Court Opinion

ID: 9861254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:50:37.533117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:50.693080
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HARRISON, dissenting: Although the doctrine of forum non conveniens may make sense in the context of cases having connections with more than one State (see Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947), 330 U.S. 501, 91 L. Ed. 1055, 67 S. Ct. 839), it can no longer be justified where, as here, the dispute concerns Illinois alone. The improvement of the highway system, the expansion of scheduled air service, and the spread of new technologies have all but eliminated the obstacles that once hindered the ability of parties to litigate their cases in different parts of the State. Long-distance communication has become routine. Travel is safe, easy, fast and affordable. Regional prejudices, to the extent they existed, have dissipated. These considerations were never really behind the doctrine in any case. This court adopted intrastate forum non conveniens in Torres v. Walsh (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 338, in the wake of popular criticism that plaintiffs’ lawyers were exploiting the venue rules to shop for more generous juries. If that criticism ever had any empirical or analytical basis, it is long since gone. If there are abuses today, they are committed not by plaintiffs, but by defense counsel. Forum non conveniens motions have become a routine and lamentable part of defense strategy. The litigation of those motions in the circuit courts and the appeals that inevitably follow consume an increasing share of scarce judicial resources. As a result, the disposition of legitimate controversies is delayed as our judges find their attention diverted to what the majority concedes is a "battle over minutiae.” I fail to see how this advances the interests of justice. The doctrine should be abandoned, and the judgment of the appellate court should be affirmed. I therefore dissent.