Opinion ID: 2555237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Thomson and Kurzke

Text: The present case is significantly distinguishable from Estate of Thomson v. Toyota Motor Corp. Worldwide, 545 F. 3d 357 (6th Cir.2008), on which defendants heavily rely. In that case, while visiting South Africa, a mother and daughter, two Ohio residents, were passengers in a Toyota Condor rented from Thrifty Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. in South Africa. Id. at 360. The Toyota was involved in a motor-vehicle accident when the vehicle's brakes allegedly malfunctioned. Ibid. As a result of the accident caused by the allegedly defective brakes, the mother died and the daughter was seriously injured. Ibid. The mother's estate and the daughter brought a product-liability action against Toyota and Thrifty in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Ibid. The district court dismissed the case against Toyota for lack of personal jurisdiction and the case against Thrifty on grounds of forum non conveniens. Ibid. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Ibid. In Thomson, the case was mostly about the producta car designed in Japan and manufactured, marketed, sold, and rented in South Africa. Id. at 366 (emphasis added). [T]he car was manufactured to the requirements of vehicles operated in South Africa .... Ibid. With the exception of the occupants of the vehicle, most of the evidenceparticularly the car, which was the object of the litigationwas located in South Africa. [11] Ibid. Indeed, the district court found that if the case were tried in the United States, South African citizens would be deprived of hearing a case regarding the safety of a vehicle marketed, sold, and used in their country. Ibid. The Sixth Circuit heldpaying deference to the district court's decisionthat the Gulf Oil private- and public-interest factors clearly point[ed] in favor of adjudication of [the] case in South Africa, and that South Africa had the greater overall interest in the outcome of [the] litigation. Ibid. Unlike Thomson, this personal-injury negligence action involves parties all of whom are domiciled in the United States. The present case hinges to a large degree on their recollections as well as Raniere, another resident of this country. In addition, there is an enormous amount of medical testimony and evidence in New Jersey and its environs that must be presented at trial. Also important is that evidence already has been procured from South Africa. Unlike Thomson, here a trial in South Africa appears to be at least as burden-someif not more burdensomethan one in the United States. Last, defendants hereunlike the defendant in Thomson  are attempting to upend the sound discretion invested in the trial court. Defendants' reliance on our decision in Kurzke is also unavailing. In Kurzke, we declined to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens a product-liability and breach-of-warranty action against the defendant automobile manufacturer and dealership. 164 N.J. at 162, 752 A. 2d 708. In that case, Hartmut Kurzke, a New Jersey resident, purchased a Nissan Quest from a dealership in North Plainfield. Id. at 162-63, 752 A. 2d 708. Later, Kurzke accepted his employer's offer to transfer to Germany, and the Quest was shipped to that country. Id. at 163, 752 A. 2d 708. Three years after the sale, Kurzke was driving the Quest on the Autobahn in Germany, with his wife and four-year-old son, when it was hit by another vehicle. Ibid. Kurzke was crushed to death when the Quest's steering column, which was allegedly defectively designed, failed to collapse. Ibid. His wife and child escaped serious injury. Ibid. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the product-liability and breach-of-warranty action on grounds of forum non conveniens. Id. at 164, 752 A. 2d 708. We reversed. Id. at 172, 752 A. 2d 708. We emphasized that the Quest was purchased in New Jersey from a New Jersey corporation; that both the vehicle and its steering column were designed and manufactured in the United States; that Kurzke received assurances from the New Jersey salespersonconfirmed in a Nissan advertisementthat the Quest had an `[e]nergy-absorbing steering column [which] collapses upon impact to help reduce the risk of injury'; and that Kurzke maintained his residence in New Jersey despite his temporary posting in Germany. Id. at 162-63, 752 A. 2d 708. We not only found that most of the acts that form[ed] the basis of [the] plaintiffs' claims occurred in this country, but also that New Jersey had a vital interest in assuring the safety of automobiles bought and sold here. Id. at 169, 752 A. 2d 708. Nevertheless, we remanded for further consideration because there was not sufficient pre-discovery at the point the trial court granted the motion. Id. at 172, 752 A. 2d 708. We cautioned, however, that [w]hen an alternative forum would present as many obstacles as does the forum chosen by the plaintiffs, which appears to be true in this case, a dismissal should not be granted. Id. at 171, 752 A. 2d 708 (citation omitted). We ended by reminding the trial court that in the final analysis, to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, the choice of forum must be `demonstrably inappropriate.' Id. at 171-72, 752 A. 2d 708 (citation omitted). Defendants have fastened onto language in Kurzke in which we left open the possibility that, in a limited number of cases, the burden to a defendant will be so grossly unfair and obvious on the face of the pleadings that discovery will not be necessary to validate a motion for forum non conveniens. Id. at 168, 752 A. 2d 708. Yet, we did not find Kurzke to fall in that limited number, ibid., and, in any event, the forum non conveniens motion in the present case was denied after the taking of discovery. Defendants have not argued that they had insufficient time to engage in discovery before the motion was heard. Contrary to defendants' arguments, we believe that the trial court in denying the forum non conveniens motion in this case, and the Appellate Division in affirming, faithfully applied the principles set forth in Kurzke. New Jerseythe place where plaintiffs are domiciled, where the majority of their medical treatment has been rendered, and where business contacts between plaintiffs and General Dynamics-Ordnance have occurredhas vital interests at stake. A motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is not to be granted on a mere balance of conveniences or when a trial in the alternative forum will present as many difficulties as the plaintiff's choice of forum. At least presumptively, a plaintiff is entitled to his choice of forum. We cannot conclude that the trial court, in weighing the Gulf Oil private- and public-interest factors, abused its discretion in finding that defendants failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that New Jersey is a demonstrably inappropriate forum.