Title: First National Bank v. Guerine
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 90950
State: Illinois
Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court
Date: January 25, 2002

Docket No. 90950-Agenda 24-November 2001.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK et al., Appellants, v. RICHARD 								GUERINE et al., Appellees.
Opinion filed January 25, 2002.

	JUSTICE FITZGERALD delivered the opinion of the court:
	On the evening of September 26, 1999, Richard Guerine of
Melrose Park, Cook County, was driving his Jeep Carryall on
Somonauk Road in De Kalb County, pulling a speedboat on a
trailer manufactured by J.Q. Tex, Inc. (J.Q. Tex), a Mishawaka,
Indiana, corporation. The trailer broke away from Guerine's
vehicle, crossed the road into oncoming traffic, and struck head-on
a Hyundai Accent driven by Angel Malone of Batavia, Kane
County. Angel was pronounced dead on arrival at Valley West
Community Hospital in Sandwich, De Kalb County. Dr. L.W.
Blum, a coroner's physician from Rockford, Winnebago County,
performed an autopsy on Angel's body and reported her cause of
death as head trauma due to blunt force injuries she suffered in the
accident.
	Detective Rogers, Sergeant Newby, and Deputy Sullivan of
the De Kalb County sheriff's police investigated the accident
scene. These officers interviewed Guerine, his passenger Ashley
McKinney of Melrose Park, Cook County, and Randall Baker, an
eyewitness from Sandwich, De Kalb County. The record does not
indicate whether the officers spoke with Guerine's other
passenger, April Tischer of Addison, Du Page County, or Angel's
passengers, her two minor sons Christopher and Samuel.
According to J.Q. Tex, Guerine's vehicle, boat, and trailer were
stored in De Kalb County.
	First National Bank, as executor of Angel's estate, and
Christopher and Samuel, by their father and Angel's husband,
Patrick Malone, filed a nine-count wrongful-death complaint in
the Cook County circuit court against Guerine for negligent
operation of his vehicle, and J.Q. Tex for defective design and
manufacture of the boat trailer. The parties engaged in a limited
amount of discovery, which revealed the location of potential
witnesses. The plaintiffs, in their interrogatory answers, stated that
Patrick lives in St. Charles, Kane County, with Christopher,
Samuel, and Michelle Schumpert. The plaintiff's interrogatory
answers also listed James and Bonnie Schumpert, Angel's parents,
who live in Somonauk, De Kalb County, as persons with relevant
information.
	J.Q. Tex filed a forum non conveniens motion to transfer
venue to De Kalb County. The trial court granted this motion,
stating:
		"It appears to me that all we have here is defendant and
one witness in Cook County, an accident that clearly has
no connection to Cook County, a boating accident.
			There is nothing alleged here that there is [sic]
numerous other cases pending against this J Q in Cook
County, and it's an ongoing problem, et cetera, et cetera.
* * *
			So I am basing my decision on that I think it strongly
favors transfer.
* * *
			*** I'm deciding the case on the whole state of the
record, but the accident also happened in De Kalb. The
police officers are from De Kalb. The streets were in
De Kalb. Let the De Kalb people hear their litigation, and
their burden *** of the jury consideration of the case. I
think it's in conformance with Illinois law, the decision,
and if you look at the books, I've done a lot of cases
where I stuck my neck out for plaintiffs and the Appellate
Court refused to allow it. So they made a believer out of
me."
	The trial court gave the plaintiffs a choice between
transferring the case to De Kalb County, where the accident
occurred, or Kane County, where the Malone family lives. The
plaintiffs chose Kane County, but filed an interlocutory appeal
under Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2) (166 Ill. 2d R. 306(a)(2)).
The appellate court denied the plaintiffs' petition for leave to
appeal, and the plaintiffs sought review from this court. We
granted the plaintiffs' subsequent petition for leave to appeal. See
177 Ill. 2d R. 315.
	For the first time since Peile v. Skelgas, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 323
(1994), we are called upon to evaluate the continued vitality of the
intrastate forum non conveniens doctrine. We reaffirm that the
doctrine is Illinois law, but we conclude that the trial court abused
its discretion in granting J.Q. Tex's motion to transfer venue. We
reverse and remand for further proceedings.

ANALYSIS
	Section 2-101 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:
"every action must be commenced (1) in the county of residence
of any defendant who is joined in good faith and with probable
cause for the purpose of obtaining a judgment against him or her
and not solely for the purpose of fixing venue in that county, or (2)
in the county in which the transaction or some part thereof
occurred out of which the cause of action arose." 735 ILCS
5/2-101 (West 2000). Here, the plaintiffs filed their complaint in
Cook County, where Guerine resides. Before the trial court, J.Q.
Tex did not dispute that venue is proper in Cook County. Rather,
J.Q. Tex asserted, another venue is more appropriate than Cook
County. In ruling on a forum non conveniens motion, a trial court
enjoys considerable discretion. Peile, 163 Ill. 2d  at 336; see
Fender v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 49 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1971).
Accordingly, the sole issue before us is whether the trial court
abused its discretion in granting J.Q. Tex's motion to transfer
venue.
	Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine "founded in
considerations of fundamental fairness and sensible and effective
judicial administration" (Adkins v. Chicago, Rock Island &amp; Pacific
R.R. Co., 54 Ill. 2d 511, 514 (1973)), which allows a trial court to
decline jurisdiction in the exceptional case where trial in another
forum with proper jurisdiction and venue "would better serve the
ends of justice" (Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306, 310 (1991)).
Although the forum non conveniens doctrine has a long history at
common law, its general application crystalized following the
United State Supreme Court's landmark decision in Gulf Oil Corp.
v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 91 L. Ed. 1055, 67 S. Ct. 839 (1947). The
Gulf Oil Court stated:
			"The principle of forum non conveniens is simply that
a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even
when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general
venue statute. ***
			* * *
			Wisely, it has not been attempted to catalogue the
circumstances which will justify or require either grant or
denial of remedy. The doctrine leaves much to the
discretion of the court to which plaintiff resorts, and
experience has not shown a judicial tendency to renounce
one's own jurisdiction so strong as to result in many
abuses.
			If the combination and weight of factors requisite to
given results are difficult to forecast or state, those to be
considered are not difficult to name. An interest to be
considered, and the one likely to be most pressed, is the
private interest of the litigant. Important considerations
are the relative ease of access to sources of proof;
availability of compulsory process for attendance of
unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing,
witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would
be appropriate to the action; and all other practical
problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and
inexpensive. There may also be questions as to the
enforcibility of a judgment if one is obtained. The court
will weigh relative advantages and obstacles to fair trial.
It is often said that the plaintiff may not, by choice of an
inconvenient forum, 'vex,' 'harass,' or 'oppress' the
defendant by inflicting upon him expense or trouble not
necessary to his own right to pursue his remedy. But
unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant,
the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.
			Factors of public interest also have place in applying
the doctrine. Administrative difficulties follow for courts
when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of
being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that
ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community
which has no relation to the ligation." (Emphasis added.)
Gulf Oil, 330 U.S.  at 507-08, 91 L. Ed.  at 1062, 67 S. Ct. 
at 842-43.
	Our cases subsequently have recast these factors. In Illinois,
the private interest factors include (1) the convenience of the
parties; (2) the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial,
documentary, and real evidence; and (3) all other practical
problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and
inexpensive-for example, the availability of compulsory process
to secure attendance of unwilling witnesses, the cost to obtain
attendance of willing witnesses, and the ability to view the
premises (if appropriate). See Griffith v. Mitsubishi Aircraft
International, Inc., 136 Ill. 2d 101, 105-06 (1990); Bland v.
Norfolk &amp; Western Ry. Co., 116 Ill. 2d 217, 224 (1987); see also
Adkins, 54 Ill. 2d  at 514 (these factors also may include the
relative capacities of the two forums to provide a fair trial). The
public interest factors include (1) the interest in deciding localized
controversies locally; (2) the unfairness of imposing the expense
of a trial and the burden of jury duty on residents of a county with
little connection to the litigation; and (3) the administrative
difficulties presented by adding further litigation to court dockets
in already congested fora. See Griffith, 136 Ill. 2d  at 106. Court
congestion is a relatively insignificant factor, especially where the
record does not show the other forum would resolve the case more
quickly. See Brummett v. Wepfer Marine, Inc., 111 Ill. 2d 495, 503
(1986) ("Courts should be extremely reluctant to dismiss a case
from the forum rei gestae merely because that forum's docket has
a backlog"). These factors govern both interstate and intrastate
transfers.
	A further consideration is the forum which the plaintiff has
chosen to file the complaint. The plaintiff has a substantial interest
in choosing the forum where his rights will be vindicated, and the
plaintiff's forum choice should rarely be disturbed unless the other
factors strongly favor transfer. Griffith, 136 Ill. 2d  at 106; Jones v.
Searle Laboratories, 93 Ill. 2d 366, 372-73 (1982), quoting Gulf
Oil, 330 U.S.  at 508-09, 91 L. Ed.  at 1062-63, 67 S. Ct.  at 843; see
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §84, Comment c (1971)
("since it is for the plaintiff to choose the place of suit, his choice
of a forum should not be disturbed except for weighty reasons").
We acknowledge, however, that the plaintiff's interest in choosing
the forum receives somewhat less deference when neither the
plaintiff's residence nor the site of the accident or injury is located
in the chosen forum. Griffith, 136 Ill. 2d  at 106. "When the home
forum is chosen, it is reasonable to assume that the choice is
convenient. When the plaintiff is foreign to the forum chosen,
however, this assumption is much less reasonable and the
plaintiff's choice deserves less deference." Wieser v. Missouri
Pacific R.R. Co., 98 Ill. 2d 359, 367 (1983); accord Bland v.
Norfolk &amp; Western Ry. Co., 116 Ill. 2d 217, 228 (1987), quoting
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255-56, 70 L. Ed. 2d 419, 436, 102 S. Ct. 252, 266 (1981); but see Elling v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 Ill. App. 3d 311, 318
(1997) ("[W]hile the deference to be accorded to a plaintiff
regarding his choice of forum is less when the plaintiff chooses a
forum other than where he resides *** nonetheless the deference
to be accorded is only less, as opposed to none" (emphases in
original)). Similarly, when the site of the accident or injury is
chosen, the choice is convenient because the litigation has the
aspect of being "decided at home." See Brummett, 111 Ill. 2d  at
500.
	Contrary to our suggestion in Washington v. Illinois Power
Co., 144 Ill. 2d 395, 399 (1991), the trial court, however, does not
weigh the private factors against the public factors. Instead, the
trial court must evaluate the total circumstances of the case in
deciding whether the defendant has proven that the balance of
factors strongly favors transfer. Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 336-37; see
Bland, 116 Ill. 2d  at 227 (" 'If central emphasis were placed on
any one factor, the forum non conveniens doctrine would lose
much of the very flexibility that makes it so valuable' "), quoting
Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S.  at 249-50, 70 L. Ed. 2d  at 432, 102 S. Ct. 
at 263. The defendant must show that the plaintiff's chosen forum
is inconvenient to the defendant and another forum is more
convenient to all parties. See Hall v. CBI Industries, Inc., 264 Ill.
App. 3d 299, 303 (1994), citing Kwasniewski v. Schaid, 153 Ill. 2d 550, 555 (1992). The defendant cannot assert that the plaintiff's
chosen forum is inconvenient to the plaintiff. See Whirlpool Corp.
v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 295 Ill. App. 3d 828,
837 (1998).
	Our last full discussion of the forum non conveniens doctrine
came seven years ago. In Peile, the plaintiff was severely injured
in an explosion at his Pike County home as he attempted to light
his propane gas furnace. Hours before the explosion, Skelgas, Inc.,
had delivered to the plaintiff 500 gallons of propane gas from its
Pike County facility. The plaintiff filed suit in Madison County
against Skelgas, Inc., York International Corporation,
manufacturer of his furnace, and Honeywell, Inc., manufacturer of
the control valve on his furnace, alleging design defects in the
furnace. The defendants filed a forum non conveniens motion to
transfer venue to Pike County, and the trial court granted the
motion. While the plaintiff's lawsuit was pending in Pike County,
he filed an amended complaint adding additional negligence
claims and joining five defendants, all propane gas suppliers or
sellers.
	Two months before the scheduled trial date, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed his complaint and, eight months later, refiled
his complaint in St. Clair County, approximately 100 miles from
Pike County. The refiled complaint named the same defendants as
the amended complaint, but did not include York or Honeywell.
The defendants filed another forum non conveniens motion to
transfer venue, asking the trial court to send the case back to Pike
County, but the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court
affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the defendants' motion.
	We reversed the trial court and the appellate court on the
merits of the transfer, but the significance of Peile lies less in its
obvious outcome and more in its steadfast adherence to the
intrastate application of forum non conveniens. We acknowledged
the frustrating litigation quagmire created in the wake of Torres v.
Walsh, 98 Ill. 2d 338 (1983), where we first applied the forum non
conveniens doctrine to intrastate transfers, even agreeing with a
concurring justice in the appellate court that " '[t]he battle over the
forum results in a battle over minutiae.' " Peile, 163 Ill. 2d  at 335,
quoting Peile v. Skelgas, Inc., 242 Ill. App. 3d 500, 522 (1993)
(Lewis, J., specially concurring). However, we stated:
		"While we are not insensitive to such concerns, we are not
persuaded that abandonment of the equitable doctrine of
forum non conveniens is necessary because of perceived
abuses in its invocation or time consumed in its
resolution. The doctrine that was activated in Torres was
designed to give the courts 'discretionary power which
should be exercised only in exceptional
circumstances when it has been shown that the interests
of justice require a trial in a more convenient forum.'
(Emphasis added.) (Torres, 98 Ill. 2d  at 346, citing Gulf
Oil, 330 U.S. 501, 91 L. Ed. 1055, 67 S. Ct. 839.) In most
instances, the plaintiff's initial choice of forum will
prevail, provided venue is proper and the inconvenience
factors attached to such forum do not greatly outweigh the
plaintiff's substantial right to try the case in the chosen
forum. If, however, the litigation has no practical
connection to the forum, and a defendant establishes the
necessary showing under the doctrine, the court should
grant the motion for transfer. We conclude that the forum
non conveniens doctrine continues to serve a valuable
policy that the courts of this State are sufficiently
equipped to effectuate. Accordingly, we decline the
invitation to abandon intrastate transfer of cases when
appropriate, under the principles enunciated in Torres v.
Walsh." Peile, 163 Ill. 2d  at 335-36.
	Since Peile, we have exercised our supervisory authority more
than 30 times to transfer cases away from plaintiffs' chosen fora.
(See appendix.) Obviously, one of the purposes of the forum non
conveniens doctrine-sensible and effective judicial
administration-is not being served by this protracted interlocutory
litigation over plaintiffs' forum choices. The resources of this
court  are more profitably spent deciding fully developed
controversies than micromanaging errant forum rulings with
nonprecedential supervisory orders. We urge our trial courts to
give more careful consideration to forum non conveniens motions
and to leave a better record of their analyses. In turn, this will
allow our appellate court to make informed decisions on Rule
306(a)(2) petitions and to develop further a body of law to guide
the trial courts.
	A concern animating our forum non conveniens jurisprudence
is curtailing forum shopping by plaintiffs. See Torres, 98 Ill. 2d  at
351 (discouraging "the incessant jockeying for a more sympathetic
jury likely to come forward with a more substantial award"). In a
recent review of intrastate forum non conveniens, a commentator
aptly noted:
			"The truth of the matter is that both plaintiffs' counsel
and defendants' counsel are jockeying for position by
seeking a judge, jury and forum that will enable them to
achieve the best possible result for their clients. There is
no doubt that in the personal injury context, the plaintiff
is seeking a forum where he can recover the most money
and the defendant is seeking a forum where it will have to
pay the least. All other considerations are secondary to
both sides." G. Maag, Forum Non Conveniens in Illinois:
A Historical Review, Critical Analysis, and Proposal for
Change, 25 So. Ill. L.J. 461, 510 (2001).
See also E. Kitch, Section 1404(a) of the Judicial Code: In the
Interest of Justice or Injustice?, 40 Ind. L.J. 99, 139 (1965)
("[B]ehind the talk of inconvenience and the interests of justice
lies a concern not about plane fares but about juries").
	Under the "unequal balancing test" (Griffith, 136 Ill. 2d at
107), the plaintiff is entitled to some deference in choosing a
forum; the battle over forum begins with the plaintiff's choice
already in the lead. Though the plaintiff's choice is not absolute,
intrastate transfer is appropriate only when the litigation has "no
practical connection" (Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 336), no nexus, with the
plaintiff's chosen forum. We acknowledge that, though the forum
non conveniens standard remains difficult for defendants to meet,
it does not foreclose legitimate transfers when the balance of
factors strongly favors litigation in another forum.
	In Torres, the plaintiffs filed a personal injury complaint in
Cook County following a motor vehicle accident in Sangamon
County. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant Dale Palmer
negligently operated his automobile and that the staff at
Springfield Community Hospital negligently treated one of the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were residents of San Antonio, Texas;
Palmer was a resident of Sangamon County; and the individual
doctors and nurses named as defendants all practiced in Sangamon
County. Humana of Illinois, Inc., which owed and operated the
hospital, had a registered agent in Cook County. The defendants
requested a venue transfer, and the trial court sent the case to
Sangamon County. The plaintiffs petitioned this court for
mandamus relief.
	We reviewed Gulf Oil and noted that courts in 18 other states
have statutory authority to order intrastate venue transfers. Torres,
98 Ill. 2d  at 345-47. We further noted that at common law, English
courts had the authority to remove a case to another county in
order to obtain an impartial trial or to minimize the inconvenience
of witnesses residing a great distance away from the chosen forum.
Torres, 98 Ill. 2d  at 347-48. After discussing our interstate forum
non conveniens precedent, we concluded: "When the doctrine of
forum non conveniens is available in transferring a case from
Springfield, Illinois, to St. Louis, Missouri, we feel that a case
should be able to be transferred from Chicago to Springfield-two
cities in the same State-under the same theory." Torres, 98 Ill. 2d 
at 350. We reiterated the relevant factors for trial courts to
consider, but we warned that if sufficient factors favor the
plaintiff's forum choice, "the defendant's inconvenience should
not be considered, provided venue is proper." Torres, 98 Ill. 2d  at
351. Because we determined that the trial court had discretion to
order an intrastate transfer, mandamus relief was inappropriate.
Torres, 98 Ill. 2d  at 353.
	More recently, in a case remarkably similar to the one before
us, the First District upheld the plaintiff's forum choice. In
Hinshaw v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 319 Ill. App. 3d 269
(2001), the plaintiffs filed complaint in Cook County alleging
negligence, products liability, breach of warranty, and Dramshop
Act violations following a motor vehicle accident involving the
plaintiffs' Dodge van and another vehicle in Woodford County.
The plaintiffs were residents of McLean County; the other driver
was a resident of La Salle County, and his passenger was a
resident of Tazewell County. Two occurrence witnesses lived in
Du Page County, and one occurrence witness lived in Cook
County. In their interrogatory answers, the plaintiffs identified 18
other persons with knowledge of the accident, 15 of whom lived
in Illinois: seven in Will County, three in McLean County, two in
Du Page County, two in Lake County, and one in Woodford
County. Woodford County law enforcement officers investigated
the accident, and the plaintiffs received medical care primarily in
McLean and Peoria Counties. One of the defendants, Coachmen
Industries, Inc., filed a forum non conveniens motion to transfer
venue to Woodford County. The trial court denied this motion, and
Coachmen appealed.
	The appellate court discussed the familiar forum non
conveniens factors, including the plaintiffs' forum choice, and
stated that "the factors, when viewed in their totality, must
strongly favor transfer." (Emphasis in original.) Hinshaw, 319 Ill.
App. 3d at 275. The court reviewed the private interest factors and
held that, considering that the potential witnesses and other
evidence was scattered across eight Illinois counties and two
additional states, "it was not unreasonable for the trial court to
conclude that there was no predominance among the counties such
that Woodford County was strongly favored." Hinshaw, 319 Ill.
App. 3d at 277. The court then turned to the public interest factors.
Because the driver of the other vehicle was dismissed pursuant to
a settlement agreement, the case centered around the plaintiffs'
products liability claim: "As such, any local interest on the part of,
say, Woodford County is largely supplanted by a more general
interest in the safety of Dodge vans." Hinshaw, 319 Ill. App. 3d at
278.
	Unlike Torres, but like Hinshaw, the case before us involves
parties and witnesses dispersed among several counties in the
same area of the state. The litigation in this case has a nexus with
several fora. See Broeker v. Turville, 257 Ill. App. 3d 389 (1993);
Grachen v. Zarecki, 200 Ill. App. 3d 336 (1990); see also Meyers
v. Bridgeport Machines Division of Textron, Inc., 113 Ill. 2d 112,
121 (1986) (affirming the trial court's denial of a forum non
conveniens motion where factual connections remained evenly
distributed among four counties). The balance of private and
public interest factors does not strongly favor transfer away from
Cook County.

Private Interest Factors
	The plaintiffs filed suit in Cook County, and the record
contains affidavits from Patrick, Christopher, and Samuel Malone
stating that they will suffer no inconvenience by traveling to Cook
County to litigate this case. On the defense side, Guerine lives in
Cook County and never filed a forum non conveniens motion. J.Q.
Tex has its headquarters in Mishawaka, Indiana. Certainly, any
corporate representatives traveling to Illinois in this case would
have to pass through Cook County first on the way to either Kane
or De Kalb Counties. Cook County is a more convenient forum for
all parties, especially the defendants.
	Further, the accident occurred in De Kalb County, and
Guerine's vehicle, boat, and trailer remain there. Of the potential
witnesses, Michelle Schumpert of Kane County and James and
Bonnie Schumpert of De Kalb County have filed affidavits stating
that Cook County is not an inconvenient forum. Though these
affidavits do not resolve all of the scheduling problems associated
with a trial in a forum away from the location of witnesses (see
Washington, 144 Ill. 2d at 402), they do suggest that the
Schumperts are willing to travel to Chicago at the behest of the
defendants and the trial court.
	Guerine's passenger McKinney lives in Cook County.
Guerine's other passenger Tischer lives in Du Page County, and
Baker, the only other eyewitness, lives in De Kalb County.
Additionally, the three police officers who investigated the
accident come from De Kalb County, and Dr. Blum, the coroner's
physician who performed Angel's autopsy, comes from
Winnebago County. J.Q. Tex has not listed any corporate
representatives as witnesses, and neither party has identified any
expert witnesses. While De Kalb County has significant ties to this
case, so does Cook County. Further, compulsory process is
available in Cook, Kane, and De Kalb Counties, and we fail to see
how a jury view of the accident site will be necessary.

Public Interest Factors
	The accident here occurred in De Kalb County, and the
plaintiffs' negligence claim against Guerine has a local flavor. The
plaintiffs' products liability claim against J.Q. Tex, however, is
less localized. Additionally, we note that Cook County has a
legitimate connection to the litigation because Guerine lives in
Cook County, and he presumably drove his trailer on Cook County
roads. Finally, although the Cook County circuit court is more
congested than either Kane or De Kalb County circuit courts, court
congestion alone is not dispositive.
	We live in a smaller world than that contemplated by the Gulf
Oil Court, or even this court in Torres. Today, we are connected
by interstate highways, bustling airways, telecommunications, and
the world wide web. Today, convenience-the touchstone of the
forum non conveniens doctrine-has a different meaning. See Peile,
163 Ill. 2d  at 345 (Harrison, J., dissenting). That is, the
convenience of the parties depends in large measure upon the
context in which we evaluate their convenience.
	In this case, a conscientious and experienced trial judge
thought forum non conveniens decisions from this court and the
appellate court required him to transfer this cause away from Cook
County. We disagree, but our conclusion carries no pejorative
connotations. Illinois forum non conveniens law is admittedly less
than clear. In an effort to clarify the doctrine, we hold that a trial
court abuses its discretion in granting an intrastate forum non
conveniens motion to transfer venue where, as here, the potential
trial witnesses are scattered among several counties, including the
plaintiff's chosen forum, and no single county enjoys a
predominant connection to the litigation. The balance of factors
must strongly favor transfer of the case before the plaintiff can be
deprived of his chosen forum. See Peile, 163 Ill. 2d  at 345. This
is not such a case.

CONCLUSION
	For the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the decision of
the trial court transferring this cause to Kane County and remand
for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.


APPENDIX



    See Wakehouse v. Titan Wheel Corp., No. 92108 (October 3,
2001) (ordering the Fifth District to reconsider is order affirming
the trial court's denial of the defendant's forum non conveniens
motion to transfer venue); A.P. Green Industries, Inc. v. Houston,
195 Ill. 2d 547 (2001) (order the Fifth District to allow an
interlocutory appeal of the trial court's denial of the defendant's
forum non conveniens motion to transfer venue); Armstrong World
Industries, Inc. v. Geyer, 195 Ill. 2d 547 (2001) (same); Olin v.
A.P. Green Industries, Inc., 192 Ill. 2d 693 (2000) (ordering the
Madison County circuit court to grant the defendant's forum non
conveniens motion to transfer venue); Cerniglia v. Armstrong
World Industries, Inc., 189 Ill. 2d 656 (2000) (same); Hairrell v.
Winterville Marine Service Co., 187 Ill. 2d 567 (2000) (ordering
the Fifth District to vacate its order denying the defendant's forum
non conveniens motion to transfer venue and ordering the Madison
County circuit court to transfer venue); Kranker v. Mitsubishi
Motor Sales of America, Inc., 185 Ill. 2d 629 (1999) (ordering the
Cook County circuit court to grant the defendant's forum non
conveniens motion to transfer venue); Beldner v. Tennessee Steel
Haulers, Inc., 184 Ill. 2d 553 (1999) (ordering the Fifth District to
vacate its order denying the defendant's forum non conveniens
motion to transfer venue and ordering the Madison County circuit
court to transfer venue); Lawson v. Gateway Western Ry. Co., 184 Ill. 2d 558 (1999) (ordering the Fifth District to vacate its order
denying the defendant's forum non conveniens motion to transfer
venue and ordering the St. Clair County circuit court to transfer
venue); Fitzgerald v. Jones, 181 Ill. 2d 570 (1998) (ordering the
Cook County circuit court to grant the defendant's forum non
conveniens motion to transfer venue); Guest v. Detroit City Dairy,
Inc., 177 Ill. 2d 569 (1998) (same); Allen v. Illinois Power Co.,
173 Ill. 2d 521 (1997) (ordering the St. Clair County circuit court
to grant the defendant's forum non conveniens motion to transfer
venue); Grose v. Illinois Power Co., 169 Ill. 2d 566 (1996) (same);
Kinzler v. Chicago &amp; North Western Transportation Co., 169 Ill. 2d 569 (1996) (ordering the Fifth District to vacate its order
denying the defendant's forum non conveniens motion to transfer
venue and ordering the Madison County circuit court to transfer
venue); Weicherding v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 169 Ill. 2d 590 (1996) (ordering the St. Clair County circuit court to
grant the defendant's forum non conveniens motion to transfer
venue); McGeehon v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 168 Ill. 2d 596 (1996) (ordering the Madison County circuit court to grant the
defendant's forum non conveniens motion to transfer venue);
Beppler v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 167 Ill. 2d 549 (1996)
(ordering the Fifth District to vacate its order denying the
defendant's forum non conveniens motion to transfer venue and
ordering the St. Clair County circuit court to transfer venue);
Uebinger v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 166 Ill. 2d 555 (1996)
(ordering the Madison County circuit court to grant the
defendant's forum non conveniens motion to transfer venue); Eby
v. Illinois Power Co., 164 Ill. 2d 561 (1995) (same); Peters v.
Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 163 Ill. 2d 585 (1995) (same); Doe
v. Terra Properties, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 552 (1995) (same); Mosier v.
Danz, 163 Ill. 2d 563 (1995) (ordering the Fifth District to vacate
its order denying the defendant's forum non conveniens motion to
transfer venue and ordering the Madison County circuit court to
transfer venue); Harms v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 162 Ill. 2d 567
(1995) (ordering the Fifth District to vacate its order denying the
defendant's forum non conveniens motion to transfer venue and
ordering the St. Clair County circuit court to transfer venue); Popp
v. Lincoln Electric Co., 162 Ill. 2d 580 (1995) (ordering the First
District to reconsider is order affirming the trial court's denial of
the defendant's forum non conveniens motion to transfer venue);
Ferris v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 162 Ill. 2d 566
(1995) (ordering the Madison County circuit court to grant the
defendant's forum non conveniens motion to transfer venue);
Mayse v. Servicemaster Co. Ltd. Partnership, 159 Ill. 2d 569
(1995) (ordering the Fifth District to vacate its order denying the
defendant's forum non conveniens motion to transfer venue and
ordering the St. Clair County circuit court to transfer venue);
Strube v. CLC of America, Inc., 159 Ill. 2d 580 (1995) (ordering
the Fifth District to vacate its order denying the defendant's forum
non conveniens motion to transfer venue and ordering the Madison
County circuit court to transfer venue); Rogers v. Gateway
Western Ry. Co., 159 Ill. 2d 579 (1995) (ordering the Fifth District
to vacate its order denying the defendant's forum non conveniens
motion to transfer venue and ordering the St. Clair County circuit
court to transfer venue); Swartzlander v. Illinois Central R.R. Co.,
159 Ill. 2d 581 (1995) (ordering the Fifth District to vacate its
order denying the defendant's forum non conveniens motion to
transfer venue and ordering the Madison County circuit court to
transfer venue); Carpenter v. Strausberg, 159 Ill. 2d 564 (1994)
(ordering the First District appellate court to vacate its order
denying the defendant's forum non conveniens motion to transfer
venue and ordering the Cook County circuit court to transfer
venue); Wojtonik v. Illinois Central R.R., 159 Ill. 2d 583 (1995)
(ordering the Fifth District to vacate its order denying the
defendant's forum non conveniens motion to transfer venue and
ordering the Madison County circuit court to transfer venue). This
list does not include the innumerable cases in which the defendant
has filed a motion for a supervisory order from this court directing
the trial court to transfer the case. See 188 Ill. 2d R. 383.