 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hill v. Jawanda Transport Ltd.6/28/1999
ng the premises becomes irrelevant given Jawanda's concession of liability. Other practical problems could include the cost of hiring experts if in fact the case is heard in British Columbia and Washington law is applied. Yet these costs are at best speculative on the record before us. Given the facts described above, the trial court's decision represents a fair and reasonable assessment of which forum would be most convenient for the parties.
Public policy also supports dismissal here, since this is a Canadian dispute between Canadian citizens involving the possible remuneration for injuries through the Canadian national insurance system. The Hills argue that the public's interest in deterrence supports jurisdiction in Whatcom County. But the central point of the Hills' deterrence argument, that prosecution of their claims will enhance respect for the rules of the road, is inapposite. Respect for the rules of the road is a question involving the enforcement of criminal statutes, and is not an appropriate consideration in forum non conveniens analysis. We also recognize that British Columbia has a greater interest in the allocation of damages between its residents, regardless of where they are injured, than Whatcom County has in determining the degree of damages awarded to non-resident traffic accident victims.
The Hills also argue that the trial court erred in part because Washington law will apply in either forum. But regardless of whether this assertion is correct, choice of law analysis is not a necessary element of forum non conveniens doctrine. At most, resolution of a choice of law question informs, but does not govern a trial court's forum non conveniens dismissal. The trial court properly left the issue to the courts of British Columbia, and there was no abuse of discretion.
CONCLUSION
In the context of this case, British Columbia courts are an adequate alternative forum. Taken together, private and public interests favor the trial court's forum non conveniens dismissal of this case, given Jawanda's and Gidda's stipulations to liability and jurisdiction in British Columbia. The Hills have not established that the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed the case. Affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
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.
|
|