Opinion ID: 2381510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Response to J. Doggett's Concurrence

Text: When you strip Justice Doggett's concurring opinion of its fiery rhetoric, it is clear that he has twisted my dissent to such an extent that ordinarily I would feel compelled to respond at length. Deprived of its rhetorical flourishes, however, his concurring opinion contains only the following conclusions: (1) The legislature has abolished forum non conveniens. (We are not told when or how this was accomplished); (2) As a matter of law and of public policy, the doctrine should be abolished. 786 S.W.2d 689. (Why is this necessary if, as J. Doggett and the plurality claims, this was done by the legislature long ago?); (3) Allen v. Bass is compelling precedent that the plaintiffs have an absolute right to bring suits in Texas. (In Flaiz v. Moore and in Couch v. Chevron , we said that this issue was an open question); (4) The legal systems of many countries of the world are not as generous as ours, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens is a barrier to holding greedy, irresponsible multinational corporations accountable. The doctrine is therefore invalid on public policy grounds. (We are a court, not a legislative body. We do not have the power or authority to make this public policy decision). Justice Doggett also criticizes the doctrine of forum non conveniens as yet another legal fiction and assumes that by calling it such he has challenged its validity. Taking this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, it appears that Justice Doggett opposes the use of such legal fictions as corporations, constructive trusts, constructive notice, constructive fraud, and numerous others. In any event, he is incorrect in suggesting that forum non conveniens is a legal fiction, for a legal fiction is defined as an assumption of fact made by a court as a basis for deciding a legal question or a situation contrived by the law to permit a court to dispose of a matter. See Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979). Forum non conveniens requires the movant to prove to the court facts that warrant dismissal of the case. In conclusion, I have no intent, much less zeal to implement social policy as Justice Doggett charges. That is not our role. It is clear that if anybody is trying to advance a particular social policy, it is Justice Doggett. I admire his altruism, and I too sympathize with the plight of the plaintiffs. However, the powers of this court are well-defined, and the sweeping implementations of social welfare policy Justice Doggett seeks to achieve by abolishing the doctrine of forum non conveniens are the exclusive domain of the legislature. For all of the above reasons, I dissent.