Case Name: RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Lorraine ROSENBERGER, Mother and Next Best Friend of Megan Rosenberger, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-07-09
Citations: 699 So. 2d 713
Docket Number: No. 96-1673
Parties: RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Lorraine ROSENBERGER, Mother and Next Best Friend of Megan Rosenberger, Appellee.
Judges: Before NESBITT, FLETCHER and SHEVIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 699
Pages: 713–722

Head Matter:
RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Lorraine ROSENBERGER, Mother and Next Best Friend of Megan Rosenberger, Appellee.
No. 96-1673.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 9, 1997.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1997.
Gaebe, Murphy, Mullen & Antonelli, and Michael J. Murphy, Coral Gables, for appellant.
Stave & Coffey, and Ronald H. Stave Omaha, NE, Treadwell, Stetler, Erickson, Cimino & McElrath, Naples, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, FLETCHER and SHEVIN, JJ.

Opinion:
FLETCHER, Judge.
Defendant, Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. [Ryder], appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. We reverse.
The complaint alleges that the minor plaintiff, Megan Rosenberger, was seriously and permanently injured while riding as a passenger in a Ryder truck rented and driven by her father, Michael Rosenberger; that Mr. Rosenberger rented the truck from a Ryder rental agency located in Seattle, Washington in order to move his family from Seattle to Nebraska, where the family now resides; and that while operating the truck on an interstate highway near Livingston, Montana, Mr. Rosenberger negligently caused the truck to strike a concrete bridge abutment. Mrs. Rosenberger brought, in Florida, an action to recover for her daughter's injuries against the owner of the leased truck — defendant Ryder, which is a Florida corporation. The action does not include Mr. Rosenberger as a defendant.
Ryder moved to dismiss this action based on the then-recently adopted doctrine of forum non conveniens under Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996) and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.061. Ryder argues that Florida has no interest in this out-of-state accident and that, in choosing Florida as her venue, the plaintiff is forum shopping. Ryder maintains that Florida was selected simply because of its unique dangerous instrumentality doctrine which imposes vicarious liability on the owner of a motor vehicle for the negligence of an authorized driver. The trial court disagreed and denied Ryder's motion to dismiss.
In Kinney, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the federal forum non conveniens standard which requires a four-step analysis. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947); Kinney, 674 So.2d at 90; Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.061(a). Under the federal standard, a court entertaining a forum non conveniens motion must first determine that an adequate alternative forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case. Ryder argues that the proper forum for this action would be Montana, where the accident occurred and where the minor plaintiff received her initial medical treatment. Plaintiff, however, complains that she has no .remedy against Ryder in Montana because that state does not have a dangerous instrumentality doctrine like that of Florida. This, plaintiff argues, rules out Montana as an alternative forum under Kinney. We note that this raises a conflict of laws question, i.e., whether, if tried in Florida, the court is to apply the substantive law of Florida or of Montana, the latter of which excludes Ryder's vicarious liability. If Montana law were to be applied by a Florida court, then the plaintiffs concern that a forum non conveniens dismissal will deprive her of an adequate alternative forum is meaningless.
We conclude that the substantive law of Montana would apply if the plaintiffs cause were tided in Florida. Pursuant to our Supreme Court's holding in Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999 (Fla.1980), in determining conflicts issues, Florida courts are to apply the "significant relationships test" as set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 146 (1969):
"In an action for a personal injury, the local law of the state where the injury occurred determines the rights and liabilities of the parties, unless, with respect to the particular issue, some other state has a more significant relationship under the principles stated in see. 6 to the occurrence and the parties, in which event the local law of the other state will be applied."
The substantive law of the place of injury (Montana) would thus apply to the plaintiffs claim unless Florida has a more significant relationship to the occurrence or the parties. In that regard we note that the minor plaintiff, her mother and her father all reside in Nebraska; the Ryder truck was titled in Georgia and was licensed in New Mexico; the accident occurred in Montana; the state of departure and where the rental agreement was entered into was Washington, with Nebraska as the intended destination; and, finally, Ryder is a Florida corporation.
The Restatement's choice-of-law principles to which we look to determine the more significant relationship, endorsed by our Su preme court in Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., lead to our conclusion that Montana law applies. First, as to the needs of the interstate and international systems and as to the relevant policies, Montana has a manifest need to have its tort laws applied to accidents within its jurisdiction. While Florida has an interest in protecting its citizens and visitors from persons who put dangerous instrumentalities in another's hands, we are not here dealing with Florida plaintiffs, either residents or visitors.
As to the justified expectations, there is no reason why Ryder would have expected Florida's vicarious liability to apply through its vehicle leased to a Nebraska resident in Seattle, Washington, licensed in New Mexico and titled in Georgia, in relation to an accident in Montana. The plaintiff, having no connection with Florida, would not be justified in expecting Florida law to apply.
Applying the law of the state where the injury occurred will lead to more certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and will ease the determination and application of the law. Owners will be more prepared to understand and to deal with the obligations and rights if the law where the vehicle is operated applies.
Florida courts have in a number of cases concluded that Florida had the most significant relationship notwithstanding that the injury occurred in another state. In each instance, however, there had been a greater connection than mere residency in Florida by the defendant. In Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., the genesis decision adopting the Restatement's principles, all relevant parties were Florida residents. The Florida family members who were guest passengers in the plane involved brought suit against the plane's lessee (a Florida corporation) and the pilot (president of the lessee). The holiday trip (to North Carolina) was to begin and end in Jacksonville. The plane crashed in South Carolina, thus raising the question whether Florida law (more liberal towards recovery) would apply or whether South Carolina's aviation guest statute (less liberal toward recovery) would apply. In concluding that Florida law applied, the Court emphasized the numerous relationships with Florida, including the fact that all the parties were Florida residents. Bishop, 389 So.2d at 1000.
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Budget Rent-A-Car, Sys., 567 So.2d 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 163 (Fla.1991), Florida's dangerous instrumentality law was applied to a contribution claim arising out of an accident in Georgia. There, however, a Florida resident rented a van from Budget Rent-A-Car at the Panama City, Florida airport.
This Court, in Avis Rent-A-Car Sys. v. Abrahantes, 559 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), applied Florida law to claims of loss of consortium by Florida wives from injuries occurring in the Cayman Islands, finding that claims for loss of consortium are governed by the law of the state where the marriage is domiciled rather than where the injury occurred. This conclusion was based upon the state where the marriage is domiciled having the greater interest in the marital status with its attendant rights and responsibilities in a loss of consortium case than does the state where the incident occurred. We are not dealing with loss of consortium here, but, if we were, the plaintiffs state of domicile (not Florida) would have the greater interest in having its laws apply.
This Court, in Harris v. Berkowitz, 433 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), held Florida law applicable to a wrongful death case even though the automobile accident occurred in Maine, finding that Florida had the more significant relationship as the decedents, the beneficiaries (of an insurance policy involved in the dispute), and the litigants all were Florida residents. Such a substantial relationship with Florida does not exist in the instant case.
We conclude that Florida law does not apply. The plaintiffs concern that a trial in Montana would deprive her of Florida's dangerous instrumentality law is misplaced.
The next step in the forum non con-veniens analysis is for the trial court to consider all relevant factors of private interest. Kinney, 674 So.2d at 90; Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.061(a)(2). As the Kinney court indicated, the term "private interests" encompasses four broad practical concerns: "adequate access to evidence and relevant sites, adequate access to witnesses, adequate enforcement of judgments, and the practicalities and expenses associated with the litigation." 674 So.2d at 91. The relevant factors of private interest in this case do not favor Florida. Access to the evidence and witnesses is no greater in Florida than in any of the alternative fora. It would naturally be easier for the Rosenberger family and plaintiffs treating physicians to testify in a Nebraska court. Evidence relating to the initial medical treatment rendered to the minor plaintiff can more easily be provided in a Montana court. And, although Ryder is headquartered in Florida, it is a company engaged in business nationwide and probably would not be inconvenienced by a trial in either Nebraska or Montana. There is, of course, no question that the court of any óf the relevant states would be able to adequately enforce its judgment.
If the balance of private interests is at or near equipoise, the trial court must next weigh in the "public interests" factors. Kinney, 674 So.2d at 91-92; Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.061(a)(3). This inquiry "focuses on 'whether the case has a general nexus with the forum sufficient to justify the forum's commitment of judicial time and resources to it.' " Kinney, 674 So.2d at 92 (citing Pain v. United Technologies Corp., 687 F.2d 775 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1128, 102 S.Ct. 980, 71 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981)). Florida has no interest in committing its judicial time and resources to the litigation of this action which calls for the application of foreign law in relation to a vehicle accident wherein a non-Florida resident was injured by the negligence of a non-Florida resident, in a vehicle registered and licensed, and leased, out of state. It would be unduly burdensome to ask our courts, already suffering from a tremendous caseload, to accept litigation arising from all accidents involving Ryder trucks and the like, regardless of where the lease agreement was entered into or where the accident occurred.
Finally, before granting a dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, the trial court must ensure that the plaintiff, without undue inconvenience or prejudice, is able to seek the potential remedy in the alternative forum. Kinney, 674 So.2d at 92; Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.061(a)(4). Unless waived by unanimous agreement of the parties and approval of the trial court, defendant's motion for forum non conveniens dismissal is automatically deemed to include the stipulated condition that the action will be treated in the new forum as though it had been filed in that forum on the same date it was filed in Florida, with service of process accepted as of that date. Kinney, 674 So.2d at 92; Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.061(c)(e). Upon remand, the court below may make any required rulings in this regard.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order, which denied Ryder's motion to dismiss the action on grounds of forum non conveniens, and remand this action for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
NESBITT and FLETCHER, JJ., concur.
. See Hertz Corp. v. Jackson, 617 So.2d 1051 (Fla.1993), and cases cited therein.
. See Ulrigg v. Jones, 274 Mont. 215, 907 P.2d 937 (1995).
. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, § 6 (1969), provides:
"(1) A court, subject to constitutional restrictions, will follow a statutory directive of its own state on choice of law.
(2) When there is no such directive, the factors relevant to the choice of the applicable rule of law include
(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems,
(b) the relevant policies of the forum,
(c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue,
(d) the protection of justified expectations,
(e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law,
(f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and
(g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.