Court Opinion

ID: 9762558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:26:22.215478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:35.458449
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. For the reasons stated in Justice Hecht’s dissenting opinion, I would hold that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not foreclosed by TEX.CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 71.031. While I agree that the statute allows these plaintiffs to bring suit in Texas, I cannot agree that the statutory language prohibits the trial court from applying any common law procedural defense. Is laches, for example, statutorily foreclosed in wrongful death cases? I think not. I would therefore overrule Allen v. Bass, 47 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1932, writ ref’d.).
I regret our court's decision to discard a procedural tool which has proved useful to the federal judicial system and most of our sister states. Unlike my fellow dissenters, however, I lack the prescience to foretell *690whether dire consequences will follow. As the existence or not of forum non conve-niens has long been an open question in Texas,1 our courts have traditionally attracted a number of actions originating in foreign jurisdictions. Today’s decision will probably accelerate that trend, but to what extent, and with what effect, I do not know. Further, in dissenting I express no intimation as to whether or not the doctrine of forum non conveniens would be appropriate under the facts of this particular case.
I would reverse that part of the judgment of the court of appeals which precludes the possibility of a forum non conve-niens dismissal, affirm that part of the judgment which reverses the dismissal in this matter, and remand this cause to the trial court for a consideration of the factors set forth in Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843-44, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947), as modified to meet modern circumstances. See generally Note, Foreign Plaintiffs and Forum Non Con-veniens: Going Beyond “Reyno ”, 64 Texas L.Rev. 193, 214-23 (1985).2

. As the United States Supreme Court recently observed:
[Texas] may not apply the same, or indeed, any forum non conveniens analysis.... Rather, as the Court of Appeals noted, it is possible that "Texas has constituted itself the world’s forum of final resort, where suit for personal injury or death may always be filed if nowhere else.”
Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140, 144-45, 108 S.Ct. 1684, 1688-89, 100 L.Ed.2d 127, 135 (1988).

. The trial court dismissed this cause under forum non conveniens without written expression of what factors, if any, it had considered. In order to facilitate appellate review, I would require the trial court to set forth written findings and conclusions regarding those factors, either in the final judgment or in a separate document.