Court Opinion

ID: 9743359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:31:38.805643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:40.733262
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE LEWIS, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The events giving rise to this case, the plaintiffs, the witnesses, and the situs have no connection whatsoever with Madison County. There are no private or public interest factors favoring Madison County as a forum. The majority cites all the applicable cases treating forum non conveniens but brushes aside the factors developed by these cases and adopted recently in Bland v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 217, 506 N.E.2d 1291. In the instant case an 11-year-old boy was killed when, while climbing a tree in his own yard, he came in contact with an uninsulated power line placed there by the defendant. A wrongful death action was brought as well as his mother’s separate cause of action. The situs of the accident was in Bond County; the plaintiffs live in Bond County; the witnesses are from Bond County; the view, if determined necessary, is in Bond County. One doctor lives in St. Louis. The plaintiffs argue that the tree has been cut down and the witnesses have agreed to testify in Madison County. These facts may or may not weaken the connection of Bond County with this case but certainly do not strengthen that of Madison County. There are really no private interest factors favoring Madison County. With respect to public interest factors, the supreme court in Bland has taken notice of the congested dockets of the circuit court of Madison County. Further, in this case Bond County has a clear connection with the case in that the injuries were sustained in Bond County, thereby giving the plaintiffs’ claims the aspect “of a localized controversy with a local interest in having the controversy ‘decided at home’ ” (Brummett v. Wepfer Marine, Inc. (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 495, 500, 490 N.E.2d 694, 697). The majority here emphasizes convenience based on distance between forums. It bolsters this position by reliance upon a recent decision of this court, Daiber v. Montgomery County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (1989), 191 Ill. App. 3d 566, 568, 548 N.E.2d 17, 19, in which was said, “The initial focus of forum non conveniens is inconvenience. We believe that it is most difficult to demonstrate inconvenience when the alternative forum adjoins the county in which venue otherwise properly was laid.” This emphasis upon distance violates the dictates of Bland, in which the supreme court expressly determined distance to be but one factor of many in the assessment of convenience. No one factor is central. Undue emphasis upon the single factor of distance is improper. With this case and Daiber we are coming perilously close to establishing a rule that permits as a forum any adjoining county. All the factors and connections, both private interest and public, must be balanced. In the instant case the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for forum non conveniens, and I would reverse.