 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kedy v. A.W. Chesterton Co.5/27/2005
CONSOLIDATED DECISION
Before this Court, Defendant General Electric (Defendant) moves to dismiss Deborah L. Kedy, et al.'s (Plaintiffs) cases pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
The Defendant argues that this Court should adopt the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the State of Rhode Island because public and private factors demonstrate that Plaintiffs' claims should not be heard by this Court. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 8-2-14 and Super. R. Civ. P. 7.
FACTS AND TRAVEL
The Plaintiffs are lifelong Canadian residents who allegedly suffered injuries from workplace exposure to asbestos. The Plaintiffs' employment, exposure, injuries, and treatment occurred in Canada. The Defendant is a corporation authorized to do business in the state of Rhode Island. Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 9-4-5 (Venue of actions between nonresident parties). The Plaintiffs filed the instant actions against the Defendant in this Court, alleging both personal injury and wrongful death caused by exposure to products containing asbestos. The Defendant urges this Court to adopt the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and to dismiss the claims brought by the Plaintiffs under the doctrine.
THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS
The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to dismiss a case when a chosen forum-despite the existence of jurisdiction and venue-is so inconvenient that it would be unfair to the defendant to conduct its defense of the claim in that location. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507 (1947). As it is generally applied, Federal Courts and courts in States that have adopted the doctrine may dismiss an action if the defendant can demonstrate both that an adequate alternative forum exists and that a weighing of convenience and judicial efficiency strongly favor the claim's litigation in the alternative forum. See Iragorri v. Int'l Elevator, Inc., 203 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 2000). Jurisdictions that have adopted the federal model of forum non conveniens, either by judicial decision or by statute, balance public and private interest factors promulgated in Gulf Oil Corp. to determine whether to dismiss the action in favor of another jurisdiction. See, e.g., id.; Durkin v. Intevac, Inc., 782 A.2d 103, 112 (Conn. 2001); W.R. Grace & Co. v. Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co., 555 N.E.2d 214, 217-18 (Mass. 1990). The Defendants have filed this motion to dismiss, arguing that this Court should adopt the doctrine of forum non conveniens and dismiss the Plaintiffs' case because the public and private factors of Gulf Oil Corp. weigh strongly in favor of dismissal. The Plaintiffs contend that neither the Rhode Island Legislature nor the Rhode Island Supreme Court has ever recognized the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs argue that even if this Court were to adopt the doctrine, the public and private factors do not weigh in favor of the cases' dismissal.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court has not ruled on or discussed the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. See Michael J. Jacobs, Note, Georgia on the Nonresident Plaintiff's Mind: Why the General Assembly Should Enact Statutory Forum Non Conveniens, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 1109, 1109 (2002) (noting that Rhode Island is one of few states that has not yet adopted doctrine); see also Courtemanche v. Bibbo, C.A. No. 03-6649, 2004 R.I. Super. LEXIS 178, at *34 (Oct. 5, 2004) (recognizing that Rhode Island has not adopted forum non conveniens); Perusse v. AC & S, Inc., C.A. No. 00-5768, 2001 R.I. Super. LEXIS 57, at *2 (May 31, 2001) (stating that the Rhode Island Supreme Court has not recognized the doctrine of foru
Page 1 2 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|