 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hill v. Jawanda Transport Ltd.6/28/1999
In Whatcom County, Rosalie Hill died and William Hill was seriously injured in a traffic accident caused by respondent Parminder Gidda, a truck driver employed by respondent Jawanda Transport, Ltd. (Jawanda). Mrs. Hill's estate and Mr. Hill appeal the trial court's forum non conveniens dismissal of their suit, contending British Columbia is not an adequate alternative forum and the balance of private and public factors weighs in favor of jurisdiction in Whatcom County. Because Jawanda stipulated to its liability and to British Columbia jurisdiction, the parties are British Columbia citizens, and the trial court's decision that British Columbia is the preferred alternative forum was a proper exercise of its discretion, we affirm.
FACTS
The fatal accident happened at noon on October 2, 1997, at milepost 255 on Interstate 5 in Whatcom County. In that section of the freeway, north- and southbound lanes are separated by a median strip. William Hill was driving his 1996 Toyota Camry and Rosalie Hill was in the front passenger's seat when a tractor-trailer truck driven by Parminder Gidda and owned by Jawanda turned into their lane. The truck collided with the left side of the Hills' Camry, causing it to spin across the median strip and into the inside lane of southbound Interstate 5. Another tractor-trailer truck, driven by Manvir Singh, was unable to avoid the Hills' car and smashed into it. The Camry flew back into the median from the force of the collision and came to rest on its roof. Although both Hills were wearing their seat belts, within seconds of the collision Mrs. Hill died from trauma to her brain. Mr. Hill suffered numerous severe injuries that included a punctured lung.
Mr. Hill and his daughter Norma, Mrs. Hill's personal representative, sued Gidda and Jawanda, raising claims for wrongful death under RCW 4.20.010 and .020, and negligence under Washington's survivorship statutes. The Hills requested damages for "losses of consortium, love, affection, care, service, companionship, society, and financial contributions." They also requested damages for Mrs. Hill's "pain, fear, anxiety, emotional distress, and funeral expenses," and for Mr. Hill's injuries, disabilities, pain, mental and emotional distress, and medical and out-of-pocket expenses. All parties are citizens of British Columbia and are insured under the nationalized Canadian insurance scheme.
Gidda and Jawanda moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, saying that if they prevailed, they would admit to British Columbia jurisdiction as well as to total liability for the accident. The court granted the motion, ruling:
"The court believes this is a classic case for forum non conveniens based on the concession of liability. The court is going to dismiss on forum non conveniens ground{s} on the condition that defendant admits liability on the record both here and the British Columbia court. The parties can argue what law will apply with the BC court and that court can decide the issue. But the court is satisfied that in this day of videotaping that the brief damage witnesses of the plaintiff not offered here will not harm the plaintiffs' case, and, otherwise, there's just no good reason to have the case here except for damages and counsel have pointed out that's a collateral concern in these matters. So the motion is granted."
DISCUSSION
The Hills argue that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. Jawanda responds that the trial court properly dismissed because British Columbia courts are adequate and appropriate alternative forums. We must determine whether the trial court co
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|