Piper Aircraft Co. vs. Reyno Digest

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno

Forum non-conveniens

Facts:

1. Reyno was the representative of the estates of citizens and decedents who were residents of Scotland. The decedents were killed in a plane crash (mechanical failure) in Scotland during a chartered flight of an aircraft manufactured by the petitioner. 

2. Petitioner is a company in Pennsylvania, while Hartzel, the one maintaining the propeller was from Ohio. The aircraft was registered in United Kingdom. It was operated by a UK company owned by McDonald (of Scotland). Meanwhile, the  plane pilot who also died is of Scottish descent.

3. The UK government conducted an investigation. The representatives of five (5) passengers who perished filed an action against Piper Corp and Hartzel in California while the survivors filed a separate action in UK against Air Navigation, McDonald and the pilot's estate. Hartzel was properly served with process. The petitioner Piper and Hartzell both moved to dismiss on ground of forum non-conveniens (FNC).

Issue: Whether or not the court should dismiss on ground of FNC

HELD:

YES. The court held that the private and public factors favored Scotland. When an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear a case and when trial in the chosen forum would establish oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant, or when the chosen forum is inappropriate because of considerations affecting the courts own administrative and legal concerns, the court may in the exercise of sound discretion dismiss the case by applying the list of private and public interest factors. The wreckage of the plane was in Scotland (private) while Scotland had greater interest in hearing the case that concerns Scottish citizens (public).

The private factors include; relative ease of access to evidence, attendance of witnesses, cost of attendance, viewing the scene and other practical matters. While public factors include: administrative difficulties of courts, interest in having local controversies adjudicated at home, interest in trial in a forum familiar with the law governning the action, avoidance of unnecessary problems in the CFLm unfairness of burdening the citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty.

Gulf Oil Corp. vs. Gilbert Digest

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert

Forum Non-Conveniens

Facts:

1. Plaintiff Gilbert filed an action in New York against the petitioner for negligence due to the delivery of gasoline to his tanks and pumps. The venue statutes of the United States permit this. Gilbert resides in Virginia, USA.

2. Petitioner Gulf Oil is a company organized under the laws of Pennsylvania with authority to do business in both Virginia and New York. It designated officials in each state as agents to receive the process. Gulf Oil invoked the doctrine of 'forum non-conveniens' and claimed that Virginia is the appropriate venue for the trial becuase it is where the plaintiff resides, where corporation does business, where the witness likewise resides and it is also the place where the events took place.

3. On one hand, plaintiff contends that the action filed in New York is justified since the action involved an amount for claim for damages close to $400 thousand which may stagger the imagination of the local jury, the diversity of the citizenship of the parties and that plaintiff's counsel resides in New York.

4. The District Court of New Yorl dismissed the tort action pursuant to FNC (forum non-conveniens) while the Appeals Court reversed the decision.

Issue: Whether or not the action was properly dismissed from NY court under the doctrine of FNC thought personam jurisdiction and venue are proper

HELD:

YES. The application of the doctrine lies in the the discretion of the court. However, tje interests of the plaintiff, the defendant and the forum state need to be considered. Here, there is not interest for any party to have the litigation in New York. In fact, interests weigh against it.

Moreover, the plaintiff may not choose an inconvenient forum to harass the petitioner. Finally, the state has an interest in avoiding the overcrowding of its own courts and subjecting its citizens to jury duty in a case having no ties to their state.