Ramsey v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY CO.

77 N.W.2d 176, 247 Minn. 217, 1956 Minn. LEXIS 568

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota
• Decided: May 4, 1956
• Docket: 36,684
• Status: Published

Opinions

Frank T. Gallagher, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered May 9, 1955, by the District Court of Mower County.

The principal question for our determination is whether the trial court erred in its application of the law of forum non conveniens.

The action was brought by the plaintiff, a citizen and resident of Iowa, against the employer under the Federal Employer's’ Liability Act to recover damages for personal injury alleged to have been sustained because of defendant’s negligence. It was undisputed that the accident occurred in the defendant’s yard in Fort Dodge, Iowa.

The defendant moved for a dismissal of the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens and that to permit the trial of the matter in Mower County would be an undue burden on the taxpayers and the court of that county and would constitute an unreasonable and unnecessary burden on interstate commerce. In support of its motion, defendant filed affidavits to the effect that Fort Dodge is 112.2 miles by rail from Austin; that plaintiff is a resident of Clarion, Iowa; that the defense of the action would require attendance in court of 11 persons as witnesses from the vicinity of Clarion and Fort Dodge; that the Mower County District Court had no power to issue subpoenas to bring in medical testimony; that the trial would consume six or seven days; and that the expense of a trial in Minnesota would be $1,500 to $2,000 more than if the case were tried in Iowa.

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff filed affidavits showing in substance that the residence of the plaintiff and the entire train crew at the time of the accident was 84 miles from Austin; that all of the witnesses to the accident were in the employ of the defendant and under its control; that regardless of the place of trial it would be likely that all of defendant’s witnesses would lose some time; that the hospital records would be available at the time of the trial, by stipulation; that plaintiff was treated by only one doctor not a railroad doctor; and that such medical testimony of the railroad company doctors will be available at the time of the trial.

In Johnson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 243 Minn. 58, 66 N. W. (2d) 763, this court stated that, as long as we treat citizens of our own state who are nonresidents on the same basis as we treat noncitizens who are nonresidents, the Federal Constitution or decision law does not bar our adoption of the forum non conveniens rule in declining jurisdiction over transitory causes of action. We further said that there is nothing in our state constitution which prevents the application of the forum non conveniens rule. This court also said there that the reasons for rejecting the doctrine of forum non conveniens in Boright v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 180 Minn. 52, 230 N. W. 457, no longer exist and that the Boright case and others of like import in which the forum non conveniens rule had heretofore been rejected were expressly overruled.

We held in the Johnson case that the district courts of this state may fairly exercise their discretion in declining to accept jurisdiction of transitory causes of action brought here by citizens and non-citizens of this state who are nonresidents when it fairly appears that it would be more equitable that the cause of action be tried in some other available court of competent jurisdiction. However, in the closing paragraph of the Johnson case we also said that, if the trial courts abused their discretion in border-state cases, relief would undoubtedly be available upon petition to this court.

It is our opinion that under that paragraph relief can be granted in this court in border-state cases if there is what we might consider an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in refusing to consider a case. If we are ever going to grant such relief to a plaintiff from a border state so as to permit trial in Minnesota, it is our further opinion that the fact situation in the instant case justifies it. Here the plaintiff employee lives only 84 miles by rail or 99 miles by highway from Austin. The accident happened at Fort Dodge, 112.2 miles by rail and 142 miles by highway from Austin. Clearly it cannot be said in this day and age with the quick methods of transportation by car that merely because of a state line anyone would be particularly inconvenienced in going that distance any more than it could be said that it would be impractical to try the case in Austin if the plaintiff lived or the accident occurred an equal distance from that city within the State of Minnesota. If we say under the facts of this case that no relief is available to an employee who seeks to try his case in Minnesota, it is difficult to visualize any situation which would permit relief under the last paragraph of the Johnson case, and its language would then be meaningless.

For the reasons above stated we believe that the plaintiff should have been permitted, under the facts and circumstances of the instant case, to have it tried in Austin at a time convenient to the District Court of Mower County.

Reversed.