{ "id": 3182691, "name": "JOSE A. ESPINOSA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Espinosa v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.", "decision_date": "1980-09-08", "docket_number": "No. 79-207", "first_page": "1147", "last_page": "1151", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "87 Ill. App. 3d 1147" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "330 U.S. 501", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 354212 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "508" }, { "page": "1062" }, { "page": "843" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/330/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 N.E.2d 593", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "400 Ill. 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5305959 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/400/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "369 N.E.2d 518", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 Ill. App. 3d 307", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3401436 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/54/0307-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 L. Ed. 3", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6930554 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/340/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 U.S.C. \u00a751", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "et seq." } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 520, "char_count": 8909, "ocr_confidence": 0.87, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.875742183396918e-08, "percentile": 0.36832108744563874 }, "sha256": "42d22a2a9320e95fa31339ac8fb64b65d1d0fadb1c455e7056c9af7d40dae2c9", "simhash": "1:377bef12a05e4dff", "word_count": 1419 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:36.886143+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JOSE A. ESPINOSA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE KASSERMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Norfolk and Western Railway, appeals from a judgment of the Madison County Circuit Court entered in favor of plaintiff, Jose Espinosa, pursuant to his action for damages brought under the Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act (45 U.S.C. \u00a751 et seq. (1976)). The only issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. No question is raised concerning plaintiff\u2019s injuries or the amount of the verdict.\nWe need state only briefly the facts giving rise to plaintiff\u2019s cause of action. Plaintiff was employed by defendant in its Melvindale, Michigan, train yards as a section foreman. On September 20, 1976, plaintiff was giving directions to the operator of a mobile crane; and in order to obtain an unobstructed view of the area, plaintiff stepped on the wooden deck covering the weight scale. A section of the wooden deck gave way beneath him, and plaintiff\u2019s entire leg protruded through the deck. Plaintiff suffered a back injury due to the fall. He was initially treated for his injury by a medical group in a Detroit suburb. Plaintiff\u2019s condition continued to deteriorate, and he consulted an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Schoedinger, in St. Louis.\nAfter examining plaintiff, Dr. Schoedinger concluded that he had a herniated nucleus pulposus in the lower lumbar region and performed a bilateral disc removal. It was Dr. Schoedinger\u2019s opinion that plaintiff was permanently disabled from any manual labor and that his condition was continuing to deteriorate, possibly necessitating further surgery.\nBased on the injury of September 20,1976, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Madison County Circuit Court on May 5,1977, and defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens.\nIn its motion to dismiss, defendant made the following allegations: that plaintiff was and still is a resident of Michigan; that plaintiff\u2019s injury occurred in Melvindale, Michigan, some 530 miles from Edwardsville, Illinois, where the case was filed; that all of the occurrence witnesses resided in Michigan; that plaintiff\u2019s initial medical treatment took place in Michigan; that it would impose hardship, inconvenience and expense on defendant to bring witnesses from Michigan to Illinois, thereby denying it due process; that there were courts of competent jurisdiction available to plaintiff in Michigan; that the trial of the cause would impose a burden on the citizens of Madison County, who have no interest in the case; and that the only connection plaintiff has with the area is that it is the residence of his attorney.\nIn response to defendant\u2019s motion, plaintiff pointed out that distance was not a major inconvenience because Detroit was only 430 miles from Edwardsville and easily accessible by plane or car. Plaintiff\u2019s treating physician practiced in St. Louis. Further, with respect to the attendance of witnesses, plaintiff stated that defendant could present the Michigan doctors\u2019 testimony by deposition, a practice not uncommon for doctors residing in the immediate vicinity of Madison County; that the occurrence witnesses were all employees of defendant whom defendant could produce at trial without the necessity of process; and that plaintiff\u2019s attorneys, the approved regional attorneys for plaintiff\u2019s union, practiced in Alton, Illinois.\nThe trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss, and defendant filed a motion to reconsider. In addition to the grounds alleged in the original motion, defendant also argued that the congested court docket in Madison County was a further reason for dismissing the lawsuit. Plaintiff responded that the condition of the Madison County trial docket was not hindering the expedient disposition of this case. Plaintiff further noted that he had filed a motion to compel defendant to produce certain witnesses at trial and represented that he would pay all the expenses incurred by defendant in producing them. Plaintiff also attached affidavits from other possible witnesses attesting to their willingness to be present at trial. The trial court denied the motion to reconsider.\nPrior to the commencement of trial, defendant again renewed its motion to dismiss and introduced statistical evidence pertaining to Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act claims filed in Madison County to demonstrate the burden imposed on the courts by the filing of out-of-State claims under the Act. Plaintiff responded by stating that defendant\u2019s statistics gave no indication of the number of Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act cases tried, dismissed, or settled and that it was plaintiff\u2019s attorneys\u2019 experience that less than 1 percent of such claims were actually tried by a jury.\nDefendant contends that the. trial court improperly weighed the factors to be considered in denying its motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. Fundamentally, defendant urges that the court gave undue weight to plaintiff\u2019s right to choose his own forum.\nPlaintiff argues that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is inapplicable to Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act cases in State courts. We disagree. The law in Illinois is well settled that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is applicable to Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act actions in State courts. Missouri ex rel. Southern Ry. Co. v. Mayfield (1950), 340 U.S. 1, 95 L. Ed. 3, 71 S. Ct. 1; Saunders v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co (1977), 54 Ill. App. 3d 307, 369 N.E.2d 518.\nThis court in Saunders v. Norfolk 6- Western Railway held that in determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss a Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act suit on the basis of forum non conveniens the trial court must take into consideration the factors enumerated in Whitney v. Madden (1948), 400 Ill. 185, 79 N.E.2d 593. The court in Whitney v. Madden stated that in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the trial court should consider whether it is apparent that the local forum was chosen for the purpose of \u201cfrustrating\u201d the defendant; whether the defendant is \u201cunduly burdened\u201d or caused \u201cgreat and unnecessary inconvenience\u201d; or whether the court is unnecessarily burdened. Further, the court in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947), 330 U.S. 501, 508, 91 L. Ed. 1055, 1062, 67 S. Ct. 839, 843, stated: \u201c[U]nless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff\u2019s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.\u201d Cf. Saunders v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co.\nWe find that there is no strong imbalance in favor of the defendant of the factors we are required to consider under Whitney v. Madden. Balanced against plaintiff\u2019s right to select the forum under the Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act is the burden imposed on defendant because of the distance between the place of the accident and the place of trial; any additional expense; the burden on the jurors; the burden on the court; and the greater difficulty in presenting the testimony of some witnesses arising from the distance involved. All of these factors were considered by the trial court when it denied defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss,\nDefendant was able to produce the witnesses requested by plaintiff without difficulty or inconvenience and was entitled to be reimbursed for its expenses resulting therefrom. Otherwise, defendant called only one witness, and she was from the St. Louis area. Defendant\u2019s medical testimony was presented by deposition, a practice not uncommon whether the doctor is in the area or not. The only additional expense imposed on defendant was two trips to Michigan to take depositions. The case was disposed of expediently, and it has not been shown that the case unduly burdened the Madison County Circuit Court or the jurors serving in such court. Further, the question of liability was not so complex as to make proximity of the forqm to the scene of the accident a controlling factor. The distance from the place of an occurrence to the place of trial cannot, of itself, be used as the basis for dismissing an action on the grounds of forum non conveniens. In the instant case, permitting this action to be maintained in Madison County did not \u201cunduly burden\u201d defendant or cause it \u201cgreat and unnecessary inconvenience,\u201d as required for reversal under the rationale of Whitney v. Madden. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court properly denied defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nAffirmed.\nHARRISON and SPOMER, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE KASSERMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Edward J. Kionka, of Columbia, and Pope & Driemeyer, of Belleville (Edward J. Kionka and Thomas W. Alvey, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.", "John T. Pierce, Jr., of Pratt, Pierce, Bradford & Gitchoff, Ltd., of East Alton, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOSE A. ESPINOSA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 79-207\nOpinion filed September 8, 1980.\nRehearing denied October 17, 1980.\nEdward J. Kionka, of Columbia, and Pope & Driemeyer, of Belleville (Edward J. Kionka and Thomas W. Alvey, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.\nJohn T. Pierce, Jr., of Pratt, Pierce, Bradford & Gitchoff, Ltd., of East Alton, for appellee." }, "file_name": "1147-01", "first_page_order": 1169, "last_page_order": 1173 }