Consolidated appeals were filed with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding the doctrine of forum non conveniens.  This legal principle and its associated procedural rule (Pa.R.C.P. 1006) authorize intrastate transfer of a lawsuit from the venue plaintiffs choose to a venue more appropriate under the circumstances.

This appeal arose from a multi-vehicle collision in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, however, plaintiffs elected to file suit in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  The Court of Common Pleas granted defense Petitions to Transfer the litigation to Westmoreland County on forum non conveniens grounds, finding that the majority of fact witnesses would be forced to travel a great distance thereby proving the forum to be “oppressive.”  On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, concluding that the defendants “failed to provide sufficient detail establishing that the identified individuals were ‘key witnesses’ who would provide ‘relevant and necessary’ testimony that would be ‘critical to their defenses.’”  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the Superior Court’s “key witness” requirement was not supported by precedent, and imposed an excessively high burden upon the defense, thereby reversing the Superior Court’s Order.  Ultimately, the case was transferred to Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.

The Supreme Court’s holding was authored by Justice Wecht (joined by Chief Justice Todd, and Justices Donohue, Dougherty, Brobson and McCaffery; concurrence by Justice Mundy, joined by Justice McCaffery; no dissents), and should prove instructive in future cases where the lawsuit is venued in a jurisdiction that has little connection to the tort at issue.

While a challenge to the propriety of the plaintiff’s initial choice of venue must be raised via preliminary objections pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1006(e) and 1028(a)(1), an assertion of forum non conveniens under Rule 1006(d)(1) is made by separate petition and, technically, has “no time limitations” as to when it must be filed.  Nonetheless, Judge Wecht noted that the matter is best addressed in the early stages of a lawsuit.  Id. at 35 at fn 88.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court relied on its holdings in Cheeseman and Bratic when analyzing the Trial Court’s Opinion for an abuse of discretion, noting that “if there exists any proper basis for the Trial Court’s decision to transfer venue, the decision must stand.”  Id. at 23.  Although a Plaintiff enjoys the right to make the initial choice of court (if it has jurisdiction), that right “is not absolute.”  Id.  The doctrine of forum non conveniens provides “a necessary counterbalance to [e]nsure fairness and practicality.”  Id.  In order to prevail, a defendant has the burden to “demonstrate that the forum is ‘oppressive’ or ‘vexatious.’”   Id. at 24.

The Court noted that “distance alone is not dispositive, but is inherently part of the equation,” and that while mere inconvenience is insufficient “there is no burden to show near-draconian consequences.”  Id. at 30-31.  The sufficiency of the evidence of record presented in the Petition is left to the sound discretion of the Trial Court.

Appellees argued that because of modern technology, distance is not a proper consideration.  The Court declined to depart so radically from well-established law and noted that virtual court appearances and depositions are—at best—a backup solution when in-person appearances are unavailable.  The majority instead opined that “[a] distance of 100 miles provides a valuable benchmark for distinguishing between oppressiveness and mere inconvenience,” which is repeatedly used in the Rules of Civil Procedure in regard to witness depositions.  The Court attempts to enervate this brightline rule by stating that, “[t]his is not to say that a venue is always oppressive where witnesses must travel further than one hundred miles, nor does it mean that a shorter distance can never contribute to a finding of oppressiveness.”   Id. at 32 (emphasis added). 

The concurring Justices, while agreeing with the majority’s holding, disagreed with the majority’s “overemphasis” on the number of witnesses and the distance those witnesses would be required to travel from Westmoreland County to Philadelphia County.  These Justices warned that “too heavy a reliance” on this “new benchmark” “will no doubt transform distance from a factor that is ‘inherently part of the equation’” “to the sine quo non of forum non conveniens analysis.”  The concurrence also cautioned that although a “key witness” analysis is not appropriate, “the role the identified witnesses will play in the case must be part of the analysis.” 

If you have any questions about this case, please contact Lauren Despot Krofcheck, Esq. at LKrofcheck@c-wlaw.com or (412) 563-2500.