Piper Aircraft v. Reyno 1981
Venue > Forum non conveniens Contracts – pg164 – 11/9/09
Parties: Π – Representative for Plane Crash Victims ∆ - Aircraft & Equipment Manufacturers Procedural History: - Sued in California - ∆’s removed to Federal court & requested transfer to Middle District of Pennsylvania (where they one did business) under §1404 o Hartzell moved to dismiss or transfer - Once transferred ∆s sought to dismiss under forum non conveniens - District court dismissed then 3rd circuit reversed, stating that a case shouldn’t be dismissed for forum non conveniens when the alternate forum’s laws are less favorable to the plaintiff Facts: - Plane crash in Scotland by a pilot who had his license for 30 days - Was flying negligently low compared to his company’s operations manual - Π sought to sue in America b/c Scotland did not allow strict liability as well as other more favorable conditions on damages Legal Issue: Should a case be dismissed for forum non conveniens when π is foreign and the evidence & witnesses are abroad, and the jury would have to hear two sets of laws, but the law in the alternate forum would be less favorable to the π? Holding: Yes. At the trial court’s discretion, forum non conveniens may be used to dismiss for either the inconvenience of the ∆ or the court even when the law in the alternate forum is less favorable to the π Reasoning: - Generally a π’s choice of forum should not be disturbed o But can be if an alternate forum has jurisdiction and either: Private interest factors: the forum’s “oppressiveness and vexation to a ∆… [is] out of all proportion to a π’s convenience” Public interest factors: …the court’s own administrative or legal problems - Favorableness of laws in a forum to a π should Ø be conclusive or even a substantial factor o Otherwise forum non conveniens would be useless b/c π usually picks the most favorable forum first and then it could never be transferred o Would cause even more foreign litigation into already crowded courts o Doesn’t mean it should never be considered, especially when the other forum is clearly inadequate But the Scotish courts would provide enough in this case
Deference to π’s choice is especially considered when π choices home forum for convenience o Foreign π should be given less consideration - Forum non conveniens is at the discretion of the trial court and can only be appealed for clear abuse of discretion - Private factors here: overwhelming connections in Scotland and much easier to get evidence and witnesses - Public Factors: Jury would have to hear both PA & Scotish law which could be confusing; very little gained in deterrence by holding trial in US rather than Scotland Disposition: Reversed Dissent/Concurrence: N/A
-