Court Opinion

ID: 9762561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:26:22.233911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:35.478734
License: Public Domain

HECHT, Justice,
dissenting.
Today the Court decrees that citizens of a foreign nation, Costa Rica, who claim to have been injured in their own country have an absolute right to sue for money damages in Texas courts. This same invitation extends to the citizens of every nation which would allow a Texas resident to sue in its courts in the most unlikely event he should ever want to. Citizens of foreign nations injured in Texas may certainly sue here; in some cases, they may sue in Texas even though they were injured elsewhere. But for this Court to give aliens injured outside Texas an absolute right to sue in this state inflicts a blow upon the people of Texas, its employers and taxpayers, that is contrary to sound policy.
The United States does not give aliens unlimited access to its courts. Indeed, one federal district court in California1 and two in Florida2 have already dismissed essentially this same lawsuit which the Court now welcomes to Texas. No state has ever given aliens such unlimited admission to its *703courts. The United States Supreme Court,3 the District of Columbia,4 and forty states5 have all recognized what has come to be called the rule of forum non conveniens. Simply stated, the rule is that “[a] state will not exercise jurisdiction if it is a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action provided that a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff.” Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 84 (1971). The rule is founded in “considerations of fundamental fairness and sensible and effective judicial administration.” Adkins v. Chicago, R.I. & Pac. R.R., 54 Ill.2d 511, 301 N.E.2d 729, 730 (1973). Until now, no state has ever rejected this rule.6 This Court, however, does not even acknowledge the collective wisdom of the entire country.
To abolish the rule of forum non conve-niens in personal injury and death cases, *704the Court relies upon no authority other than a 1913 statute, which it never analyzes, and one sentence from a 1932 court of appeals decision. Neither of these authorities is sufficient support for the Court’s sweeping decision, as I demonstrate below. Furthermore, and equally troubling, the Court attempts no response to the petitioners’ very substantial arguments that the rule of forum non conve-niens does and should apply in Texas.
I
Section 71.031 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code states:
(a) An action for damages for the death or personal injury of a citizen of this state, of the United States, or of a foreign country may be enforced in the courts of this state, although the wrongful act, neglect, or default causing the death or injury takes place in a foreign state or country, if:
(1) a law of the foreign state or country or of this state gives a right to maintain an action for damages for the death or injury;
(2) the action is begun in this state
within the time provided by the laws of this state for beginning the action; and ⅜
(3) in the case of a citizen of a foreign country, the country has equal treaty rights with the United States on behalf of its citizens.
(b) All matters pertaining to procedure in the prosecution or maintenance of the action in the courts of this state are governed by the law of this state.
(c)The court shall apply the rules of substantive law that are appropriate under the facts of the case.
This statute is a nonsubstantive recodification of its predecessor, article 4678 of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes, which the trial court applied. As it affects this case, the statute has not been changed materially since it was first passed in 1913 and amended in 1917.7
The plain language of this statute is permissive: the actions described “may be enforced in the courts of this state”. The statute thus prohibits dismissal of an action within its ambit solely because plaintiffs reside or the action arose outside Texas. The Legislature has plainly opened the door to such actions; but the Court tears the door off its hinges. Not only does the statute allow foreign actions, the Court says, it mandates them. The Court would be correct if the statute stated that the actions it describes “shall be enforced in the courts of this state”. But it does not say so. The statute does not create an absolute right to bring a personal injury action in Texas no matter how little it has to do with this state, how inconvenient it is to the parties, and how burdensome it is to the courts and the people of Texas who must pay for them. The statute certainly does not explicitly revoke the rule of forum non conveniens.
The Court’s analysis of the statute consists of quoting it. The Court then argues with Justice Gonzalez’s dissent about whether the rule of forum non conveniens existed in Texas prior to 1913, when the statute was first enacted. The point of this argument appears to be that the Legislature could have abolished the rule in 1913 *705because it had been recognized earlier. This argument is at best inconclusive. The Legislature could have made the right to bring actions under the 1913 statute absolute regardless of whether anyone had ever heard of the principles of forum non conve-niens, by that name or any other. The issue is not what the Legislature could have done, but what it did do.
Just as the Court ignores other states’ acknowledgment of the rule of forum non conveniens, it ignores other states’ construction of similar statutes. The supreme courts of other states with statutes similar to section 71.031 containing the term “may” have held those statutes to be permissive and have applied the rule of forum non conveniens. For instance, the Kansas statute provides:
Whenever a cause of action has accrued under or by virtue of the laws of any other state or territory, such cause of action may be sued upon in any of the courts of this state by the person or persons who are authorized to bring and maintain an action thereon in the state or territory where the same arose.
Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-217(b) (1983) (emphasis added). Despite terms nearly identical to the Texas statute, Kansas applies forum non conveniens. Gonzales v. Atchison, T & S.F. Ry., 189 Kan. 689, 371 P.2d 193 (1962). Similarly, the Iowa statute provides:
An action may be brought against any railway corporation, the owner of stages, or other line of coaches or cars ... or persons operating the same, in any county through which such road or line passes or is operated.
Iowa Code § 616.8 (1950) (emphasis added). Despite this statute, however, Iowa applies the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Silversmith v. Kenosha Auto Transp., 301 N.W.2d 725, 727 (Iowa 1981).
By comparison, Alabama had a specific mandatory statutory provision which stated:
Whenever, either by common law or the statutes of another state, a claim either upon contract or in tort has arisen in such other state against any person or corporation, such cause of action shall be enforceable in the courts of this state....
Ala.Code § 6-5-430 (1975) (emphasis added). While this statute was effective, the Alabama Supreme Court construed this statute to preclude application of the rule of forum non conveniens. Central of Ga. Ry. v. Phillips, 286 Ala. 365, 240 So.2d 118 (1970). The use of the mandatory verb “shall” in the Alabama statute stood in stark contrast to the use of the discretionary verb “may” in the Texas, Kansas, and Iowa statutes. In 1987 the Alabama Legislature amended its statute to recognize expressly the rule of forum non conveniens:
Whenever, either by common law or the statutes of another state or of the United States, a claim either upon contract or in tort has arisen outside this state against any person or corporation, such claim may be enforceable in the courts of this state ... provided, however, the courts of this state shall apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens in determining whether to accept or decline to take jurisdiction of an action based upon such claim originating outside this state.
Ala.Code § 6-5-430 (1987) (emphasis added). When Alabama’s legislature chose to change its law to ensure recognition of the rule of forum non conveniens, it changed “shall be enforceable” to “may be enforceable”. The Texas Legislature’s use of “may” in the same context is no less permissive and no more mandatory.
The language of section 71.031 simply does not support the Court’s holding. The very most the Court can say is that the statute is unclear. If there were some ambiguity in the statute, surely the Court should suggest some rationale for resolving the ambiguity the way it has. The sole authority the Court offers in support of its holding is Allen v. Bass, 47 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1932, writ ref’d).
II
Allen v. Bass was a suit by one New Mexico resident against another for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident which occurred in New Mexico. The *706trial court dismissed the action as “an improper interference with the jurisdiction that should and ought to be exercised by the State of New Mexico”. Id. Citing the 1913 and 1917 versions of article 4678, predecessors to current section 71.031, the court of appeals reversed, saying: “we think [the plaintiff] has an absolute right to maintain the present action in the courts of this state ..., and the courts of this state are left without any discretion in the matter.” 47 S.W.2d at 427. The court then added:
We have concluded that article 4678 opens the courts of this state to citizens of a neighboring state and gives to them an absolute right to maintain a transitory action of the present nature and to try their cases in the courts of this state.
Id. (emphasis added). One might wonder whether the court of appeals in 1932 ever envisioned that one unnecessarily broad sentence in its opinion would someday be authority for compelling Texas courts to hear plaintiffs and actions from around the world. Nevertheless, Allen v. Bass, even if myopic, is clear and, as the Court concludes, indistinguishable on any principled ground.
Allen v. Bass should not control this case. In over half a century, that case has never been followed by another court. Two courts of appeals have expressly rejected it as authority. McNutt v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 693 S.W.2d 666, 668 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1985, writ dism'd); Forcum-Dean Co. v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 341 S.W.2d 464, 465-466 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1960, writ dism’d). More importantly, this Court as recently as six years ago stated: “the applicability of forum non conveniens to an article 4678 cause of action is an open question. Flaiz v. Moore, 359 S.W.2d 872, 876 (Tex.1962).” Couch v. Chevron Int'l Co., 682 S.W.2d 534, 535 (Tex.1984). Thus, Couch and Flaiz unmistakably disapproved the broad language of Allen v. Bass without even bothering to cite it. The Court does not mention, explain or attempt to distinguish any of these authorities which cast grave doubt upon the sole basis of its holding.8
Allen v. Bass is far too feeble a precedent to support the Court’s expansive holding. That case is simply an aberration in the jurisprudence of not only the state but the country, and I would overrule it.
Ill
The dearth of authority for the Court’s unprecedented holding is disturbing. Far more disconcerting, however, is the Court's silence as to why the rule of forum non conveniens should be abolished in personal injury and death cases, either by the Legislature or by the Court. If the Legislature did abolish the rule of forum non conve-niens by statute in 1913, what does the Court think the Legislature expected to accomplish for the people of this state? 9 The benefit to the plaintiffs in suing in Texas should be obvious: more money, as counsel was candid enough to admit in oral argument.10 This advantage to suing in *707American courts has not escaped international notice. England’s Lord Denning, for example, has observed, “As a moth is drawn to the light, so is a litigant drawn to the United States. If he can only get his case into their courts, he stands to win a fortune.” Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. v. Bloch, (1983) 2 All E.R. 72, 74, in Note, Foreign Plaintiffs and Forum Non Conveniens: Going Beyond “Reyno”, 64 Texas L.Rev. 193, 197-8, n. 28 (1985).
But what purpose beneficial to the people of Texas is served by clogging the already burdened dockets of the state’s courts with cases which arose around the world and which have nothing to do with this state except that the defendant can be served with citation here? Why, most of all, should Texas be the only state in the country, perhaps the only jurisdiction on earth, possibly the only one in history, to offer to try personal injury cases from around the world? Do Texas taxpayers want to pay extra for judges and clerks and courthouses and personnel to handle foreign litigation? If they do not mind the expense, do they not care that these foreign cases will delay their own cases being heard? As the courthouse for the world, will Texas entice employers to move here, or people to do business here, or even anyone to visit? What advantage for Texas does the Court see, or what advantage does it think the Legislature envisioned, that no other jurisdiction has ever seen, in abolishing the rule of forum non conveniens for, personal injury and death cases? ■ Who gains? A few lawyers, obviously. But who else? If the Court has good answers to these questions, why does it not say so in its opinion? If there are no good answers, then what the Court does today is very pernicious for the state.11
The rule of forum non conveniens, properly used, does not prohibit a court from entertaining a case it ought to hear. Rather, it protects courts from being compelled to hear cases when doing so would be fundamentally unfair to the defendants or the public or both. The rule recognizes that there are unusual cases which a court has power to hear but which it should nevertheless decline. The rule thus provides some play in the otherwise relatively rigid jurisdictional and venue joints of the judicial system. The factors to be considered in determining the application of the rule were set forth at length by the United States Supreme Court in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-509, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947):
An interest to be considered, and the one likely to be most pressed, is the private interest of the litigant. Important considerations are the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. There may _also be questions as to the enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained. The *708court will weigh relative advantages and obstacles to fair trial. It is often said that the plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, ‘vex,’ ‘harass,’ or ‘oppress’ the defendant by inflicting upon him expense or trouble not necessary to his own right to pursue his remedy. But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.
Factors of public interest also have place in applying the doctrine. Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. In cases which touch the affairs of many persons, there is reason for holding the trial in their view and reach rather than in remote parts of the country where they can learn of it by report only. There is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.
The relative importance of private factors as compared with public factors may have shifted since Gulf Oil. Ease of travel and communication, availability of evidence by videotape and facsimile transmission, and other technological advances have reduced the significance of some private inconvenience factors. The public factors, however, deserve the same consideration now as when Gulf Oil was written.
The balancing of public and private considerations in applying the rule of forum non conveniens is primarily the responsibility of the trial court. “The forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. It may be reversed only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion; where the court has considered all the relevant public and private interest factors, and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257, 102 S.Ct. 252, 266, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (op. by Marshall, J., citing Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 511-12, 67 S.Ct. at 844-45, and Roster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 531, 67 S.Ct. 828, 835, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947)). To allow for meaningful appellate review, however, the trial judge must enunciate the factors considered and the reasons for the balance struck. The trial court in the present case did not provide this essential basis for its decision to dismiss this case. I cannot determine from the record before us whether the trial court was correct in dismissing this case on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Consequently, I would reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the case and remand to that court for further consideration in light of this opinion. I would, however, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals to the extent that it precludes the possibility of dismissal after proper application of the rule of forum non conve-niens. I would hold, not that the rule of forum non conveniens should be applied in this case, but only that it can be applied in a proper case. I would intimate no decision on whether this would be shown to be a proper case after further proceedings in the trial court.
The plaintiffs in this case are certainly entitled to justice. But so are the people of Texas. And it may well be that justice for both groups requires that these plaintiffs pursue their remedies fully in Costa Rica, their home. I therefore dissent.

. Aguilar v. Dow Chem. Co., No- 86-4753 JGD (C.D.Cal.1986), cited in Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co., 667 F.Supp. 833, 837, aff’d in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 883 F.2d 1553 (11th Cir.1989).

. Sibaja v. Dow Chemical Co., 757 F.2d 1215 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 948, 106 S.Ct. 347, 88 L.Ed.2d 294 (1985); Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co., 667 F.Supp. 833 (S.D.Fla.1987), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 883 F.2d 1553 (11th Cir.1989) (holding that if the district court had jurisdiction of the action removed from state court, its dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens was appropriate, and that if it did not, the action must be remanded to state court).

. Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947); Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981).

. Mills v. Aetna Fire Underwriters Ins. Co., 511 A.2d 8 (D.C.1986).

. Crowson v. Sealaska Corp., 705 P.2d 905 (Alaska 1985); Avila v. Chamberlain, 119 Ariz. 369, 580 P.2d 1223 (1978); Running v. Southwest Freight Lines, 227 Ark. 839, 303 S.W.2d 578 (1957); Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels, 15 Cal.3d 853, 126 Cal.Rptr. 811, 544 P.2d 947 (1976); State v. District Court, 635 P.2d 889 (Colo.1981); Miller v. United Technologies Corp., 40 Conn. Supp. 457, 515 A.2d 390 (1986); State Marine Lines v. Domingo, 269 A.2d 223 (Del.1970); Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So.2d 858 (Fla1978); Allen v. Allen, 64 Haw. 553, 645 P.2d 300 (1982); Jones v. Searles Laboratories, 93 Ill.2d 366, 67 Ill.Dec. 118, 444 N.E.2d 157 (1982); McCracken v. Eli Lilly & Co., 494 N.E.2d 1289 (Ind.Ct.App.1986); Silversmith v. Kenosha Auto Transport, 301 N.W.2d 725 (Iowa 1981); Quillin v. Hesston Corp., 230 Kan. 591, 640 P.2d 1195 (1982); Carter v. Netherton, 302 S.W.2d 382 (Ky.1957); Stewart v. Litchenberg, 148 La. 195, 86 So. 734 (1920); Foss v. Richards, 126 Me. 419, 139 A. 313 (1927); Texaco v. Vanden Bosche, 242 Md. 334, 219 A.2d 80 (1966); Joly v. Albert Laroque Lumber Ltd., 397 Mass. 43, 489 N.E.2d 698 (1986); Anderson v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 411 Mich. 619, 309 N.W.2d 539 (1981); Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R., 243 Minn. 58, 66 N.W.2d 763 (1954); Illinois Cent. Rd. Co. v. Moore, 215 So.2d 419 (Miss.1968); Besse v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 721 S.W.2d 740 (Mo.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1016, 107 S.Ct. 1894, 95 L.Ed.2d 501 (1987); Qualley v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 191 Neb. 787, 217 N.W.2d 914 (1974); Payne v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 97 Nev. 228, 626 P.2d 1278 (1981); Van Dam v. Smit, 101 N.H. 508, 148 A.2d 289 (1959); Gore v. United States Steel Corp., 15 N.J. 301, 104 A.2d 670, cert. denied, 348 U.S. 861, 75 S.Ct. 84, 99 L.Ed. 678 (1954); McLam v. McLam, 85 N.M. 196, 510 P.2d 914 (1973); Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 467 N.E.2d 245 (1984); Motor Inn Mgmt., Inc. v. Irvin-Fuller Dev. Co., 46 N.C.App. 707, 266 S.E.2d 368, review denied, 301 N.C. 93, 273 S.E.2d 299 (1980); N.D.R.Civ.Pro. 4(b)(5); Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharm., 35 Ohio St.3d 123, 519 N.E.2d 370 (1988); Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Cook, 594 P.2d 369 (Okla.1979); Horner v. Pleasant Creek Mining Corp., 165 Or. 683, 107 P.2d 989 (1940); Rini v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 429 Pa. 235, 240 A.2d 372 (1968); Broten Apparel Corp. v. Bankers Trust Co., 273 S.C. 663, 259 S.E.2d 110 (1979); Zurich v. Inman, 221 Tenn. 393, 426 S.W.2d 767 (1968); Kish v. Wright, 562 P.2d 625 (Utah 1977); Burlington v. Ashland Oil Co., 134 Vt. 211, 356 A.2d 506 (1976); Werner v. Werner, 84 Wash.2d 360, 526 P.2d 370 (1974); Wis.StatAnn. § 262.19.

.Of the nine states that have not recognized the rule of forum non conveniens, none have rejected it absolutely as the Court does today. As discussed below, Alabama did reject the rule of forum non conveniens at one time but has since recognized it by statute. Montana has refused to apply the rule of forum non conveniens in actions under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60 (1986), but has expressly reserved the issue of the applicability of the rule to other actions. Labella v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 182 Mont. 202, 595 P.2d 1184, 1187 (1979). An Idaho appellate court has suggested that the rule would apply in appropriate cases. Nelson v. Worldwide Lease, Inc., 110 Idaho 369, 716 P.2d 513, 518 n. 1 (App.1986). Georgia, like Montana, would not apply the rule in FELA cases, see Brown v. Seaboard Coast Lines R.R., 229 Ga. 481, 192 S.E.2d 382, 383 (1972), but has suggested that it might apply in other cases, Smith v. Board of Regents, 165 Ga.App. 565, 302 S.E.2d 124, 125 (1983). West Virginia also declines to apply the rule in FELA cases, but has not expressly ruled on its application in other contexts. Gardner v. Norfolk and W. Ry. Co., — W.Va. —, 372 S.E.2d 786 (W.Va.1988). Connecticut has applied forum non conveniens factors in a cáse without referring to the rule by name. Miller v. United Technologies Corp., 40 Conn.Supp. 457, 515 A.2d 390 (1986). Wyoming has not resolved the issue. Booth v. Magee Carpet Co., 548 P.2d 1252, 1255 n. 2 (Wyo.1976). Alaska has refused to reject one case on grounds of forum non conveniens, but did not absolutely reject the rule in all cases. Crowson v. Sealaska Corp., 705 P.2d 905 (Alaska 1985). Virginia, Rhode Island and South Dakota do not appear to have considered application of the rule.

. The original act provided "[t]hat whenever the death or personal injury of a citizen of this State or of a country having equal treaty rights with the United States on behalf of its citizens, has been or may be caused by a wrongful act, neglect or default in any State, for which a right to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof is given by a statute or by law of such State, territory or foreign country, such right of action may be enforced in the courts of the United States, or in the courts of this State, within the time prescribed for the commencement of such action by the statute of this State, and the law of the former shall control in the maintenance of such action in all matters [pertaining] to procedure.” Act of Apr. 8, 1913, ch. 161, 1913 Tex.Gen.Laws 338-339, repealed by Revised Statutes, § 2, 1925 Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. 2419.
This act was amended in 1917 to apply to citizens of the United States as well as of this State and foreign countries, and to clarify that the actionable injury could occur not only in another state but also in a foreign country. Act of March 30, 1917, ch. 156, 1917 Tex.Gen.Laws 365, repealed by Revised Statutes, § 2, 1925 Tex. Rev.Civ.Stat. 2419.

. Justice Doggett’s concurring opinion objects that this analysis does not give proper deference to the doctrine of stare decisis. Justice Doggett did not defend the doctrine quite so vigorously in his very first opinion as a member of this Court, which overruled two prior decisions of this Court. Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex.1989) (overruling, in part, Sakowitz, Inc. v. Steck, 669 S.W.2d 105 (Tex.1984), and Black Lake Pipe Line Co. v. Union Construction Co., 538 S.W.2d 80 (Tex.1976). Stare decisis cannot save Allen v. Bass. Its language simply cannot coexist consistently with Couch.

. The issue for the Court is not whether the Legislature should have abolished forum non conveniens, but whether it did. If it did, it surely must be presumed to have acted in the best interests of the people of Texas. The purpose of examining the public policies which support the rule of forum non conveniens is not to argue for retention of the rule but to show that the Legislature would not be motivated to abolish the rule.

. It is equally plain to me that defendants want to be sued in Costa Rica rather than Texas because they expect that their exposure will be less there than here. However, it also seems plain to me that the Legislature would want to protect the citizens of this state, its constituents, from greater exposure to liability than they would face in the country in which the alleged wrong was committed. This would be incentive for the Legislature not to abolish the rule of forum non conveniens.

. Justice Doggett’s concurring .opinion undertakes to answer these questions that the Court ignores. It suggests that there are essentially two policy reasons to abolish the rule of forum non conveniens: to assure that injured plaintiffs can recover fully, and to assure that American corporations will be fully punished for their misdeeds abroad. Neither reason is sufficient. If the defendants in this case were Costa Rican corporations which plaintiffs could sue only in Costa Rica, plaintiffs would be limited to whatever recovery they could obtain in Costa Rican courts. The concurring opinion has not explained why Costa Rican plaintiffs who claim to have been injured by American corporations are unjustly treated if they are required to sue in their own country where they could only sue if they had been injured by Costa Rican corporations. In other words, why are Costa Ricans injured by an American defendant entitled to any greater recovery than Costa Ricans injured by a Costa Rican defendant, or a Libyan defendant, or an Iranian defendant? Moreover, the concurring opinion does not explain why the American justice system should undertake to punish American corporations more severely for their actions in a foreign country than that country does. If the alleged conduct of the defendants in this case is so egregious, why has Costa Rica not chosen to afford its own citizens the recovery they seek in Texas? One wonders how receptive Costa Rican courts would be to the pleas of American plaintiffs against Costa Rican citizens for recovery of all the damages that might be available in Texas, or anywhere else for that matter.