 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rule v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co.1/25/2005
slative objective. Rule contends prevention of forum shopping in FELA cases is not a permissible statutory objective. The statute does not treat FELA plaintiffs differently than other plaintiffs with tort actions, however, and Rule presents no evidence that restricting forum shopping by a FELA plaintiff was the purpose of § 25-2122(2), MCA.
The Montana Legislature has broad discretionary powers to enact laws governing venue. See Davis , 282 Mont. at 242, 937 P.2d at 32. As a matter of federal law, FELA cases filed in state courts are subject to the same venue provisions as other civil cases filed in state courts. Miles, 315 U.S. at 703, 62 S.Ct. at 830, 86 L.Ed. at 1134. Because federal law allows state legislatures to enact venue laws applicable to FELA actions, there is no legal impediment to treating FELA plaintiffs exactly the same as other Montana plaintiffs with tort actions against out-of-state corporate defendants.
Under § 25-2-122(2), MCA, the state courts of Montana remain open to FELA plaintiffs on the same basis that they are open to tort litigants with causes of action springing from a different source. Rule has established no reason why application of § 25-2-122(2), MCA, to FELA cases exceeds legislative discretion in enacting venue statutes. As a result, we conclude Rule has not met his burden of proving § 25-2-122(2), MCA, unconstitutional.
We hold the District Court properly applied the venue statutes, which Rule has not proven unconstitutional. We affirm the District Court's order granting BNSF's motion for change of venue.
KARLA M. GRAY
We concur:
JAMES C. NELSON
PATRICIA O. COTTER
JOHN WARNER
JIM RICE
|