Court Opinion

ID: 9732033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:05:41.456874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:22.658335
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE REID, dissenting: I dissent. While I agree in principle with the majority’s discussion of the black letter law in the area of forum non conveniens, I cannot concur in the application of those rules to this particular factual situation. “ ‘Forum non conveniens is a doctrine that is founded in considerations of fundamental fairness and sensible and effective judicial administration. ’ ” Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306, 310 (1991), quoting Adkins v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R.R. Co., 54 Ill. 2d 511, 514 (1973). While there may be competing reasons for filing cases in different places, “sometimes public policy requires that a trial court decline to exercise jurisdiction.” In re Marriage of Lucht, 299 Ill. App. 3d 541, 543 (1998). As a result, “[t]he trial court is vested with broad discretion to determine whether a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens should be granted.” Ferguson v. Bill Berger Associates, Inc., 302 Ill. App. 3d 61, 70 (1998); Philips Electronics N.V. v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 312 Ill. App. 3d 1070, 1083 (2000). Therein lies our mandate. “This court must only determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.” (Emphasis added.) Ferguson, 302 Ill. App. 3d at 70. While the majority is correct that “[a] trial court’s ruling will not be reversed on review unless it can be shown that the court abused its discretion in balancing the relevant factors” (Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d at 309-10, citing Meyers v. Bridgeport Machines Division of Textron, Inc., 113 Ill. 2d 112, 118 (1986)), I believe the majority has misapplied the law to these facts. The majority’s analysis, though scholarly, fails to take into account the idea that “[t]his court in balancing the factors outlined [by the majority] must also take into consideration the principle that ‘unless those factors strongly favor the defendant, then the plaintiff should be allowed to exercise his choice in deciding in what forum to bring the case when venue is proper.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d at 311, quoting Torres v. Walsh, 98 Ill. 2d 338, 351 (1983). A reviewing court determines whether the court abused its discretion, which can be found only when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the circuit court. Philips, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 1083. I diverge with the majority in that I do not believe these facts support disturbing the ruling of the trial court. Even accepting the majority premise that “the plaintiffs choice of forum *** is entitled to less deference because the accident did not occur in Illinois and plaintiff is not a resident of Illinois” (332 Ill. App. 3d at 381), the majority cannot use a single factor to reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the court below. “[The] common law doctrine [of forum non conveniens] is applicable on an interstate basis and a case can be dismissed where the ‘case *** has no practical connection to the forum.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d at 310, quoting Torres, 98 Ill. 2d at 348. In short, “[t]he balancing test is an unequal one, weighted in favor of the plaintiffs chosen forum.” Whirlpool Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 278 Ill. App. 3d 175, 181 (1996), citing Evans v. MD Con, Inc., 275 Ill. App. 3d 292, 295 (1995). “That choice will not be disturbed unless the balance of factors strongly favors the defendant who is moving to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.” Whirlpool, 278 Ill. App. 3d at 181, citing Stein v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 135 Ill. App. 3d 127, 132 (1985). In reviewing the materials before us, I must disagree with the majority. I do not believe the appellants have demonstrated that the relevant factors, when viewed in their totality, strongly favor the motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. I would vote to affirm under all the attendant facts and circumstances of this case.