Court Opinion

ID: 9861308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:53:21.385993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:12.220168
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE DONOVAN, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. Although the majority has accurately recited the relevant public- and private-interest factors to be considered in a forum non conveniens analysis, its application in this case is troubling. In its decision, the majority recognizes that this case presents an interstate forum non conveniens issue, but it proceeds to conduct an intrastate type of analysis, weighing the relative advantages and obstacles to litigating this case in Madison County, Illinois, versus Jackson County, Missouri. When addressing an interstate forum non conveniens motion, the court and the litigants are instructed to focus on Illinois’s connections with the litigation and whether the relevant factors favor Illinois over another state. Kwasniewski v. Schaid, 153 Ill. 2d 550, 607 N.E.2d 214 (1992); Lambert v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 332 Ill. App. 3d 373, 377-78, 773 N.E.2d 133, 137 (2002), citing 3 R. Michael, Illinois Practice § 14.1 (1989). In this case, we should consider whether Illinois has any connections with the litigation and whether Missouri is an available forum that can better serve the convenience of the litigants and promote the ends of justice. Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 172, 797 N.E.2d 687, 693 (2003). More troubling is the majority’s decision to “afford slight deference” to the plaintiffs choice of a forum based on its analysis of “the injury situs.” 362 Ill. App. 3d at 939. The majority concludes that the plaintiff s choice of forum should be afforded slight deference because each of his injuries is a cumulative-effects injury rather than “a onetime incident, injury, or exposure that more directly ties [the] injury to a particular county” and because the plaintiff was unable to recall a specific incident or trauma that occurred in Madison County. 362 Ill. App. 3d at 939. The majority’s pronouncement creates a previously unrecognized subfactor which is ill-defined and will likely invite a new wave of the type of litigation quagmire that Justice William Lewis warned about in Peile v. Skelgas, Inc., 242 Ill. App. 3d 500, 522, 610 N.E.2d 813, 829 (1993) (Lewis, J., specially concurring). Armed with this decision, adversaries will engage in endless battles over additional forms of minutiae, namely: (1) estimates and supposition regarding the frequency, the severity, and the significance of the trauma suffered by a railroad worker at a given location that is necessary to constitute a bona fide “injury situs” and (2) what range of deference (slight, moderate, substantial) is properly afforded to the chosen forum based on each cumulative-trauma case. By definition, the cumulative-effects injuries suffered by laborers result from a series of microtraumas with a gradual and often imperceptible onset of symptoms that eventually lead to dysfunction. See generally Peoria County Belwood Nursing Home v. Industrial Comm’n, 115 Ill. 2d 524, 505 N.E.2d 1026 (1987) (the recognition of a compensable accidental injury where a worker’s physical structure gives way under the repetitive stresses of work-related tasks). Therefore, that the plaintiff in this case is unable to point to one specific incident or injury that occurred in Illinois should be of no surprise. In reviewing the record, I found no indication that the plaintiff described the occurrence of a specific traumatic event in Missouri either. Nevertheless, the record does show that the plaintiff was assigned to the Luther yard in St. Louis, Missouri, for more than a year, and while there, he spent a significant amount of time patrolling and surveilling the railroad’s properties and assets in Illinois. The plaintiff testified that while working in and near Illinois yards, he was exposed to uneven ballasts, uneven terrain, and holes in the yards that were not visible due to poor lighting and that he twisted his knees while walking in those conditions. The plaintiff also testified that he was required to pull himself up on railcars in order to inspect them and that these conditions contributed to his shoulder injuries. For purposes of a forum non conveniens analysis, the plaintiff’s testimony is sufficient to show that his injuries were sustained, in part, during his work in Illinois. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s chosen forum is entitled to substantial deference. Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 173, 797 N.E.2d at 694; First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511, 517-18, 764 N.E.2d 54, 59 (2002); Brummett v. Wepfer Marine, Inc., 111 Ill. 2d 495, 499-500, 490 N.E.2d 694, 697 (1986). Before the plaintiff can be deprived of his chosen forum, the balance of the public- and private-interest factors must strongly favor a dismissal of the pending case on the grounds that Missouri can better serve the parties and promote the ends of justice. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 518, 764 N.E.2d at 59. The plaintiff is a Missouri resident. The railroad is not a resident of Missouri or Illinois, but it does have personal and real property in both states, and it regularly conducts business in both states. According to the record, all of the plaintiff’s medical treatment was rendered in Missouri. Due to the demands of their profession, medical providers rarely testify live at a trial. Realistically, whether this case is tried in Missouri or Illinois, it is probable that the medical testimony will be presented through evidence depositions or video depositions. On this record, it is difficult to discern the existence and the residence of occurrence witnesses who might be called to testify. Neither party specifically named any occurrence witnesses. In its motion, the railroad named two supervisors who might be called, and it asserted that any witnesses (coworkers) to the plaintiff’s work activities “would be located” in Missouri near the locations where the plaintiff worked. In making this assertion, the railroad fails to account for those coworkers who worked with the plaintiff in Illinois for more than a year. Even if the assertion is accepted, I note that the railroad has given no assurances that the supervisors and the unidentified coworkers are permanently stationed in Missouri or that they will be present in Missouri at the time of the trial, and given the transitory nature of the work, it is unreasonable to assume that would be the case. Further, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that coworkers could not be temporarily assigned, without undue hardship, to the railroad’s Metro East facilities at the time of the trial. In short, the railroad has not shown that the witnesses and documents necessary to the trial of the controversy can be more conveniently produced in Missouri. See Brummett, 111 Ill. 2d at 504, 490 N.E.2d at 699; Weaver v. Midwest Towing, Inc., 116 Ill. 2d 279, 289, 507 N.E.2d 838, 842 (1987). Further, the supervisors and any necessary coworkers can be propounded by means of a Rule 237(b) notice (166 Ill. 2d R. 237(b)). Although live testimony is usually preferred, advances in technology have made sophisticated video-deposition presentations an acceptable, though admittedly not equal, alternative where professional and lay witnesses are unavailable. The circuit courts in Missouri or Illinois, upon proper petition, have the authority to issue subpoenas to compel its citizens to appear for a deposition that may be used in a sister state’s legal proceedings. See Mo. R. Civ. Proc. R. 57.08 (2002); 166 Ill. 2d R. 204(b). Assuming that the conditions have not changed in the railroad yards, a representative view of the premises could be had in either Illinois or Missouri, because the allegations regarding the unsafe working conditions are consistent and not dependent on the particular work site. Though it is not particularly weighty, it bears mentioning that the counsel of record have offices in Illinois. The citizens of Missouri and Illinois appear to have equal interests in ensuring that both parties receive a fair trial. The citizens of each state share an interest in seeing that corporate guests who conduct business in their respective states behave responsibly. If a worker is injured in Illinois as a result of the alleged negligence of its corporate guest, the citizens of Illinois have an interest in deciding the controversy and in awarding fair compensation should the allegations prove true. The same would be true of the citizens of Missouri. Consequently, jury duty would not impose a burden on the respective citizens of either state. As to the court congestion, my colleagues have chosen to compare Madison County with only one possible venue in Missouri. It appears that St. Louis, Missouri, would be another available forum, and there is no information on the congestion of that court’s docket. I would further note that the oft-cited “average delay” statistic may be a misleading measure because the number tells us nothing about the types and the complexities of the cases on the docket and the number of judges and jurors available to try additional cases. After considering the totality of the circumstances, I conclude that the railroad has not met its burden to show that private- and public-interest factors strongly favor a Missouri forum over an Illinois forum. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the railroad’s motion to dismiss this action. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.