{
  "id": 5274716,
  "name": "GERALD L. HANKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hanke v. Union Pacific Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1991-09-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 1\u201490\u20140287",
  "first_page": "444",
  "last_page": "448",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "220 Ill. App. 3d 444"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "427 N.E.2d 111",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 Ill. 2d 111",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5468658
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/86/0111-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "444 N.E.2d 157",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 Ill. 2d 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3102449
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "375"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/93/0366-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.E.2d 729",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. 2d 511",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2932912
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/54/0511-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "456 N.E.2d 98",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 Ill. 2d 359",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3121605
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/98/0359-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.E.2d 536",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. 2d 599",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2864136
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/37/0599-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 449,
    "char_count": 8738,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.792,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1571925621918498
    },
    "sha256": "5b401762823291e9c0bba5f4c167678e6858e84cab841fa04cc33a4641c25e9a",
    "simhash": "1:372bcf6693495e81",
    "word_count": 1402
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:36.621238+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GERALD L. HANKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE WHITE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Gerald Hanke, appeals from the trial court\u2019s order dismissing his breach of contract action on the ground of forum non conveniens. Plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that dismissal was required under the forum non conveniens doctrine and in finding that his contract action was connected with a Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act (FELA) claim filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.\nPlaintiff, a resident of Council Bluffs, Iowa, was injured in the course of his employment with defendant, the Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Utah corporation with its principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. In July 1989 plaintiff filed suit against defendant in the circuit court of Cook County alleging that defendant offered to pay for plaintiff\u2019s vocational rehabilitation and for his reasonable living expenses during rehabilitation. Plaintiff further alleged that after he accepted this offer and submitted an estimate of expenses of $2,445 for training and rehabilitation and $1,500 per month for living expenses, defendant reneged on its offer and refused to make any payments.\nAfter filing its appearance and jury demand, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s complaint pursuant to sections 2\u2014606 and 2\u2014615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, pars. 2\u2014606, 2\u2014615) on the ground that plaintiff had failed to attach a copy of the alleged contract to the complaint. In response, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which was accompanied by letters written by Daniel Downes, plaintiff\u2019s counsel, and Raymond Hasiak, defendant\u2019s in-house counsel. According to plaintiff, these letters established that a contract existed between plaintiff and defendant.\nThe first letter was dated March 23, 1989, and was sent to Downes in Chicago from Hasiak in Nebraska. In it, Hasiak wrote that defendant was willing to make \u201cwork hardening\u201d available to plaintiff at no expense and that defendant was willing to pay reasonable living expenses for plaintiff while he was active in such a program.\nIn the second letter, dated April 5, 1989, and sent from Downes in Chicago to Hasiak in Nebraska, Downes wrote that plaintiff\u2019s vocational status had been established and that plaintiff was actively engaged in educational activities. The letter further stated that defendant\u2019s offer to pay the reasonable expenses of having plaintiff\u2019s vocational status established was accepted and that defendant\u2019s offer to pay for vocational rehabilitation and living expenses also was accepted. The letter also contained the information that plaintiff\u2019s total training costs would be $2,445 and that his living expenses amounted to $1,500 per month.\nAfter the filing of plaintiff\u2019s amended complaint, defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the letter from Hasiak to Downes was not an offer but a statement of its position and that Downes\u2019 letter to Hasiak could not be considered an acceptance because it did not accept the terms of the alleged offer.\nDefendant also filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. In this motion, defendant pointed out that plaintiff had filed a FELA action against defendant in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Defendant claimed that the subject matter of the alleged contract in plaintiff\u2019s Illinois action was the payment of fees for the rehabilitation, vocational training, and living expenses allegedly incurred by plaintiff in attempting to mitigate his damages in the FELA action. Defendant alleged that plaintiff could procure a fair trial in the State courts of Iowa or consolidate this action with his Federal court action.\nAs further support for dismissal, defendant alleged that there was no connection between plaintiff\u2019s choice of forum and the cause of action or the residence of the parties. Defendant also noted that plaintiff was an Iowa resident at the time of his injury and that plaintiff\u2019s treating doctors and the people involved in plaintiff\u2019s rehabilitation and vocational training all resided in Iowa or Nebraska.\nDefendant also alleged that trial in Illinois would impose a burden on the Cook County court system, that Illinois courts had no subpoena power over witnesses from Iowa and Nebraska, and that defendant would incur substantial expense in bringing witnesses and employees to Illinois.\nDefendant\u2019s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied without prejudice. One month later the trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens. In entering its order, the trial court stated that it was dismissing the action for the reasons stated by defendant in its motion. The court also stated that the Illinois case was inextricably intertwined with the FELA action pending in Iowa and that it had difficulty finding that there had been the meeting of minds necessary to enter into a contract.\nIn this appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court\u2019s dismissal of his action was improper. As support for this contention, plaintiff argues that the only ground articulated by the trial court as a basis for dismissing the action, the inextricable connection with the Iowa action, is not an element of forum non conveniens. Plaintiff further argues that the dismissal was improper because the forum non conveniens factors \u201cpreponderate\u201d in his favor. We do not agree.\nWe first point out that plaintiff\u2019s argument completely disregards the trial court\u2019s statement that it was dismissing the action for the reasons stated by defendant in its motion. In light of this statement, there is no merit to plaintiff\u2019s claim that the sole basis articulated for dismissal was the connection with the Iowa action.\nTurning to plaintiff\u2019s argument that the forum non conveniens factors predominate in his favor, we note that a decision to dismiss on this basis lies within the discretion of the trial court and should be reversed only where there is an abuse of that discretion. (Lonergan v. Crucible Steel Co. of America (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 599, 229 N.E.2d 536.) We also note that while a plaintiff\u2019s choice of forum is afforded great deference, that choice is entitled to less consideration when the plaintiff\u2019s home forum is not the one chosen. Wieser v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co. (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 359, 456 N.E.2d 98.\nFactors to be considered in disposing of a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum, non conveniens include the capacities of the two courts to provide a fair trial, the relative inconvenience to the parties, and the burden placed upon the taxpayers and residents of the jurisdiction to which the cause of action is transferred. (Adkins v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R.R. Co. (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 511, 301 N.E.2d 729.) Also considered are ease of access to sources of proof, court congestion, availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses, and the cost of obtaining willing witnesses. Jones v. Searle Laboratories (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 366, 444 N.E.2d 157; Espinosa v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 111, 427 N.E.2d 111.\nIn the present case, plaintiff was a resident of Iowa and defendant\u2019s principal place of business was in Nebraska. Thus, plaintiff\u2019s choice of Illinois as a forum for this action is entitled to less deference than usually given to a plaintiff\u2019s choice of forum. Further, as defendant argues, all of the people involved in plaintiff\u2019s rehabilitation, potential witnesses on the issue of the reasonableness of plaintiff\u2019s expenses, reside outside of Illinois and would not be subject to compulsory process here. Finally, we point out that the congestion of the Cook County circuit court dockets was noted by the supreme court in Jones v. Searle (93 Ill. 2d at 375) and that here, as in that case, trial in Illinois would require members of this community to perform jury services for a cause in which the State\u2019s interest is minimal. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court\u2019s dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s action on the basis of forum, non conveniens.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nCERDA, P.J., and GREIMAN, J., concur.\nThis opinion was authored prior to Justice White\u2019s retirement.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE WHITE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henslee, Monek & Henslee, of Chicago (John J. Naughton and Daniel J. Downes, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Ross & Hardies, of Chicago (Robert L. Landess, Raymond H. Groble III, and Charles T. Newland, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GERALD L. HANKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1\u201490\u20140287\nOpinion filed September 25, 1991.\nHenslee, Monek & Henslee, of Chicago (John J. Naughton and Daniel J. Downes, of counsel), for appellant.\nRoss & Hardies, of Chicago (Robert L. Landess, Raymond H. Groble III, and Charles T. Newland, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0444-01",
  "first_page_order": 466,
  "last_page_order": 470
}