Court Opinion

ID: 9709911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:57:11.762299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:52.580258
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GEIGER, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. As the majority notes, the role of the court in this case is to determine whether the trial court abused its broad discretion in ruling that Kane County, Illinois, was forum non conveniens for this action. (See McClain v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. Co. (1988), 121 Ill. 2d 278, 288.) I believe that the facts of this case support the finding of the trial court, and I would find no abuse of discretion and would affirm. This case is based on an automobile accident that occurred in Arizona. One of the three plaintiffs is an Arizona resident. The one individual defendant and all the several corporate defendants are residents of Arizona. The only Illinois connections noted by the majority are that two of the plaintiffs, although injured in Arizona, are Illinois residents and that the plaintiffs were treated for their injuries both in Arizona and Illinois. Given the overwhelmingly strong connection between the facts of this case and State of Arizona, I find no basis to find that the trial court lacked discretion to find that for forum non conveniens reasons the action should be tried in Arizona. The majority cites a rule that, unless the balance strongly favors the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum rarely should be disturbed, particularly if the chosen forum is the plaintiff’s home forum. (Wieser v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co. (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 359, 366.) However, that law is not persuasive in this case. Even ignoring the fact that Kane County is not home for any of the plaintiffs, because Illinois is not the home for all of the plaintiffs, their choice of an Illinois forum is entitled to less deference than it might otherwise be. See Wieser, 98 Ill. 2d at 367. Here, despite the majority’s suggestion to the contrary, an Arizona trial provides the plaintiffs a clear benefit. Although they may be capable of compelling testimony in Illinois from their own Arizona witnesses, it is clear that they bear a significantly greater burden if they must do so. Furthermore, although the agreed application of Arizona law does not dictate an Arizona forum, it clearly weighs in favor of that choice. That is especially so here where Illinois has no particularly strong connection to the case and Arizona, in contrast, does. It was the trial court’s obligation to weigh all the factors related to whether to decline jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds. Considering the circumstances here, the court’s determination was within.its broad discretion. It should not be disturbed.