Pratt v. Archer Daniels Midland Co.

2020 IL App (4th) 190476-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: May 6, 2020
• Docket: 4-19-0476
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE FILED This order was filed under Supreme 2020 IL App (4th) 190476-U May 6, 2020 Court Rule 23 and may not be cited Carla Bender as precedent by any party except in NO. 4-19-0476 the limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THERESA PRATT, Individually and as Executor of ) Appeal from the Estate of Kenneth Pratt, Deceased, ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Sangamon County v. ) No. 17L258 ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY, ) Defendant-Appellee ) ) ) Honorable (Neil Oil Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant- ) Ryan M. Cadagin, Appellee). ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment.

ORDER ¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to transfer venue.

¶2 In November 2017, plaintiff, Theresa Pratt, individually and as executor of the

estate of Kenneth Pratt, filed a wrongful death and survival action against defendant, Archer

Daniels Midland Company (ADM), in the circuit court of Sangamon County. In March 2018,

ADM filed a third-party complaint against third-party defendant, Neil Oil Company, Inc. That

same month, ADM filed a motion to transfer venue based on the doctrine of

forum non conveniens. In June 2019, the trial court granted the motion to transfer venue.

¶3 This court allowed plaintiff’s petition for leave to appeal under Illinois Supreme

Court Rule 306(a)(2) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017). On appeal, plaintiff argues (1) the trial court abused its discretion in finding ADM met its evidentiary burden and (2) the private and public interest

factors disfavored transfer from Sangamon County. For the following reasons, we affirm the

trial court’s judgment.

¶4 I. BACKGROUND

¶5 In November 2017, plaintiff filed a wrongful death and survival action in the

circuit court of Sangamon County. The complaint alleged ADM owned and operated a diesel

storage tank in Quincy, Illinois. ADM owned and maintained a hose and pump attached to the

tank that did not have any static elimination device. The complaint further alleged the pump was

not designed for the transfer of diesel fuel. On March 4, 2016, decedent—an employee of Neil

Oil Company—and an ADM employee worked together to transfer diesel fuel from the storage

tank to a fuel truck. A static spark ignited, and decedent’s clothes caught on fire. Decedent was

badly burned and transferred to Memorial Medical Center in Springfield, Illinois, where

numerous physicians treated decedent before his death on March 23, 2016.

¶6 Count I of the complaint alleged ADM owed a duty of care to provide safe and

proper equipment to transfer diesel fuel. The equipment provided was unreasonably dangerous

because the hose did not have a static elimination device and the pump was not designed to

transfer diesel fuel. ADM negligently failed to provide a proper hose and pump, allowed the use

of an improper and dangerous hose and pump, failed to provide proper warnings and instructions

to the user of the hose and pump, and was otherwise negligent. The complaint alleged that, as a

direct and proximate result of ADM’s negligent acts, decedent suffered significant personal

injuries and ultimately died due to those injuries. Count II incorporated the allegations of

negligence and further alleged decedent was survived by his wife and two children.

-2- ¶7 In March 2018, ADM filed a motion to transfer based on the doctrine of

forum non conveniens. In support of the motion, ADM argued plaintiff resided in Adams

County, as did decedent’s employer. The incident occurred in Adams County at the ADM diesel

storage tank facility in Quincy. Additionally, plaintiff sought to preserve equipment located in

Adams County, and ADM attached copies of the spoliation letter sent to ADM and plaintiff’s

motion for a protective order. ADM identified the maintenance mechanic present at the time of

the incident and six members of the Quincy fire department who responded to the scene.

Additionally, a fire and arson investigator for the Quincy fire department spoke with ADM and

Neil Oil Company employees. ADM attached a copy of the Quincy fire department report

including the names of the six responders and the eyewitness. ADM noted all the witnesses

present at the time of or immediately after the incident were employed in or resided in Adams

County. ADM argued decedent sought medical treatment in Adams County before being

transferred to the hospital in Springfield. However, ADM argued decedent’s treatment in

Springfield was the only Sangamon County connection to the case, as the incident occurred in

Adams County and numerous witnesses resided in Adams County. ADM contended the private

interest factors strongly favored transfer to Adams County.

¶8 Regarding the public interest factors, ADM argued Adams County had a greater

interest in providing a forum for the litigation because all the parties were residents of Adams

County and the incident occurred in Adams County. Given the minimal interest Sangamon

County had in the litigation, ADM argued it was unfair to impose the costs of the litigation and

the burden of jury duty on the courts and residents of Sangamon County. Finally, ADM argued

Adams County had a less congested docket than Sangamon County. ADM cited the

Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts 2016 Annual Report showing, in part, 162 new cases

-3- filed in the law division of Sangamon County with a jury demand seeking more than $50,000 in

damages and 611 such cases pending at the end of 2016. In contrast, Adams County had 5 new

cases with a jury demand seeking more than $50,000 in damages and 11 such cases pending at

the end of 2016.

¶9 Plaintiff argued her choice of forum was entitled to substantial deference and

should not be disturbed. Plaintiff further argued ADM’s failure to file affidavits asserting the

inconvenience of trial in Sangamon County required the motion to be denied. Plaintiff also

asserted the private and public interest factors disfavored transfer.

¶ 10 Following a hearing on ADM’s motion to transfer venue, the trial court stated,

“I’m going to grant defendant’s motion to transfer venue based off the doctrine forum non

inconveniens [sic]. That’s the doctrine considering all the public and private interest factors.

Considering all of them, but, specifically, local controversies should be decided locally I think is

persuasive. So[,] I will grant the transfer of venue.”

¶ 11 This appeal followed.

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 On appeal, plaintiff argues (1) the trial court abused its discretion in finding ADM

met its evidentiary burden and (2) the private and public interest factors disfavored transfer from

Sangamon County. ADM asserts the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting its motion

to transfer based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

¶ 14 In ruling on a forum non conveniens motion, the court considers the relative

convenience of a forum. Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430, 441, 848

N.E.2d 927, 934 (2006). “Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine founded in

considerations of fundamental fairness and the sensible and effective administration of justice.

-4- [Citation.] This doctrine allows a trial court to decline jurisdiction when trial in another forum

‘would better serve the ends of justice.’ ” Id. (quoting Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306, 310,

579 N.E.2d 857, 858 (1991).

¶ 15 “The plaintiff has a substantial interest in choosing the forum where his rights will

be vindicated, and the plaintiff’s forum choice should rarely be disturbed unless the other factors

strongly favor transfer.” First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511, 517, 764 N.E.2d 54,

58 (2002). However, the plaintiff’s choice of forum receives less deference when neither the site

of the incident nor the plaintiff’s residence is in the chosen forum. Id. The plaintiff’s chosen

forum will prevail if venue is proper and the inconvenience factors attached to the plaintiff’s

chosen forum do not greatly outweigh the plaintiff’s substantial right to try the case in the

plaintiff’s chosen forum. Id. at 520.

¶ 16 In ruling on a forum non conveniens motion, the trial court must weigh all

relevant factors without emphasizing any single factor. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443. “In

Illinois, the private interest factors include (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the relative ease

of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real evidence; and (3) all other practical

problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive ***.” Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d

at 516. “Public interest factors include (1) the interest in deciding controversies locally; (2) the

unfairness of imposing trial expense and the burden of jury duty on residents of a forum that has

little connection to the litigation; and (3) the administrative difficulties presented by adding

litigation to already congested court dockets.” Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443-44. The burden is

on the defendant to show the relevant factors strongly favor transfer to another forum. Id. at 444.

¶ 17 The trial court is granted considerable discretion to rule on a

forum non conveniens motion. Id. at 441. We reverse only if the circuit court abused its

-5- discretion in balancing the relevant factors. Id. at 442. “A circuit court abuses its discretion in

balancing the relevant factors only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by

the circuit court.” Id. “This court has repeatedly noted that the forum non conveniens doctrine

gives courts discretionary power that should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances

when the interests of justice require a trial in a more convenient forum.” (Emphasis in original.)

Id.

¶ 18 Plaintiff asserts the trial court failed to engage in any analysis of the public and

private factors. However, “[w]hen an appellate court reviews a trial court’s

forum non conveniens order, ‘[t]he issue is not the detail of the underlying order, but whether the

circuit court abused its discretion.’ ” Ruch v. Padgett, 2015 IL App (1st) 142972, ¶ 40, 40

N.E.3d 448 (quoting Estate of Rath v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 2012 IL App (5th) 100096,

¶ 23, 968 N.E.2d 1247). An inadequate record of the trial court’s analysis does not, in and of

itself, require reversal. Id.

¶ 19 A. Defendant’s Evidentiary Burden

¶ 20 Plaintiff first contends ADM has failed to provide competent evidence from a

party or a witness in the form of an affidavit or testimony regarding the inconvenience of

plaintiff’s chosen forum. Plaintiff argues courts “have repeatedly found that the failure to

provide a sufficient reason to transfer with competent evidence in and of itself is a sufficient

basis to deny a motion to transfer.” We first note the case law plaintiff primarily relies on

involves a court of review affirming a lower court’s decision to deny a forum non conveniens

motion because the ruling was not an abuse of discretion. See Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 454.

¶ 21 Plaintiff asserts ADM was required to provide affidavits from witnesses

indicating their unwillingness to testify in Sangamon County or their inconvenience if they were

-6- to testify in Sangamon County. Plaintiff further argues ADM may not rely on exhibits attached

to their motion to transfer because the exhibits were without foundation and irrelevant. Finally,

plaintiff asserts ADM has failed to identify any witnesses in response to written interrogatories.

¶ 22 ADM argues plaintiff misconstrues the supreme court’s holding in Langenhorst.

Specifically, ADM asserts that Langenhorst did not impose a specific evidentiary burden on the

moving party but expressly followed precedent and considered the relevant public and private

factors.

¶ 23 In Langenhorst, the decedent was struck by a train in Clinton County.

Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 434. The defendant railroad company’s registered agent for service

was in adjacent St. Clair County. Id. Multiple witnesses were scattered in various counties in

Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri. Id. at 434-35. The plaintiff filed suit in St. Clair County and the

defendants filed a motion to transfer to Clinton County based on the doctrine of

forum non conveniens. Id. In support of the motion, the defendants filed affidavits stating trial

in Clinton County would not be inconvenient and identified several neighbors who were at the

scene of the incident. Id. at 437. The trial court denied the motion to transfer. Id. at 438-39.

¶ 24 The supreme court reviewed the standards for considering a motion based on the

doctrine of forum non conveniens. Id. at 441-44. The court noted, “The burden is on the

defendant to show that relevant private and public interest factors ‘strongly favor’ the

defendant’s choice of forum to warrant disturbing plaintiff’s choice.” Id. at 444. In considering

the public and private factors, the supreme court concluded the total circumstances of the case

did not strongly favor transfer to Clinton County. Id. at 448. In weighing the private interest

factors, the court noted a visit to the incident site was not appropriate because the railroad

crossing was substantially changed after the incident. Conversely, the plaintiff’s investigator,

-7- who resided in St. Clair County, had documented the conditions at the time of the incident and

all the documentation was in St. Clair County. Id. at 449. Additionally, there were witnesses

“disbursed among several counties, St. Louis, Missouri, and Indiana, required to travel regardless

of the place of trial.” Id. The court noted that no affidavits had been filed stating that St. Clair

County would be an inconvenient forum for any of the witnesses. Id. at 450. The court

concluded the defendants failed to show any inconvenience, particularly where St. Clair and

Clinton counties were adjacent. Id. The court then considered the public interest factors and

concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to transfer. Id. at 451-

54.

¶ 25 Nothing in Langenhorst imposes a requirement that the moving party file

affidavits asserting inconvenience to prevail on a motion to transfer. Rather, Langenhorst

requires a court to balance the relevant private and public factors, while giving some measure of

deference to plaintiff’s chosen forum, in determining whether those factors strongly favor

transfer.

¶ 26 The authority plaintiff relies on involved courts of review pointing out the

weaknesses in a party’s motion to transfer or dismiss while determining the lower court did not

abuse its discretion in denying the forum non conveniens motion. They do not stand for the

proposition that such a weakness requires the denial of a motion to transfer, nor do they stand for

the proposition that a court has abused its discretion in granting a motion to transfer. Put another

way, pointing to failures that support the denial of a motion to transfer does not mean such

failures preclude the granting of a motion to transfer.

¶ 27 We further note a panel of the First District Appellate Court has rejected a similar

argument in Koss Corp. v. Sachdeva, 2012 IL App (1st) 120379, ¶¶ 104-08, 975 N.E.2d 236. In

-8- Koss, the trial court granted the defendant’s interstate motion to dismiss the case based on

forum non conveniens. Id. ¶ 2. The plaintiff appealed, arguing the defendant failed to meet its

evidentiary burden because they did not provide affidavits from witnesses stating they would be

unwilling to testify in Cook County. Id. ¶ 106. The First District Appellate Court rejected this

argument, stating,

“In the case at bar, [the defendant] did not proffer any evidence

that witnesses are unwilling to testify in Cook County or that

Illinois would be an inconvenient forum, and [the plaintiff] claims

that the trial court thus abused its discretion when it held that

Wisconsin is a more convenient forum for witnesses. However,

we know of no rule that bars a trial court from inferring the relative

convenience of alternative forums, based on its knowledge of their

residence and workplace.” Id.

The plaintiff in Koss relied on three cases plaintiff relies on in this case: Erwin ex rel Erwin v.

Motorola, Inc., 408 Ill. App. 3d 261, 945 N.E.2d 1153 (2011); The Cradle Society v. Adopt

America Network, 389 Ill. App. 3d 73, 904 N.E.2d 1137 (2009); and Brant v. Rosen, 373 Ill.

App. 3d 720, 869 N.E.2d 232 (2007). The appellate court rejected the reliance on these cases,

concluding they all involved scenarios where the defendant had not yet identified witnesses and

the court declined to speculate as to the unknown witnesses’ willingness to testify. Koss, 2012

IL App (1st) 120379, ¶ 107.

¶ 28 Here, plaintiff claims ADM has yet to identify any witnesses in its responses to

written interrogatories. Our review of the record shows that ADM identified numerous witnesses

who resided in Adams County, including an eyewitness who worked in Adams County, six

-9- members of the Quincy fire department, the fire and arson investigator, and a Neil Oil Company

employee. Because ADM has identified some witnesses, it is not speculative to consider the

inconvenience to the witnesses without requiring affidavits asserting their unwillingness to

travel.

¶ 29 For the foregoing reasons, we reject plaintiff’s argument that ADM’s failure to

file affidavits asserting Sangamon County was an inconvenient forum requires denial of their

motion to transfer as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s cited authority does not stand for the proposition

that the moving party must produce affidavits from witnesses stating their unwillingness to travel

to the chosen forum. Nor does the case law support the proposition that a trial court abuses its

discretion in granting a motion to transfer in the absence of such affidavits. Rather, the

authorities all stand for the proposition that this court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion to

transfer for an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we turn to the relevant private and public

interest factors to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining ADM

sustained its burden of showing the factors strongly favored transfer.

¶ 30 B. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum

¶ 31 As discussed above, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is afforded substantial

deference. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 517. However, the plaintiff’s choice of forum receives less

deference when neither the site of the incident nor the plaintiff’s residence is in the chosen

forum. Id. Plaintiff argues her choice should receive substantial deference because Sangamon

County is within Illinois, which she alleges is her home forum. However, intrastate

forum non conveniens analysis considers a party’s county of residence as their “home forum.”

Therefore, plaintiff’s home forum is Adams County. Accordingly, plaintiff’s chosen forum—

- 10 - Sangamon County—is neither the site of the incident nor the plaintiff’s residence. We therefore

accord plaintiff somewhat less deference. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 448.

¶ 32 C. Private Interest Factors

¶ 33 Plaintiff asserts the private interest factors disfavor transfer of this case to Adams

County. Specifically, plaintiff argues travel into Springfield is easier for the out-of-state

witnesses than travel into Adams County. Further, plaintiff asserts numerous physicians who

reside or work in Sangamon County will testify and two employees of ADM who reside in

Decatur, Illinois, would have to travel a shorter distance to Sangamon County than Adams

County. ADM argues multiple key witnesses either live or work in Adams County, plaintiff is a

resident of Adams County, the parties’ attorneys are in Adams County, and critical evidence is in

Adams County.

¶ 34 As discussed above, private interest factors “include (1) the convenience of the

parties; (2) the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real evidence;

and (3) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive

***.” Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 516.

¶ 35 We discussed plaintiff’s response to ADM’s arguments regarding inconvenience

above. As said, we find the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in considering the

inconvenience witnesses in Adams County would face with a trial in Sangamon County.

Although plaintiff argues Springfield is more easily accessible than Quincy, most of the

witnesses who must travel to testify will be expert witnesses. Their travel will be compensated,

unlike the numerous fact witnesses located in Adams County. While we acknowledge plaintiff

intends to call numerous physicians to testify about decedent’s medical care and those physicians

are in Springfield, this testimony does not go to the heart of this case. This is not a medical

- 11 - malpractice case. This is a negligence case about an incident that occurred in Adams County—

not Sangamon County.

¶ 36 We do not intend to minimize the impact of testimony from the physicians in this

case, but testimony from 10 physicians would likely be cumulative and irrelevant to the elements

of duty, breach, and causation necessary for plaintiff to prevail on her two negligence claims. It

is undisputed decedent passed away in Sangamon County and received substantial medical care

there, however his injuries were sustained in Adams County and he received his initial medical

care in Adams County.

¶ 37 Plaintiff cites Langenhorst in support of her argument that the trial court abused

its discretion in granting the motion to transfer when witnesses were dispersed throughout

various counties in Illinois and Missouri. However, “[e]ach forum non conveniens case must be

considered as unique on its facts.” Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443. While the potential

witnesses in this case may be disbursed throughout Illinois—and indeed throughout the

country—most of the key witnesses either reside in or work in Adams County. Moreover, our

review is for an abuse of discretion. We cannot say no reasonable person would take the trial

court’s view as to the convenience of holding this trial in Adams County instead of Sangamon

County.

¶ 38 The next factor weighs the relative ease of access to evidence. It is undisputed the

incident occurred in Adams County, ADM has preserved physical evidence in Adams County,

and the only eyewitness lives in a county in Missouri adjacent to Adams County. Moreover, a

view of the incident site may be required (plaintiff does not argue the site has substantially

changed or that a viewing would be inappropriate), which is relevant in considering the private

interest factors. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 449; Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 178 (“This convenience

- 12 - factor is not concerned with the necessity of viewing the site of the injury, but rather is concerned

with the possibility of viewing the site, if appropriate.” (Emphases in original.)). Indeed, the only

evidence “located” in Sangamon County is testimonial—the testimony from decedent’s treating

physicians. Beyond the testimony from fact witnesses located in Adams County, there is

physical evidence located in Adams County. Although plaintiff anticipates critical testimony

from two ADM employees located in Decatur, there are many more key witnesses located in

¶ 39 Finally, both parties have counsel located in Adams County. Although this factor

carries minimal weight, it is relevant. Therefore, we note counsel for the parties would also be

inconvenienced by travel from Adams County to Sangamon County. Schuster v. Richards, 2018

IL App (1st) 171558, ¶ 35, n.3, 103 N.E.3d 545. While not dispositive, this factor is an

appropriate consideration in the overall balancing test required by a forum non conveniens

analysis.

¶ 40 D. Public Interest Factors

¶ 41 Plaintiff argues the public interest factors weigh in favor of Sangamon County

remaining the forum for the litigation. Specifically, plaintiff asserts the controversy is “local” to

Sangamon County because decedent received most of his medical care in Sangamon County and

the Sangamon County courts are not more congested than those of Adams County. ADM asserts

the public interest factors support the trial court’s decision to grant to motion to transfer the

litigation to Adams County. “Public interest factors include (1) the interest in deciding

controversies locally; (2) the unfairness of imposing trial expense and the burden of jury duty on

residents of a forum that has little connection to the litigation; and (3) the administrative

- 13 - difficulties presented by adding litigation to already congested court dockets.” Langenhorst, 219

Ill. 2d at 443-44.

¶ 42 As to the public interest factor considering deciding controversies locally, we note

the circumstances of this case primarily occurred in Adams County. Although decedent received

extensive medical care in Springfield, the underlying incident and injury occurred in Adams

County. The record shows decedent was known in the community and ADM has litigated

previous lawsuits in Adams County. The fire occurred in Adams County, the Quincy Fire

Department responded to the scene, and decedent received his initial medical care in Adams

County. We note the trial court stated it found this factor the most persuasive.

¶ 43 Although plaintiff asserts this matter is local to Sangamon County due to

decedent’s medical care, we disagree. The heart of this controversy is ADM’s alleged

negligence in Adams County. Decedent received his initial medical care in Adams County, and

the mere fact that ADM conducts business in Sangamon County does not mean Sangamon

County has a significant interest in this specific litigation. As discussed, the incident occurred in

Adams County and involved a resident of Adams County. Therefore, Adams County has a

significant interest in this case, and it would not be unfair to burden Adams County residents

with jury duty in this matter. Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 183.

¶ 44 Finally, court congestion favors transfer to Adams County. Schuster, 2018 IL

App (1st) 171558, ¶ 42. Plaintiff argues only 16 new cases with a jury demand seeking more

than $50,000 in damages were filed in Sangamon County in 2017. However, as ADM points

out, Sangamon County had 666 such cases pending at the end of 2017, while Adams County had

only 182 such cases pending at the end of 2017. It was appropriate for the trial court to consider

- 14 - court congestion as a factor in favor of transferring this case to Adams County, and it was not

unreasonable to conclude that court congestion favored transfer.

¶ 45 Considering all the relevant private and public interest factors, we cannot say the

trial court’s decision to grant transfer of venue was unreasonable. We conclude the trial court

did not abuse its discretion in transferring this case to Adams County, the county where plaintiff

resides, and where the incident occurred. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

¶ 46 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 47 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 48 Affirmed.

- 15 -