Court Opinion

ID: 9732122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:08:51.619922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:23.593710
License: Public Domain

Dell, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Frank T. Gallagher but would prefer to go one step further and hold, as I suggested in the concurring opinion in Johnson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 243 Minn. 58, 79, 66 N. W. (2d) 763, 776, that, in order to avoid confusion and *220to afford employees under the F. E. L. A. a reasonable choice of venue, causes of action which arise in an adjoining state or where the employee lives in an adjoining state are triable in this state as a matter of right at the option of the employee. This we may adopt as a rule of law since we are dealing with local law and policy.
As to border states we have every reason to withhold the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens because of the heavy flow of commerce between border states and the complex problems that are bound to arise due to the necessity of treating citizens of this state, who are nonresidents, the same as noncitizen nonresidents in order not to violate the privileges and immunities clause of the Federal Constitution (U. S. Const, art. IV, § 2). Moreover, because of the constant travel to and fro of residents of contiguous states and the many and varied dealings and persistent trade between their people, border states stand in a separate class and peculiar relation one to the other that set them apart from noncontiguous states. For this reason there is nothing arbitrary in applying the doctrine to non-contiguous states and withholding its application as to contiguous states. It must not be overlooked that the doctrine applies to all transitory actions and not alone to F. E. L. A. actions.
To adopt the policy which I suggest will be in keeping with the spirit of § 56 of the F. E. L. A. (36 Stat. 291, 15 TJSCA, § 56). Moreover, it will avoid confusion and enable a litigant to know that when such an action is so started it cannot be dismissed on the basis of judicial discretion which may be exercised one way by one judge and a different way by another. Such a rule will assist in relieving the burden of busy courts in deciding venue questions such as the one presented here.
I do not agree with the philosophy of the dissent which has appeared since this concurring opinion was written. In the administration of justice — and there is no cause more sacred than the cause of justice — there ought to be a haven somewhere in between both extremes for the weak and the strong alike which courts should endeavor to And and preserve so that the weak may not harass the *221strong nor the strong oppress the weak. That haven is not to be found in the philosophy of the dissent. The dissent, while relying upon and quoting at length from Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. S. 501, 508, 67 S. Ct. 839, 843, 91 L. ed. 1055, 1062, neglects to point out that the court also said:
“Wisely, it has not been attempted to catalogue the circumstances which will justify or require either grant or denial of remedy.”
Moreover, as the final sentence of the third quoted paragraph and immediately between the two last quoted paragraphs from that opinion, the dissent has left out this all-important statement:
“* * * But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”
The dissent has not properly construed the purpose and intent of the last paragraph of Johnson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 243 Minn. 58, 66 N. W. (2d) 763, as I read it and understood it when it was written, and it has failed to give due consideration to another portion of that decision, namely, that the discretion of a trial court to dismiss an action under the rule of forum non conveniens is one to be cautiously exercised.
The record does not support the suggestion of the dissent that the courts of this state are being cluttered up, or will be, with out-of-state cases. To the contrary, it is a matter of common knowledge that the rural courts of Minnesota, including Mower County, are operating on a reasonably current basis. Under the facts of this case it was an abuse of discretion for the lower court to dismiss this action which it is our duty to correct and this we have done.