Appellate Law

Case Transfered Pursuant to "Interest of Justice" Prong of Forum Non Conveniens Statute

The increasing importance of the "interest of justice" prong of Alabama's forum non convenuiens statute mandated transfer of a cse in Ex parte Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc. [Ms. 1070229] (Ala. Dec. 5, 2008).

In Ex parte Indiana Mills, a truck crash in Lee County, Alabama killed the driver of the truck.  The Plaintiff filed sued in Macon County against the manufacturer of the truck and the manufacturer of the seat belts in the truck alleging that the truck and seat belts were defective.  The Plaintiff also filed suit against the decdent's co-employees.  The employer was located in Tallapoosa County.  Venue technically was proper in Macon County because the employer conducted business in Macon County and a defendant lived there.

The trial court denied the motion to transfer venue to Lee County, but the Alabama Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the transfer to Lee County because it was "in the interest of justice."  Ala. Code sec. 6-3-21.1.  Section 6-3-21.1 provides, in part, that  the courts "shall, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, or in the interest of justice, transfer any civil action or any claim in any civil action to any court of general jurisdiction in which the action might have been properly filed and the case shall proceed as though originally filed therein." (emphasis added).

The Plaintiff argued that the interest of judtice did not require a transfer because none of the parties were located in Lee County, and she alleged, it would be less convenient to litigate the case in Lee County.

The Supreme Court, however, fosused on the "nexus" or "connection" the case had with Lee County.  The Court noted that the accident occurred in Lee County, and the accident was investigated by Lee County authorities.  The Supreme Court stated that the forum non conveniens statute states that  the courts "shall" transfer a case when it is in the interest of justice, and that the Court saw "no reason for Macon Countym with its weak connection with this case, to be burdened with an action that arose in Lee County simply because one of several defendants reside there.   Instead, Lee County clearly has a strong connection with this case."

The lone dissenter was Chief Justice Cobb.  Chief Justice Cobb advocated a rule reuiring that the defendant show a significant likelihood of injustice before warranting a change in venue in the interest of justice.  However, the majority did not find support for such a rule in the statute.   

Full post as published by Alabama Appellate Watch on December 12, 2008 (boomark / email).