Court Opinion

ID: 9752275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:54:07.117932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:12.407041
License: Public Domain

CAVANAGH, Judge,
concurring:
I join in the majority opinion and agree that it conforms with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the decided cases. Martin v. Gerner, 332 Pa.Super. 507, 481 A.2d 903 (1984); Anderson v. Uva, 230 Pa.Super. 533, 326 A.2d 430 (1974). I write separately to express my disagreement with the law as it stands.
It is important to observe that this is a case involving improper venue and not the doctrine of forum non conve-niens. I believe the controlling rules which permit a court in an improper venue to pick the litigant’s forum for him, improperly impede upon the admirable policy in Pennsylvania that a plaintiff should be given his choice of forum when pursuing a claim in court. Plum v. Tampax, Inc., 399 Pa. 553, 160 A.2d 549 (1960); Walker v. Ohio River Co., 416 Pa. 149, 205 A.2d 43 (1964); Shears v. Rigley, 424 Pa.Super. 559, 564, 623 A.2d 821, 824 (1993); Scola v. AC & S, Inc., 540 Pa. 353, 657 A.2d 1234 (1995). The law, as presently written, allows a court, without jurisdiction, to usurp the plaintiffs right to choose his forum. Thus, in this case, plaintiff asserts that there are several forums where this case might be properly pursued (Montgomery, Bucks and Philadelphia Counties) and the court, as the law permits, chose to transfer the case to Bucks County, the home county of the defendant hospital.
I submit that a better rule might be to dismiss a case with improper venue and permit a plaintiff to pursue the matter in the jurisdiction of his choice and accept the risks involved if the choice cannot be supported as a proper venue. If the *54statute of limitations is at risk of running, the court should allow the plaintiff a period of time within which to initiate an action, in the county of his choice, as a condition of the grant of the improper venue objections.