e whose reside nce is not given, and (6) an10

unidenti fiedeyewitness to Brown's accident in Louisville whose re si de nc e i s a ls o no t know n fro m th e rec ord

. Wh ere witnesses are scatter ed and ther e is no pr edominant connec tion to any one for um, it is an ab use o f discr etion to grant a f orum mo tion

. Guerine , 198 Il l. 2d at 526, 764 N.E.2d at 64. The defend ants argue, ho wev er, that w e sho uld disre gard the pl ainti ffs' rather extensive lis t of scat

tered wit nesses bec ause the pl ainti ffs do not s pecify what the subj ectof each w itn es s's testimony wil l be. The plaintiffs l ist at le ast 30 pot entia l witnes ses who "may have knowledge o f similar i njuries/malfuncti ons reports [ s ic ] or o f corporat e knowledge issu es." As the defendant s point out, t hey do not

provide any mo re spe cific inform ation w ith regard to the e xpectedtestim ony o f ea ch in div idu al w itnes s. The plaintiffs al so indi cate t hat they may cal l Linda Weseman or Je rry M icklo w o r bo th as retai ned exp erts. Although the
reco rd d oes not ind icate wh ere M icklo w r esid es, W ese ma n liv es in Jac kso nvi lle, F lorid a. Even if w e con sider o nly the pla intiffs' Flo rida-b ased expe rt witnes s and the defendants' potenti al witnesse s, we do not find that t his factor favors a dismis sal. Indeed, it appears that Madison Cou nty i s the most convenient forum for nearly allof these witnesses. The plaintiffs'retained exp ert will nee d to fly to the t rialfrom Flori da no matter which forum prevails. This makes Madison County or Bulli tt Cou ntymore co nvenient for her t

han Stodda rd Co unty du e to the prev iously m ention ed pr oxim ity of airpo rts to th o se counties. For the six S t. Lou is-area p hysicia ns, testify ing at a Madison County t

rialwould requir e a short, 27-mile drive, while a Stoddard County tri al would requir e a much longer drive of 170 miles, and a tri al in Bul lit t County would requir e an even longer 260-mile drive. O bv io us ly, Madison Co unty is the mo st co nve nien t for um for thes e six wit nes ses. The Cape Girardeau physi cianwo uld n eed to drive 5 8 m iles to testif y live at a Stod dard Co unty tri al, whereas he
wo uld have to drive 147 miles to testify in M adiso n C oun ty, and his ro ute w ould take h im throughStodda rd County. Stoddard County , the n, is the most conve nient f orum forthis one11

witness. On the w hole, o ur co nside ration o f the re lative ac cess to witnes ses an d to docu men tary and o ther ev idenc e fav ors M adiso n C oun ty somew hat. The final private -int erest factor is an as sessment of

the practi cal consi derati ons that make a tri al easy , expedi tious , and i nexpensive. The onlysuch consi derati on addresse d by the parties is the po ssibil ity of the j uryviewing the sit e of Raymond Brown's injury . The defe ndan ts point out

that a Madison County j urywould be unab le to v isit the L ouisv ille terminal wh ere the accid ent oc curred . We do n ot belie ve tha t a jury view wo uld b e warranted

her e. The injury occ urred on an auto-h auling trailer, a m ovab le object that mi ght be anywhere in the country . In any case, t he trai ler can be brought

to Madison County

for the jury to view if nee d be. W e find noth ing in th e reco rd to indicate that thi s factor wo uld favor any

of the three pote ntialfora over t he other t

wo. We next consider the public-interest factor s. We will consider together t he interest in decidi ng localcontrover sies l ocall y and t he unfairness o f impos ing the burd en of jury duty and the ex pens e of a trial on a coun ty with li ttl e connect ion to th e litigation . This is appr opriate because it i s unfair to impose t

he burden and expens e of a trial on a coun ty if it has lit tle or no interest i n resol ving the c ontrover sy. We first not e that this is a pr oduct liability claim . Both this court and t he supreme court

have found those clai ms to be ones t hat
are not inherently

localin flavor. See Gu eri ne , 198 Il l. 2d at 525, 764 N.E. 2d at 63; Schwalbach , 363 Ill. A pp. 3 d at 934, 845 N.E .2d at 6 84. M oreo ver, the plaintiff s' claim involves a trai ler us ed to tra nsp ort a uto mo biles ove r lon g di stan ces acro ss m any sta tes. This fac t, too , mitig ates aga inst a find ing that t he c ont rov ersy m ust b e de cide d lo cally. Mo re impo rtantly, it is not cle ar that a ny one o f th e three fora h as an interest in resol ving the controversy that i s strong enough to prec lude a re solut ion els ewhere. Although the accident

occurred in Kentucky, the rel evant i ssues do not dealwith the c onditi on of the Cassens facilit

y in Louisvil le where it occurred. Rather, t he relevant issues deal w ith t he12

designand condit ion of the trail er. Thus, we find that Bullitt County' s interest in res olving the dispu te is min imal. Stod dard Co unty has an ob viou s interes t in reso lving th e claim of its injur ed resi dent. Madison County i s the headquarter s of the various Cassens defendants and of Cassens Transpor

t, t he nonparty

employe r o f the injured d river, R aymon d B row n. It is belie ved that t

he Ill inois -regi ster ed trai ler at issue was l eased by

one of the Casse ns defe ndan ts. Altho ugh not ex plicitly addre ssed in the rec ord, w e think it is only reaso nable to infer th at these Cas sens c om panie s ow n and lease n um erou s othe r Co ttrell trail ers a nd employnum erou s othe r long -hau l truck d rivers to operate them. This gives MadisonCo unty
an interest i n resol ving th e li tig ati on th at, w hi le p er ha ps no t as str on g a s S to dd ar d C ou nt y's interest, is more t

han tange nt ia l. Thu s, we find that thes e factor s favor St oddard County over Ma dison C ounty, but not to such a great extent to req uire a transfer. The defe ndan ts argu e, how ever, th at this ca se w ill requir e the court to apply t he law of eit he r K en tu ck y or M iss ou ri a nd th at M ad iso n C ou nt y' s in teres t in t he litigati on is not substantial enough to jus tify imposing t

he bur de n o f app l y i ng fo r ei gnl aw oni t s c our t
. We
no te, however, that the e xtent of their argument re garding which s tate 's l aw appl ies is th e bold as se rtio n, " U nd er tra di tio na l co nf lic t o f la w an alys is, eit he r K en tu ck y's o r M iss ou ri's laws wo uld appear most l ikely to apply ." This is not

suffici entto alter our conclusion that the relative interest s of the t hree count ies ar e not so unbal anced that a tra nsfer i s requi red. Fi na lly, we consider the c omparati ve court c ongesti on in the a lter native proposed for a . Here, the defendant s have provi ded statistics showing tha t more case s are file d in Madison Co unty than in e ither

of the defendants ' pr oposed alt ernative fora. However, they have not providedany evi dence that eithe r Bulli tt County

or Stodda rd County would resolve the case
more quick lythan M adiso n C oun ty. Court c ong estion is not a s ignific ant fa ctor, pa rticularly whe re the de fend ant fa ils to dem onstra te that its propos ed forum can resolve the case m ore qu ick ly. Langenhorst , 219 I ll. 2d at 451-52, 848 N.E.2d at 939- 40 (relyi ng on Guerine , 19813

Ill. 2d at 51 7, 76 4 N .E.2 d at 5 8). We do not find that the defendant s carr ied the ir bur den of dem onstra ting tha t this fac tor fav ors a d ismissa l. Consideri ng the fa ctors a s a w hole, w e con clude that th ey do not strongly favor a dism issal. We thus find no abuse of discr etion in the trial c ou rt' s ruli ng de nyi ng the defend ants' forum m otions. We therefore affirm its order.

Motion to dis miss appealden ied; mot ion to s tri ke brief granted in part; judgment affirmed.

DO NO VA N an d ST EW AR T, JJ., concur.NO. 5-04-0099 IN T HE AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS

FIF TH DIST RICT

___________________________________________________________________________________ RA YM ON D B RO W N a nd G EO RG IA BR OW N, ) Appeal from the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiffs- Appellees, ) M ad iso n C ou nt y. ) v. ) No. 02-L-1569 ) COTTRE LL, INC ., an d FOR D MOTOR COMPANY, ) ) Defendan ts-Appellants, ) ) and ) ) CASSENS & SONS , I

NC. , C ASSE NS CORP ORATI ON, ) AL BE RT CA SS EN S, A LB ER T C AS SE NS TR US T, ) GENERAL MOTORS COR PORATI ON, an d Un kno wn ) Chain and R atchet Syst em Com ponent Distributors/ ) Man ufacturers, ) Ho nora ble ) A . A. M atoe sian , Defendan ts. ) Judge, presi ding.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Opinion Filed : April 24, 2007

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justice s : Honorable M elissa A. Chapman, J.

Honorable James K. Donovan, J., and Ho nor able Bru ce D . Ste wa rt, J., Concur

___________________________________________________________________________________ Atto rneys Ka ren L. K end all, B rad A. E lwa rd, H eyl, Ro yster, V oelk er & All en, 1 24 S .W
. for Adams Street, S uite 600, Peo ria, IL 616 02; R ober t H. S hultz, Jr., M ichae l T. K okal, Ap pellants 103 N. Main Street , Suit e 100, Edwardsvil le, IL 62025; Alan J. Dixon, One

Metropolitan Square, 211 Nort h Broadway, Sui te 3600, St. Loui s, MO 63102-2750 (atto rne ys for Co ttrell, In c.) James D. Sloan, Donohue, Brown, Mathewson & Sm yt h, 140 South Dearbor

n Str eet , Su it e 700 , Chi cago , I L 60603 (at tor ney for Ford Motor Co. - ADOPTED COTTREL L'S BRIEF)

___________________________________________________________________________________ Atto rneys Charles W. Armbrust er II I, The Lakin Law Fir m, P.C., 300 Evans Ave., P. O. Box for 229, Wo od R iver, IL 620 95; Bri an M. We ndl er , We ndl er Law, P.C., 900 Hills boro, Appellees Suite 10, Edwardsvill e, IL 62025

___________________________________________________________________________________