 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miller v. Allied Signal Inc.6/4/1999
The trial court dismissed plaintiff's claim against defendants on the basis of improper venue and, alternatively, forum non conveniens. Plaintiff appeals as of right, and we reverse and remand.
Plaintiff, an Ohio resident, brought this wrongful death action against defendants in the Wayne County Circuit Court, alleging causes of action under general maritime and admiralty law. The decedent, a California resident at the time of death, died from multiple myeloma. Plaintiff alleged numerous theories of liability against defendants, claiming that decedent's exposure to benzene, manufactured by or found in products manufactured by defendants, caused the death. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on the basis of improper venue and forum non conveniens where there were no allegations that the decedent was exposed to benzene in Michigan, sustained injury in Michigan, or had any connection to Michigan whatsoever.
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed his case on the ground of forum non conveniens. We agree, but only because we are compelled to do so by existing precedent.
We review the trial court's decision to grant a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens for an abuse of discretion. Hacienda Mexican Restaurants of Kalamazoo Corp v Hacienda Franchise Group, Inc, 195 Mich App 35, 38; 489 NW2d 108 (1992). An abuse of discretion is found only in extreme cases where the result is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a defiance of judgment, or the exercise of passion or bias. Dacon v Transue, 441 Mich 315, 329; 490 NW2d 369 (1992).
The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to "resist imposition upon its jurisdiction although such jurisdiction could properly be invoked." Cray v General Motors Corp, 389 Mich 382, 395; 207 NW2d 393 (1973). The doctrine presupposes that there are at least two possible choices of forum. Id.
When a party requests that a court decline jurisdiction based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, there are two inquiries for the court to make: whether the forum is inconvenient and whether there is a more appropriate forum available. If there is not a more appropriate forum elsewhere, the inquiry ends and the court may not resist imposition of jurisdiction. If there is a more appropriate forum, the court still may not decline jurisdiction unless its own forum is seriously inconvenient. [Manfredi v Johnson Controls, 194 Mich App 519, 527; 487 NW2d 475 (1992), quoting Robey v Ford Motor Co, 155 Mich App 643, 645; 400 NW2d 610 (1986).]
If a defendant agrees to waive any applicable statute of limitations defenses, thereby making an alternative forum available, dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens is appropriate. See Anderson v Great Lakes Dredge, 411 Mich 619, 632; 309 NW2d 539 (1981).
In this case, plaintiff's interest in the forum (or more precisely his interest worthy of recognition) is basically non-existent. The decedent's widow, treating physicians, employers and co-workers do not reside in Michigan. The plaintiff himself does not reside in Michigan, and decedent's employment records and medical records are not in Michigan. Michigan law does not apply because it is an admiralty case, and there is no evidence that any of the incidents giving rise to the injury, or the injury itself, occurred in Michigan. In addition, there is no evidence that the decedent was ever treated for his injury in Michigan, or in fact, ever stepped foot in Michigan. And finally, only one of the numerous defendants has a principal place of business in Michigan.
In spite of the lack of inte
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|