Court Opinion

ID: 9756659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:45:40.373977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:02.198051
License: Public Domain

*9TAMILIA, Judge,
dissenting:
Allen W. Rubin, administrator of the estate of Steven P. DiLeonardo, appeals from the January 31, 1994 Order granting moving defendants’ petition to transfer plaintiffs survival and wrongful death action from Philadelphia to Bucks County on the basis of forum non conveniens. The majority reverses the Order of the trial court, and for the following reasons I vigorously dissent.
Appellants argue the trial court abused its discretion by transferring this matter from Philadelphia County, the choice of the plaintiff, to Bucks County. The underlying products liability and personal injury action stems from an automobile collision in February, 1990, in the County of Bucks, very near its border with Montgomery County.1
Although plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to weighty consideration, it is not absolute, Scribner v. Mack Trucks, 427 Pa.Super. 71, 628 A.2d 435 (1993), and because the trial court has considerable discretion in determining whether to grant a petition for a change of venue, our standard of review of the court’s decision is one of an abuse of discretion, Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hospital, 525 Pa. 237, 579 A.2d 1282 (1990). Defendants petitioning for a change of venue have the burden of clearly adducing both private and public elements which either establish such oppressiveness and vexation so as to be out of all proportion to plaintiffs’ convenience or make trial in the chosen forum inappropriate due to considerations affecting the court’s own administrative problems. Shears v. Rigley, 424 Pa.Super. 559, 623 A.2d 821 (1993). When evaluating the defendants’ motion for a change of venue, a trial court should consider those elements which affect the private interests of the litigants which include:
the relative ease of access to sources of proof, availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling [witnesses], and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; possibility of view of the premises if a view would be *10appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive ....
Id., quoting Petty v. Suburban General Hospital, 363 Pa.Super. 277, 281-282, 525 A.2d 1230, 1232 (1987). The court must also consider those elements in which the public has an interest and those include:
problems of creating court congestion and imposing jury duty upon people of a community which has no relation to the litigation; the appropriateness of having the action tried in a forum where the court is familiar with the law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum step into a quick-sand of conflict of laws problems and foreign law.
Id. The rule of procedure at issue states:
(d)(1) For the convenience of parties and witnesses the court upon petition of any party may transfer an action to the appropriate court of any other county where the action could originally have been brought.
Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1).
The accident occurred near the border of Bucks and Montgomery Counties. The decedent, a resident of Bucks County on leave from the United States Navy, was a passenger in a car owned and operated by his brother, New York resident Anthony DiLeonardo. The DiLeonardo vehicle, registered in the state of New York, was struck by a car owned and operated by Bucks County residents, defendants Kenneth and Eleanor Lehman, as they entered the highway from a side street. The collision caused the DiLeonardo brothers to be forcibly ejected from the car, throwing the decedent directly into the path of an on-coming tow-truck, owned by defendant Bucks County International, Inc., and operated by a Bucks County resident, defendant Richard Diegal. The car in which the decedent was riding is now impounded in Voorhees, New Jersey.
In addition to the aforementioned individual defendants, appellant brought suit against eight corporate defendants, *11including Bucks County International, Inc., and two political subdivisions, solely on the basis of the parties’ ownership and/or maintenance of landscaping which allegedly obstructed the drivers’ views, contributing to the fatal accident. Five of the corporate and business defendants are located within Bucks County and one other is located in Montgomery County. The remaining two corporate defendants, Cumberland Farms, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Gulf Oil Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, regularly conduct business throughout Pennsylvania. The two political subdivisions included as defendants, Upper Southampton Township Industrial Development Authority and Delaware Valley Industrial Development Authority, are also situated in Bucks County. Defendant General Motors, a Delaware corporation, included on negligence and products liability theories unrelated to the shrubbery obstruction, conducts business throughout Pennsylvania and the United States.
As to potential witnesses and evidence, Bucks County Police responded to the accident, as did Bucks County emergency rescue personnel. Plaintiffs decedent was transported to Warminster General Hospital, located in Bucks County, where he was treated and later pronounced dead. The postmortem was conducted by Montgomery County Coroner, Halbert E. Fillinger, Jr., M.D. John Thallmyer, an eyewitness who was a passenger in the tow-truck, stated he lives in Philadelphia but works in Bucks, thereby making Philadelphia an inconvenient forum. And although the car is impounded in New Jersey, any testimony necessary for the resolution of the products liability facet of this case, including “evidence of designing, testing, manufacturing, and supplying the automobile” could and admittedly would come from “distant parts of the United States.” (Appellants’ brief at p. 10.) Lastly, should a view of the accident scene be required, as in all probability it may be in light of the defendants included as a consequence of their care or lack thereof of the landscaping at the intersection in question, it would be more convenient to have the jury proximate to the accident scene.
*12From my review of the record it is evident the trial judge carefully considered all of the testimony and evidence before him and thoughtfully weighed the public and private interests of all parties concerned.before granting appellees’ petition for a change of venue. Although appellant presented for our consideration the affidavits of five potential fact witnesses who stated Philadelphia would not be an inconvenient forum,2 none of these individuals averred Bucks County would be inconvenient. These witnesses would include the victim’s parents who now live in Florida, Anthony DiLeonardo who now lives in California, two individuals who saw the accident scene shortly after the collision and the coroner, previously identified. Considering the proximity of the county court houses, none being located more than 35 to 40 miles from the other, an allegation of gross inconvenience to anyone is questionable. The fact the appellant, who volunteered for the job of administrator of the decedent’s estate, lives in Philadelphia County is not determinative. Clearly, the costs incurred by all concerned, witnesses, attorneys and court systems alike, are greatly reduced by moving the matter to Bucks County. Only plaintiffs counsel and the hand-selected administrator can be truly identified with Philadelphia, and we have frequently held that persons in these categories are not to be considered as effecting the balancing required by the court. Lastly, in rendering its decision, the court properly was mindful of the enormous case load backlogged in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
The majority places almost total reliance for reversal of the trial court’s Order on Okkerse v. Howe, 521 Pa. 509, 556 A.2d 827 (1989), which held that the record did not support the petition to transfer. What the majority ignores is that Okkerse was a decision by a divided court in which the majority of the Supreme Court agreed to remand for findings because there was “a procedural morass” in which conflicting Orders from different trial judges resulted in incorrect interpretations *13by the second trial judge thus requiring remand for reconsideration rather than transfer of venue pursuant to the first judge’s Order. To this finding, the full Court agreed. The remainder of the majority’s evaluation was based on a survey of the law and gratuitous conclusions by the author (McDermott, J.) which were not required for the decision in the case. Justices Larsen, Papadakos and Zappala concluded that there was no error in considering the petition on its merits as was done by Superior Court. Justice Zappala stated:
The majority improperly analyzes whether Judge White’s order of transfer was supportable. This occurs because the majority engrafts on to Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) a requirement that a judge in determining forum non conveniens must conduct a hearing in order to develop a record on which to base his order. The plain language of the rule does not require such a result. Furthermore, Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) is distinguishable from Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(2) which requires a hearing when parties seeking a charge of venue have alleged reasons why a fair trial can not occur in the county. The contrasting language of these subsections serves to confirm that a hearing is not required to develop a record in the case sub judice.
Review of the record indicates, however, there was an adequate factual basis for Judge White to have made his decision. In fact, the information before Judge White was virtually indistinguishable from that presented to Judge DiBona, which was later used by Superior Court to finally determine not to transfer the action to Montgomery County. Furthermore, in contrast to Superior Court’s determination that there was limited information in the petition and answer, review of the record reveals that both of those documents were accompanied by extensive memoranda of law. This detailed information supplied by the parties addressed each of the important considerations affecting their interests. See Fox v. Pennsylvania Power and Light Co., 315 Pa.Super. 79, 461 A.2d 805 (1983) (ease of access to the sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses; the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses; the possible need for a view of the *14premises, etc.). Because no abuse of discretion can be attributed to Judge White, it can be discerned that Superior Court merely substituted its own judgment for that of Judge White. See Iole v. Western Auto Supply Co., 352 Pa.Super. 528, 508 A.2d 600 (1986).
Id., 521 Pa. at 523-24, 556 A.2d at 834-35 (Concurring and Dissenting Op., Zappala, J.).
The majority in this case apparently would require discovery and hearings to determine what was already on the record by means of pleadings and affidavits. As explained by the dissenting justices in Okkerse, the trial court had before it sufficient facts to decide the issue of conformance and the trial judge’s disposition was based on a careful consideration of all relevant factors. At any rate, the Okkerse majority did not rule against change in venue but remanded to the trial court to rule on the confused Orders and to make a ruling on the consolidated petitions.
A review of the pleadings, affidavits of witnesses and briefs of the parties in this case compels a finding that the trial court properly weighed all the factors involved in a decision to transfer venue and was not guilty of an abuse of discretion which warrants reversal. The court considered the private interests and the public interests. In making his analysis clearly supported by the record, the trial court stated:
Here, plaintiff was not injured in Philadelphia County. Plaintiff was not a resident of Philadelphia County. The cause of action arose on the Bucks County and Montgomery County line. There are numerous witnesses who may be called to testify — none of whom have been identified as a resident of Philadelphia. The majority of these witnesses hail Montgomery County, or counties other than Philadelphia. The only connection that this case has with Philadelphia County is the presence of plaintiff, Allen W. Rubin, administrator of the Estate of Stephen [sic] DiLeonardo, and the presence of the corporate defendants.
(Slip Op., Cohen, J., 1/31/94, p. 7.)
In their briefs, the corporate defendants concur in the court’s decision of changing venue in that their true contacts *15with this case are in Bucks County and only incidentally in Philadelphia. The court went on to say:
In light of the venue of all the witnesses, and the various factors presented by both movants and respondent in their respective filings, this Court concludes that the Bucks County forum will be less costly and will make the attendance of willing witnesses easier. There simply are insufficient contacts with Philadelphia presented here to oblige this court to maintain this case in Philadelphia.
(Slip Op. at 8.)
As to the public interest which the court must also consider, the court stated:
There presently exists a substantial backlog of civil cases in the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court system. As noted by the court in Dallas v. Orthopedic Associates, et al., 22 Phila. 286 (1991):
Perhaps the most compelling fact at this point in time is the public interests that have to be considered when a case is transferred for having insufficient contacts with a jurisdiction. If we were to allow these types of actions to be brought in Philadelphia’s already congested courts instead of being handled where they originated, it will compound an already overwhelmed legal system. Also, jury duty is a burden that ought not be imposed on people of a community which has no relationship to the litigation, (citations omitted). It is impossible to ignore the overwhelming burden that presently exists in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas with approximately 45,000 civil cases pending. Boyle v. Chester Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., et al., 21 Phila. 1 (1990); see also [Incollingo v. McCarron, 416 Pa.Super. 419, 427, 611 A.2d 287, 291 (1992)].
Transfer of this case alone will not alleviate the backlog that now exists in the Philadelphia Courts of Common Pleas, but it is a step that must be taken.
(Slip Op. at 8.)
The majority dismisses this concern required by the rules and a long history of case precedents by turning the develop*16ment of the law on forum non conveniens on its head and despite matters placed on the record through pleadings and affidavits, requires record proof of claimed hardship, ignoring the time honored role of the trial court in making that determination rather than accepting the trial lawyer’s allegation that it was not made.3 The majority gives greater weight and effect to the plaintiffs selection of the forum and reduces the trial court’s discretion to decide if fairness requires a change of venue to a minor role. To the contrary, while a plaintiffs selection of a forum is entitled to weighty considerations, it is not unassailable and the availability of a forum non conveniens challenge is a necessary counterbalance to insure fairness and practicability. Ernest v. Fox Pool Corp., 341 Pa.Super. 71, 491 A.2d 154 (1985). In such cases, the standard of abuse of discretion applies, allowing the trial court considerable discretion. Purcell, supra, 525 Pa. 237, 579 A.2d 1282.
The failure of the majority to recognize this balance is best illustrated by its statement:
If this court is to be faithful to the notion that a plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to weighty consideration, then at the very least, we should be enforcing the requirement that the party seeking to change that venue fulfill its heavy burden with record proof of the claimed hardships. In the absence thereof, it appears that the forum non conveniens transfer has become nothing more than a docket-clearing device.
(Majority at 8.)
The majority has clearly created an imbalance in the process that despite overwhelming evidence of record that Philadelphia has no interest or relationship to the cause of action in this case, except in the most incidental way, the defendant must prove it is a severe hardship to travel to Philadelphia when such hardship is clear from facts as determined by the trial judge. The ruling by the majority, if sustained, means that henceforth, the plaintiffs choice of a forum is unassailable *17unless involved and expensive hearings are held to establish proof of hardship beyond that which is ascertainable in an expeditious manner from the record by a competent trial judge in accordance with the rules and case law. Plaintiffs will determine jurisdiction and venue, and trial courts will be rendered powerless to implement the doctrine of fairness and balance, without further burdening the court and the litigants with hearings and discovery which the majority would require to prove hardship. In the meantime, it renders the standard that the ruling of a trial judge shall not be set aside, absent an abuse of discretion, meaningless, thereby placing control of the court’s docket and decisions as to venue primarily within the control of the plaintiff. This is no idle exercise as to where justice is to be rendered on the assumption that the result will be the same regardless of venue. Philadelphia has been a black hole into which cases arising in all of the contingent counties (and states) have been drawn to the point of breakdown of the Philadelphia system. This fact has received national recognition as recently as the January 30, 1995 issue of U.S. News and World Report in its cover story titled How Lawyers Abuse the Law. In a devastating attack on the way law is practiced in this country, which has led to a strong political movement to curb certain practices, the article pinpointed Philadelphia as a problem area. Under the subheading, “Epidemic of injustice,” the article states:
From 1980 to 1989, as accident rates fell, the number of property-damage claims brought per million miles driven fell 12 percent. With cars getting safer, bodily-injury rates should have dropped even faster. Instead, the rate of bodily-injury claims rose 15 percent. In some hotbeds of tort litigation, such as Philadelphia, there were 75 bodily-injury claims filed for every 100 claims of damage to cars — versus a mere 16 per 100 in Pittsburgh. These same places tend to have high rates of claims filed against municipalities. Some of this has to do with the more generous juries often found in low-income inner-city areas, but a lot has to do with nothing more than a concentration of lawyers.
*18Stephen Budiansky with Ted Gest and David Fischer, How Lawyers Abuse the Law, U.S. News and World Report, Jan. 30,1995, p. 56 (emphasis added). The trial judges of Philadelphia are in the best position to determine if selection of Philadelphia as the proper forum meets the test of fairness, and it is an unjustified criticism of the Philadelphia judiciary to infer they use venue petitions as a docket clearing mechanism. Without judicial supervision and monitoring of case filings, the crisis facing the courts coupled with the full scale attacks against the legal profession will result in the dismantling of the practice of law as we now know it.
I would affirm the Order of Judge Cohen.

. The counties involved in this matter, Bucks, Montgomety and Philadelphia, are all situated in the southeast corner of Pennsylvania, each being contiguous to the other two.

. One must question the phraseology used in the witnesses’ affidavit. Does the phrase "not being an inconvenient forum,” by virtue of the use of a double negative, render Philadelphia a convenient forum?

. I am not certain how record proof is to be established to the satisfaction of the majority if the record as it exists at the time of the petition to change venue is not to be considered.