 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Skewes v. Masterchem Industries5/17/2005
Tamara Skewes (Plaintiff) appeals from the judgment dismissing her petition, without prejudice, based on forum non conveniens . In her sole point, Plaintiff argues the trial court abused it discretion in granting the motion filed by Masterchem Industries, Inc. (Defendant) to dismiss her petition because the trial court erroneously applied the forum non conveniens standard. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.
Plaintiff is a resident of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Plaintiff alleged that while working in Canada as a painter for her employer, Edendale Restoration Limited, she was burned when a halogen lamp ignited vapors from a paint primer manufactured by Defendant. Plaintiff sustained serious injuries.
Plaintiff filed a one-count, products liability, failure-to-warn case against Defendant in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Missouri. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages. Defendant is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Barnhart, Missouri, which is located in Jefferson County. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition under the doctrine of forum non conveniens . After oral argument on the motion, the trial court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider. After oral argument, the trial court denied Plaintiff's motion to reconsider. This appeal follows.
In her sole point, Plaintiff argues the trial court abused its discretion in granting Defendant's motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens because the trial court erroneously applied the forum non conveniens standard. We disagree.
The standard of review for granting a motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens is abuse of discretion. Acapolon Corp. v. Ralston Purina Co. , 827 S.W.2d 189, 192 (Mo. banc 1992). Under the abuse of discretion standard, the trial court's decision must be affirmed unless the plaintiff can show the trial court's ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration. Anglim v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. , 832 S.W.2d 298, 303 (Mo. banc 1992). Furthermore, on review by this court, the decision of the trial court will not be disturbed if we find (1) the relevant factors weigh in favor of applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and (2) permitting the case to be tried in Missouri would lead to an injustice because such a trial would be oppressive to the defendant or impose an undue burden on Missouri courts. Id.
Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Missouri Supreme Court case of Acapolon Corp. v. Ralston Purina Co. discusses the application of forum non conveniens in the foreign plaintiff/foreign injury context and is directly on point.
Acapolon involved a foreign plaintiff suing Ralston Purina, a resident of Missouri, in Missouri state court for damages arising out of allegedly defective shrimp feed that Ralston Purina sold to plaintiff for use in Guatemala. In discussing the substantial inconvenience element of forum non conveniens , the court relied on the fact that the claim accrued in Guatemala, that many of the witnesses were there, that Guatemalan law would apply to the dispute, and that there was a great distance between Missouri and the site of the injury in Guatemala. Id . at 193. The court recognized that Ralston Purina was a Missouri resident sued in the City of St. Louis, its place of residence, but stated that " he factor of residence of the defendant is not inevitably controlling," given the other factors. Id. It
Page 1 2 3 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|