Court Opinion

ID: 9794686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:09:30.979103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:49.277823
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE DOYLE
(specially concurring).
One of my brethren has dissented and another concurred speciálly in this cause. Each express sincere and honest legal conclusions diametrically opposed to the other.
Both seek to establish a permanent rule of law for this court, which will forever be applicable to all Federal Employers’ Liability Act cases in the State of Montana. See Title 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.
Mr. Justice Adair would give to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act the flat interpretation, that any lawyer or group of lawyers, either in or without this state may file, prosecute and maintain Federal Employers’ Liability Act cases without let or hindrance, in any county of the state where service could be obtained on the defendant employer. He predicates his opinion on Lansverk v. Studebaker-Packard Corp., 54 Wash. 2d 124, 338 P.2d 747 from our sister State of Washington.
The Lansverk case is an isolated cause and not germane to the instant matter. In substance the judgment of the Washington Supreme Court abruptly repudiates the principle of “forum non conveniens.”
Washington State, by reason of an integrated Bar, has been able to minimize certain conditions that have plagued Montana lawyers for over fifteen years.
There is and has been, in a mid-western state, a highly organized law firm, complete with “bird dogs” or solicitors, *477fee-splitting contracts with laymen, ambulances fully equipped with sirens and red lights, who contact the injured railway employee or his next of kin, at times before a physician can see the claimant.
This firm has been the subject of litigation in many states for unethical and illegal practice of law. See In re Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, 13 Ill.2d 391, 150 N.E.2d 163; State ex rel. Beck v. Lush, 170 Neb. 376, 103 N.W.2d 136; State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assoc. v. Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, unpublished consent decree dated April 1, 1960.
This writer, basing this opinion on personal knowledge obtained as a practicing lawyer and as a former officer of the Montana Bar Association concludes, without any reservation, that this firm, a detriment to the legal profession, is as free from ethical practice as a brick is from oil. It can be safely assumed that the proximate cause of the twelve states adopting the legal principle of “forum non conveniens” comes as the end result of this firm’s activities, or other law firms using the same general unethical tactics. Neither the Washington case, supra, nor the one here involved, were commenced by lawyers in the questionable category above mentioned.
In the instant cause, relator urges as one of his cogent reasons for the issuance of the writ, the necessity of the jury viewing the scene of the accident. It is always helpful to any jury to view the premises in any litigation, provided, however, that there has been no substantial change in the premises.
Here, however, it would be next to impossible to display to a jury, the same conditions. The accident occurred at night, allegedly caused by inadequate clearance between the car the plaintiff was riding on and a baggage truck. To present this exact situation to a jury would involve factors impossible to again duplicate. Could cars spotted on contiguous tracks and casting shadows be again placed in their exact positions ? Could all the lights, both on the depot platform and the rolling equip*478ment be burning or out, as the case may be, on the night of the accident ? Could the moon be in its same quarter and position in the sky, if there was a moon? Who would place the baggage truck the exact number of inches on the depot platform from the track on which the car plaintiff was riding at the time of the accident? The precise and exact location of this baggage truck is one of the causes of this complaint being filed and a jury will be obligated to determine ■ this question from the evidence of both parties and return its verdict from that evidence.
Counsel for both relator and respondent are honorable, ethical gentlemen who command the respect and regard of both this court and their fellow lawyers.
If, however, an ethical situation should subsequently develop that would create economic ruin to. any one county of this state, by the filing and trying of jury eases, from sister states, by any such outside law firm as before mentioned, the writer would, in the interests of protecting the financial integrity of that county and the members of the Bar of this state, change his present opinion as to the principle of “forum non conveniens.”