Opinion ID: 2555237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Adequacy of Alternative Forum

Text: For purposes of our discussion, we will assume that South Africa presents an adequate alternative forum. South Africa is not disqualified as an alternative forum merely because it does not allow for jury trials in automobile-negligence cases or for punitive-damage or consortium claims. See Piper Aircraft, supra, 454 U.S. at 247, 102 S.Ct. at 261, 70 L.Ed. 2d at 430; see also D'Agostino, supra, 115 N.J. at 496, 559 A. 2d 420 ([I]t would be inappropriate for the forum non conveniens issue ... to be resolved on the basis that New Jersey substantive law is supportive of plaintiff's claims for relief.). Nor is South Africa an inadequate forum because New Jersey damage awards may be more generous for the type of injuries suffered by plaintiffs. Cf. Piper Aircraft, supra, 454 U.S. at 247, 102 S.Ct. at 261, 70 L.Ed. 2d at 430. Indeed, both the trial court and Appellate Divisiondespite denying defendants' forum non conveniens motionconcluded that South Africa is an adequate alternative forum. In the end, we need not determine whether South Africa is an adequate alternative forum to resolve the forum non conveniens issue. The resolution of that issue ultimately turns on our analysis of the Gulf Oil private- and public-interest factors.