2013 IL App (1st) 130033
SECOND DIVISION October 15, 2013
No. 1-13-0033
JACK TAYLOR, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County ) v. ) ) LEMANS CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation,) No. 2012 L 6987 MOOSE RACING, a Foreign Corporation, ) PARTS UNLIMITED, a Foreign Corporation, and ) GIBBS MOTOR CORPORATION, an Illinois ) Corporation, ) The Honorable ) Moira S. Johnson, Defendants-Appellants. ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Quinn and Justice Simon concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Defendants Lemans Corporation, Moose Racing, Parts Unlimited, and Gibbs Motor
Corporation (collectively defendants) appeal from the order of the circuit court denying their motion
to transfer plaintiff Jack Taylor's product liability complaint to another county on the grounds of
forum non conveniens. On appeal, defendants contend the trial court erred in denying their motion
to transfer where (1) it gave undue deference to Taylor's choice of forum; and (2) it incorrectly
required defendants to show that each factor considered in the balancing test used to determine forum
non conveniens strongly favored a transfer. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. No. 1-13-0033
¶2 JURISDICTION
¶3 The trial court's denial of a motion to transfer pursuant to the doctrine of forum non
conveniens is the basis for an interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2) (eff.
Feb. 16, 2011). The trial court denied the motion to transfer on December 7, 2012. Defendants filed
their petition for leave to appeal on January 4, 2013. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction
pursuant to Rule 306(a)(2) and 306(c)(1) governing interlocutory appeals by permission. Ill. S. Ct.
R. 306(a)(2), (c)(1) (eff. Feb. 16, 2011).
¶4 BACKGROUND
¶5 Taylor is a resident of Lewiston, Illinois, in Fulton County. He owned a motocross-style bike
that he purchased in Iowa. On July 9, 2009, in East Peoria, Illinois, he purchased an aluminum rim
tire with compliant spokes for the bike. On July 11, 2010, Taylor took his bike to the Sunset Ridge
MX MotoCross course (Sunset Ridge) located in Walton, Illinois, in Bureau County. While riding
the bike, Taylor performed a jump and upon landing the front tire blew out causing him to fall and
suffer an injury. Taylor was taken to a nearby hospital in Princeton, Illinois, in Bureau County, for
immediate treatment but the majority of his treatment and care took place in Peoria, Illinois, in
Peoria County, with Dr. Piero Capecci of Great Plains Orthopedic. The bike is now located in
DuPage County, Illinois.
¶6 Nick Spierowki of Farmington, Illinois, and Evan Palmer of Lewiston, Illinois, witnessed the
accident. Both cities are located in Fulton County. Josh Pistal of Walnut, Illinois, also witnessed
the accident. Walnut is located in Bureau County. Taylor's treating physician immediately after the
accident was Dr. Gregg Davis, who practiced at Perry Memorial Hospital in Princeton, Illinois.
2 No. 1-13-0033
Princeton is also located in Bureau County.
¶7 On June 21, 2012, Taylor filed a defective product complaint in Cook County against
defendants alleging strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranties. Defendants Lemans
Corporation, Moose Racing, and Parts Unlimited are Wisconsin corporations with their principal
place of business in Janesville, Wisconsin. Defendant Gibbs Motor Corporation is an Illinois
corporation with its principal place of business in Rock Falls, Whiteside County, Illinois.
¶8 Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 187 (Ill.
S. Ct. R. 187 (eff. Jan. 4, 2013)), on the basis of forum non conveniens. The motion requested a
transfer to Bureau County, Illinois. Defendants argued that Bureau County was a more appropriate
forum because the accident occurred there and an inspection of the premises would be easier if the
case was tried in that County. Also, Taylor was treated by medical personnel and taken to a hospital
in Princeton, the Bureau County seat. The expected medical witnesses reside in either Bureau or
Peoria Counties. Bureau County is also more convenient for the eyewitnesses, all of whom reside
in either Fulton or Bureau County. Furthermore, the residents of Bureau County have a greater
interest in, and should bear the costs and responsibilities of, a trial involving an accident that
occurred on a motorbike course located in Bureau County. In addition, defendants argued that
Bureau County's court docket is substantially less congested than Cook County's docket.
¶9 In response, Taylor argued that Cook County was more convenient for defendants and all
parties had retained counsel from Cook County. Although Bureau County is a more convenient
location for the medical witnesses, access to the medical evidence was easily available regardless
of the location of the evidence. Taylor also argued that the site of the accident holds less significance
3 No. 1-13-0033
in this case because he is alleging product liability and breach of warranty claims, making a site visit
to the motorbike course unnecessary. Furthermore, the accident took place in 2010 and "it is highly
unlikely that the dirt course at Sunset Ridge MX is in the same condition [now] as it was at the time
of the accident." Moreover, since he is alleging product liability and breach of warranty, placing the
burden and costs of a trial on Cook County residents was fair since they have a general interest in
resolving a claim involving an allegedly defective product that can be purchased in at least 18
locations throughout Cook County. Taylor also argued that court congestion "is a relatively
insignificant factor" and the record does not show that Bureau County would resolve the case more
quickly than Cook County.
¶ 10 On December 7, 2012, the trial court denied the motion. The trial court issued a thorough
10-page order in which it acknowledged that deference is given to the plaintiff's choice of forum and
therefore if defendants seek a transfer pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, they must
show that relevant private and public interest factors strongly favor their choice of forum.
¶ 11 In evaluating the private interest factors, the trial court noted that Cook County is not Taylor's
place of residence, nor is it the location of the accident. It determined that although Taylor's choice
of forum will be given less deference as a result, the court will still accord deference to his choice.
The trial court also determined that defendants failed to show that Taylor's chosen forum is
inconvenient to defendants and another forum is more convenient to all parties. None of the parties
are located in defendants' chosen County of Bureau whereas the Wisconsin defendants are
approximately the same distance from Cook County (110 miles) as from Bureau County (113 miles).
Defendant Gibbs, however, is located only 56.6 miles from the Bureau County courthouse but almost
4 No. 1-13-0033
132 miles from the Richard J. Daley Center in Cook County. The witnesses are scattered among
various counties, and defendants did not present affidavits from any witnesses stating that Taylor's
chosen forum is inconvenient. The court also noted that Taylor's bike is stored in DuPage County,
which is next to Cook County. The trial court also found that since the claim is one of product
liability and breach of warranties, a site visit was unnecessary and therefore the location of the
accident site held less significance.
¶ 12 The trial court then analyzed the public interest factors. It found that the interest in deciding
a controversy locally and the imposition of the expenses of trial did not "weigh strongly in favor of
a transfer." Although the accident occurred in Bureau County, the trial court reasoned that Taylor's
complaint is one of product liability and "the site of an accident caused by the allegedly defective
product is less important because any local interest is largely supplanted by a more general interest
in resolving a claim concerning an allegedly defective product and jury views of the accident site are
generally unnecessary." The trial court also noted that Moose Racing and Parts Unlimited had "many
dealer locations within Cook County" and no dealer locations in Bureau County, although it
acknowledged that where defendants merely conduct business does not necessarily affect the forum
non conveniens issue. The trial court found that the court docket in each county also did not justify
a transfer. In 2011, for cases with verdicts over $50,000, Cook County received 426 cases that took
35.1 months to reach a verdict. In comparison, Bureau County received only one case but it took
20.7 months to reach a verdict. Since the factors, as a whole, did not strongly favor a transfer, the
trial court determined that Taylor's choice of forum would prevail and denied defendants' motion to
transfer. Defendants filed this timely appeal.
5 No. 1-13-0033
¶ 13 ANALYSIS
¶ 14 Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine founded in considerations of fundamental
fairness that allows a trial court to decline jurisdiction when another forum " 'would better serve the
ends of justice.' " Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430, 441 (2006) (quoting
Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306, 310 (1991)). The trial court, however, should exercise its
authority "only in exceptional circumstances when the interests of justice require a trial in a more
convenient forum." (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 442. Furthermore, the doctrine recognizes that the
plaintiff has a substantial interest in choosing a forum to vindicate his rights. First American Bank
v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511, 517 (2002). The trial court has broad discretion to determine a motion
based on forum non conveniens and a reviewing court will not overturn the trial court's determination
absent an abuse of discretion. Lagenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 442. The trial court abuses its discretion
when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Dawdy v. Union Pacific
R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 177 (2003).
¶ 15 When a defendant challenges plaintiff's choice of forum, the trial court conducts an unequal
balancing test to determine whether plaintiff's chosen forum prevails. Due to the deference accorded
plaintiff's choice of forum, in most cases his choice will prevail unless inconvenience factors
associated with the chosen forum "greatly outweigh" plaintiff's substantial right to choose where to
try his case. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 520. The trial court considers both private and public interest
factors in making its determination. "[P]rivate interest factors include (1) the convenience of the
parties; (2) the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real evidence; (3)
all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive." Id. at 516.
6 No. 1-13-0033
"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.
¶ 16 In conducting its analysis, the trial court does not emphasize any single factor nor does it
weigh the private interest factors against the public interest factors; rather, it evaluates the total
circumstances of the case. Id. The defendant bears the burden of showing that the relevant private
and public interest factors "strongly favor" defendant's choice of forum. Id. at 444. In other words,
the defendant must show that plaintiff's chosen forum is inconvenient to defendant and that another
forum is convenient to both parties. Id. at 444. The defendant, however, cannot argue that plaintiff's
chosen forum is inconvenient to plaintiff. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 518. "Unless the factors weigh
strongly in favor of transfer, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed." Dawdy, 207
Ill. 2d at 173.
¶ 17 Before addressing the merits of this appeal, we note that defendants did not provide
transcripts of the hearing on their motion to transfer or an appropriate alternative pursuant to Illinois
Supreme Court Rule 323 (eff. Dec. 13, 2005). As the appellant, defendants bear the burden of
presenting a sufficiently complete record of the proceedings below to support their claims of error.
Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391 (1984). Therefore, we presume that the trial court had
sufficient factual basis for its holding and its determination conforms with the law. Corral v. Mervis
Industries, Inc., 217 Ill. 2d 144, 157 (2005). Furthermore, we resolve any doubt associated with the
incomplete record against defendants. Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 392.
7 No. 1-13-0033
¶ 18 Defendants generally complain that in making its determination, the trial court "accorded
substantially more than the minimal deference" it should have given to Taylor's forum choice.
Although Taylor's decision to file in Cook County is given less deference because he is neither a
resident of Cook County nor did the accident occur in Cook County, the deference accorded is only
less as opposed to none. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 518. The test used to resolve forum non conveniens
issues is an unequal balancing test whereby the plaintiff's choice of forum is "already in the lead" and
intrastate transfer is proper only when the case has no practical connection to, or no nexus with, the
chosen forum. Id. at 521. In its order the trial court stated that it would grant less deference to
Taylor's choice, but that his choice only commanded less deference as opposed to none. In reviewing
the basis for its ruling in the order, we cannot say that the trial court accorded undue deference to
Taylor's forum choice when it applied the unequal balancing test. Therefore, we turn to the issue of
whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants' motion to transfer.
¶ 19 The trial court first considered the private interest factors. Regarding the convenience of the
parties, none of the parties reside in Cook County or Bureau County, the defendants' chosen forum.
Also, the distance of each county's courthouse is approximately the same for the Janesville,
Wisconsin, defendants although the trial court acknowledged that defendant "Gibbs Motor
Corporation is located only 56.6 miles from the Bureau County Courthouse but nearly 132 miles
from the Richard J. Daley Center." However, defendants did not obtain an affidavit from Gibbs
stating that Cook County would be inconvenient.
¶ 20 Regarding the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real
evidence, the medical witnesses are located in Peoria and Bureau Counties, and the occurrence
8 No. 1-13-0033
witnesses reside in Fulton and Bureau Counties. None of the witnesses reside in Cook County.
However, defendants did not obtain affidavits from any witnesses stating that Cook County would
be inconvenient. Ammerman v. Raymond Corp., 379 Ill. App. 3d 878, 890 (2008). Defendants must
show that Taylor's chosen forum is inconvenient to them and that another forum is more convenient
to all parties. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 518. Furthermore, where witnesses are scattered among various
counties and the litigation has ties to more than one forum, the trial court does not abuse its
discretion in denying a motion to transfer based on forum non conveniens. Ammerman, 379 Ill. App.
at 885.
¶ 21 In addition, defendants here have not argued any practical problems or impediments to
accessing documentary or testimonial evidence. Witness testimony could be obtained through
deposition, and computer technology and Internet access render the location of documentary
evidence a less significant convenience consideration. Ammerman, 379 Ill. App. 3d at 890.
Furthermore, the parties have retained counsel based in Cook County. Although the location of the
attorneys carries little weight in the analysis, "it may nonetheless be considered." Id. at 890-91. Also
relevant but not determinative in itself, Taylor's bike is located in DuPage County, which is adjacent
to Cook County. Defendants have not shown that the private interest factors strongly favor a transfer
to Bureau County.
¶ 22 Public interest factors to consider include the interest in deciding controversies locally, and
the unfairness of imposing trial expense and the burden of jury duty on residents of a forum that has
little connection to the litigation. Residents generally have a greater interest in deciding
controversies involving accidents that occur in their county. Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 183. Also, the
9 No. 1-13-0033
possibility that the trial court may find a jury visit to the site of the accident appropriate is an
important consideration. Id. at 178-79. As the location of the accident, Bureau County appears to
prevail when we look at these factors.
¶ 23 However, we must note that Taylor's complaint against defendants centers on product liability
claims including negligence in the manufacture and design of a product, failure to warn consumers
of the faulty product, strict liability, and breach of implied warranties. Where the primary issue is
one of product liability, the location of the accident is less significant "because any local interest is
largely supplanted by a more general interest in resolving a claim concerning an allegedly defective
product." Ammerman, 379 Ill. App. 3d at 886. Also, since a jury visit to the accident site is
generally unnecessary, the significance of this factor is diminished in product liability claims.
Hinshaw v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 319 Ill. App. 3d 269, 277 (2001). See also Brown v. Cottrell,
Inc., 374 Ill. App. 3d 525, 534 (2007) (finding that a jury view of the accident site was unnecessary
because product liability claims "are not inherently local in flavor"). Although not determinative by
itself, the fact that defendant Moose Racing has 18 dealers and Parts Unlimited has 12 dealers
located in Cook County, and no dealer locations in Bureau County, is relevant. As this court
reasoned in Ammerman, "Cook County certainly has an interest in resolving a controversy
concerning the sale of an allegedly defective product by companies conducting business in its
forum." Ammerman, 379 Ill. App. 3d at 892; Hinshaw, 319 Ill. App. 3d at 278.
¶ 24 The final public interest factor to consider is court congestion. The number of cases on the
court docket in Cook County is obviously greater than that of Bureau County, but not necessarily
congested. However, this factor alone "is not sufficient to justify transfer of venue when none of the
10 No. 1-13-0033
other relevant factors weigh strongly in favor of transfer." Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 181.
¶ 25 Balancing the private and public interest factors and evaluating the totality of the
circumstances, the trial court concluded that defendants have not sufficiently shown that Cook
County is inconvenient to them and that Bureau County is more convenient to all parties. We find
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion to transfer venue.
¶ 26 Defendants disagree, arguing first that the trial court erred in applying the unequal balancing
test when it required defendants to prove that each relevant private and public interest factor strongly
weighs in their favor. As support, defendants point to the trial court's order in which it stated that
defendants "failed to meet their burden in showing this factor strongly favors" transfer, and "failed
to show that the first two [public] factors strongly weigh in favor of transfer to Bureau County." In
reviewing the order, however, it appears that the trial court was merely evaluating the strength of
each factor and whether a particular factor weighed strongly in favor of transfer. There is no
indication the trial court improperly weighed the factors in conducting its final analysis. Instead,
throughout its order, it emphasized that it must "evaluate the totality of the circumstances in
determining whether the balance of factors strongly favors transfer." We again note that defendants
did not include transcripts of the hearing on their motion to transfer or an appropriate alternative.
We therefore presume that the trial court had sufficient factual basis for its holding and its
determination conforms with the law. Mervis Industries, 217 Ill. 2d at 157. We also resolve any
doubt associated with the incomplete record against defendants. Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 392.
¶ 27 Defendants contend that the trial court should have given more weight to the fact that the
accident occurred in Bureau County and numerous witnesses reside nearer to Bureau County while
11 No. 1-13-0033
none reside in Cook County, Taylor's medical care took place in or near Bureau County, and
defendant Gibbs Motor Corporation resides closer to Bureau County than to Cook County. The trial
court has broad discretion in determining a motion to transfer based on forum non conveniens, and
it is not the function of a reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.
Ferguson v. Bill Berger Associates, Inc., 302 Ill. App. 3d 61, 70 (1998). Our only function is to
determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. Id. As stated above, defendants have not
obtained any affidavits from witnesses stating that Cook County would be an inconvenient forum.
See Ammerman, 379 Ill. App. 3d at 890. Location of documents associated with medical witnesses
is less significant due to the technology available today. Id. Also, the underlying action is centered
on a product liability claim and all of the defendants except for Gibbs Motor Corporation have a
presence in Cook County and sell their products there. The record contains no affidavit from Gibbs
Motor Corporation stating that Cook County would be inconvenient. The trial court did not abuse
its discretion in finding that the balance of relevant factors, when viewing the totality of the
circumstances, does not strongly favor transfer of venue to Bureau County.
¶ 28 Defendants also argue that although Taylor's claim frames this case as one of product
liability, making the necessity of viewing the site of the accident less of a concern, the jury viewing
factor will have more significance here. Defendants contend that they plan to file affirmative
defenses and a third-party complaint alleging that the dangers of the Sunset Ridge course itself
caused Taylor's injuries. At this point, however, defendants have not filed any pleadings adding
Sunset Ridge as a defendant. Also, as Taylor points out, defendants have raised this issue for the
first time on appeal. Issues not raised before the trial court may not be raised for the first time on
12 No. 1-13-0033
appeal, and are deemed waived by a reviewing court. Haudrich v. Howmedica, Inc., 169 Ill. 2d 525,
536 (1996).
¶ 29 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
¶ 30 Affirmed.