Opinion ID: 845766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: the failure to fully balance the cray factors

Text: While the trial court reviewed the Cray factors in its written opinion, it did not properly weigh the two forums one against the other. The trial court focused on the difficulties presented in retaining jurisdiction in Michigan. But it did not give equal consideration to the difficulties that a Croatian court would face if it had jurisdiction over the case. For instance, the trial court considered the burden on defendant to obtain evidence remaining in Croatia. But it ignored that plaintiffs would face a similar, if not greater, burden in obtaining documents that remained in Michigan relating to the manufacture of the Jeep. The failure to take this into consideration in a product liability case is not excusable. The trial court also considered, as a major factor disfavoring Wayne County as the proper forum, that the transmission defendant chose to place in the Jeep was designed and manufactured in Japan. However, this fact is irrelevant because a Croatian court is in no better position to obtain documents or witnesses from Japan than is a Michigan court. [6] Also, the trial court assumed that Croatian law would apply, an impermissible assumption. To properly apply the Cray factors, a court should first determine which forum's law should apply. See Manfredi, 194 Mich.App. at 525-526, 487 N.W.2d 475. This failure is yet another sign that the trial court neglected to conduct an actual balancing test in deciding defendant's forum non conveniens motion. Cray requires such a balancing test. The courts are charged to consider the plaintiff's choice of forum and to weigh carefully the relative advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction and the ease of and obstacles to a fair trial in this state. Cray, 389 Mich. at 396, 207 N.W.2d 393. The failure to conduct such a balancing test is an abuse of the trial court's discretion.