Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mann

285 So. 2d 681, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6431
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 24, 1973
DocketNo. 73-809
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 285 So. 2d 681 (Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mann, 285 So. 2d 681, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6431 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying defendants’ motions for a change of venue and for transfer of cause and an alternative motion to dismiss. We reverse.

Plaintiff, a judge in the Second District Court of Appeal, was seriously injured in an automobile accident in Tampa. His complaint alleges that an employee of defendant-Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company caused the accident, and Travelers was Goodyear’s insurer. The suit was filed in Circuit Court for Dade County.

Defendants, in the motion for change of venue, recited that the accident occurred in [682]*682Hillsborough County, that all the witnesses, the records, the vehicles involved, and the investigating officers were located in the Tampa area. Defendants maintained that a trial outside of Hillsborough County would cause undue hardship and would be time-consuming and expensive.

Admittedly, the circumstances of this cause are unusual. Plaintiff points out that as an appellate judge in the Second District he wishes to avoid all thoughts of indelicacy or appearance of impropriety. Since Judge Mann hears appeals from trial judges, he contends that a trial before one of these judges as well as local jurors would present an embarrassing situation.

Plaintiff further argues that the trial court’s order was correct because of the provision of F.S. 47.163 1 F.S.A., or, alternatively, because the “interest of justice” provision of our forum non conveniens statute still requires this case to be tried outside of the Second District. We do not agree.

The forum non conveniens statute, F.S. 47.122,2 F.S.A., was enacted subsequent to F.S. 47.163, F.S.A., and as a later expression of the legislative will is controlling. State v. City of Boca Raton, Fla. 1965, 172 So.2d 230.

This court has previously construed F.S. 47.122, F.S.A., in England v. Cook, Fla.App.1972, 256 So.2d 403, wherein we indicated that when no witnesses reside in the transferor forum but do reside in the transferee forum, and the cause of action arising in Florida is transitory, then the suit should be transferred.

We think this case should be properly instituted in the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County. -It may be that in the interest of justice the court in the exercise of discretion will order a change of venue to another district which is nearer to Tampa than Dade County. Or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may assign a circuit judge from another district or a retired judge to sit on this case. See Fla. Const. Art. V, § 2(b), F.S.A.

Therefore, for the reasons stated the order appealed is reversed and remanded to the circuit court with directions to transfer the cause to the Circuit Court of Hillsbor-ough County.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

CARROLL, J., concurs in the judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gaboury v. Flagler Hospital, Inc.
316 So. 2d 642 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Mann v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
300 So. 2d 666 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
285 So. 2d 681, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodyear-tire-rubber-co-v-mann-fladistctapp-1973.