Case Name: HYATT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Stefan HOWARTH, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-05-29
Citations: 678 So. 2d 823
Docket Number: No. 95-3063
Parties: HYATT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Stefan HOWARTH, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., JORGENSON, and GODERICH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 678
Pages: 823–825

Head Matter:
HYATT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Stefan HOWARTH, Appellee.
No. 95-3063.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 29, 1996.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1996.
Pyszka, Kessler, Massey, Weldon, Catri, Holton & Douberley and L.H. Steven Savola, Miami, Cindy J. Mishcon and Edward D. Schuster, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Colson, Hicks, Eidson, Colson & Matthews; Cooper & Wolfe and Marc Cooper and Maureen E. Lefebvre, Miami, for appel-lee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., JORGENSON, and GODERICH, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to transfer a negligence action from plaintiffs venue choice in Dade County to Monroe County under the forum non conveniens statute, Section 47.122, Fla.Stat. (1995). See Burger King Corp. v. Koeppel, 564 So.2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) ("The decision to transfer venue is within the sound discretion of the court, and the party contesting the choice of venue must show an abuse of this discretion in order to successfully challenge the court's determination."). Though plaintiff was injured in Monroe County, many of the witnesses do not reside in Monroe County; some witnesses reside in Dade County; plaintiff received significant medical care in Dade County following his injury; defendant has a place of business in Dade County; and Dade County is more convenient to travel to then Monroe County for the out-of-state and out-of-country witnesses — including plaintiff who was rendered a partial quadriplegic by his accident. Under these circumstances, Section 47.122's consideration of "the convenience of the parties or witnesses or . the interest of justice" did not require the trial court to reject plaintiffs choice of venue in Dade County.
Affirmed.
JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ., concur.
. Of the sixteen cases cited by the dissent in support of reversal, only one holds that a trial court abused its discretion in ruling on a venue or forum non conveniens motion — this court's decision in Koeppel. Koeppel involved a wrongful death action filed in Dade County where the death occurred in Broward County, the plaintiff and twenty of the twenty-one witnesses resided in Broward County, and all of the important contacts occurred in Broward County. In Koeppel, no reasonable person could have failed to conclude that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and interests of justice required transfer. This case is quite distinct.
The trial court's discretion is abused "only where no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court." Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). The factors under Section 47.122 and our prior cases support not only Monroe Counly as a convenient forum but also Dade County as a reasonable venue selection. The trial court — with the parties before it and the case having been assigned to its judicial labor — Was thus within its discretion to either grant or deny the motion for change of venue. We may not, under the abuse of discretion standard, simply supplant this decision with this court's preference on a de novo review of the same venue factors.