JOSIP RADELJAK V DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
Opinion
Chief Justice:
Justices:
Clifford W. Taylor
Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
FILED JULY 19, 2006
JOSIP RADELJAK, Individually, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of ENA BEGOVIC,
Deceased, and as Next Friend of LANA
RADELJAK; LEO RADELJAK; and TEREZA
BEGOVIC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v
No. 127679
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
PER CURIAM.
We granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Wayne Circuit Court
abused its discretion in dismissing this case on the basis of the doctrine of forum
non conveniens, where plaintiffs are residents and citizens of a foreign country
and the lawsuit alleges product liability arising from a motor vehicle accident that
occurred outside the United States. The Court of Appeals held that the circuit
court abused its discretion in dismissing the case because Wayne County is not a
“seriously inconvenient” forum. Because we conclude that the circuit court did
not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case, we reverse the judgment of the
Court of Appeals and reinstate the circuit court’s order dismissing the case.
I. Facts
Plaintiffs, who are residents and citizens of Croatia, were involved in a
motor vehicle accident in Croatia. It is alleged that the Jeep Grand Cherokee in
which they were seated somehow shifted from park into reverse and went off the
roadway and into a ravine. One of the passengers died and the driver and other
passengers were injured.
The vehicle was designed and manufactured in
Michigan. The vehicle was purchased in Italy and maintained and serviced in
Italy and Croatia.
Plaintiffs argue that the transmission, designed and
manufactured in Japan, spontaneously slipped. Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in the
Wayne Circuit Court.
Defendant moved for summary disposition on the basis of forum non
conveniens. The circuit court granted the motion. Plaintiffs appealed and the
Court of Appeals reversed.1 We granted defendant’s application for leave to
appeal and asked the parties to address:
(1) whether the public interest factors of the forum non
conveniens doctrine set forth in Cray v Gen Motors Corp, 389 Mich
382, 396 [207 NW2d 393] (1973), should be revised or modified;
and (2) whether, even if another more appropriate forum exists, a
Michigan court may not resist jurisdiction unless its own forum is
1
Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued December 14, 2004 (Docket No.
247781).
2
“seriously inconvenient.” See Robey v Ford Motor Co, 155 Mich
App 643, 645 (1986).[2]
II. Standard of Review
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to
dismiss a case on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens for an abuse of
discretion. Cray, supra at 397. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision
results in an outcome falling outside the principled range of outcomes. Herald Co
v Eastern Michigan Univ Bd of Regents, __ Mich __; __ NW2d __ (Docket No.
128263 decided July 19, 2006); Novi v Robert Adell Children’s Funded Trust, 473
Mich 242, 254; 701 NW2d 144 (2005).
III. Analysis
“Forum non conveniens” is defined as the “discretionary power of court to
decline jurisdiction when convenience of parties and ends of justice would be
better served if action were brought and tried in another forum.” Black’s Law
Dictionary (6th ed). The doctrine is not derived from statutes; rather, it is a
common-law doctrine created by courts.3
2
472 Mich 924 (2005).
3
The United States Supreme Court
Const 1963, art 3, § 7 provides:
The common law and the statute laws now in force, not
repugnant to this constitution, shall remain in force until they expire
by their own limitations, or are changed, amended or repealed.
As noted in Placek v Sterling Hts, 405 Mich 638, 656-657, 275 NW2d 511
(1979), this Court may change the common law through its decisions.
3
adopted the forum non conveniens doctrine in 1947. Gulf Oil Corp v Gilbert, 330
US 501, 508-509; 67 S Ct 839; 91 L Ed 1055 (1947).4 This Court first recognized
this doctrine in 1973 in Cray. In Cray, supra at 395, we held that a court may
refuse to hear a case on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens even
though it otherwise may have jurisdiction.
“The principle of forum non
conveniens establishes the right of a court to resist imposition upon its jurisdiction
although such jurisdiction could properly be invoked.” Id. The application of
forum non conveniens “lie[s] within the discretion of the trial judge.” Id. A
plaintiff's selection of a forum is ordinarily accorded deference. Anderson v Great
Lakes Dredge & Dock Co, 411 Mich 619, 628-629; 309 NW2d 539 (1981).
Although “a court can and must consider the residence of the parties in deciding
whether to decline jurisdiction[,] . . . a party’s Michigan residence does not
automatically render the doctrine of forum non conveniens inapplicable.” Russell
v Chrysler Corp, 443 Mich 617, 624; 505 NW2d 263 (1993).5 “‘[T]he ultimate
inquiry is where trial will best serve the convenience of the parties [and the ends]
of justice.’” Cray, supra at 391, quoting Koster v (American) Lumbermens Mut
4
Superseded by statute on other grounds, as explained in American
Dredging Co v Miller, 510 US 443, 449 n 2; 114 S Ct 981; 127 L Ed 2d 285
(1994).
5
“[The place] of corporate domicile . . . might be entitled to little
consideration under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which resists
formalization and looks to the realities that make for doing justice.” Koster v
(American) Lumbermens Mut Cas Co, 330 US 518, 528; 67 S Ct 828; 91 L Ed
1067 (1947).
4
Cas Co, 330 US 518, 527; 67 S Ct 828; 91 L Ed 1067 (1947). In Cray we held
that the following factors should be considered in deciding a motion to dismiss on
the basis of forum non conveniens:
1. The private interest of the litigant.
a. Availability of compulsory process for attendance of
unwilling and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses;
b. Ease of access to sources of proof;
c. Distance from the situs of the accident or incident which
gave rise to the litigation;
d. Enforcibility [sic] of any judgment obtained;
e. Possible harassment of either party;
f. Other practical problems which contribute to the ease,
expense and expedition of the trial;
g. Possibility of viewing the premises.
2. Matters of public interest.
a. Administrative difficulties which may arise in an area
which may not be present in the area of origin;
b. Consideration of the state law which must govern the case;
c. People who are concerned by the proceeding.
3. Reasonable promptness in raising the plea of forum non
conveniens. [Cray, supra at 396.]
In the instant case, the trial court dismissed on the basis of forum non
conveniens. The trial court determined that Croatia was a more convenient forum
because this case involves a vehicular accident in Croatia in which Croatian
5
citizens and residents were injured, where Croatian law will likely have to be
applied, and the alleged cause of the accident was a transmission manufactured
and designed in Japan. This conclusion does not fall outside “the principled range
of outcomes,” Novi, supra at 254, and was therefore not an abuse of discretion.
A review of the Cray factors reveals why the trial court’s decision to
dismiss was within “the principled range of outcomes.” Id. We begin by noting
that the requirement of reasonable promptness in bringing a plea of forum non
conveniens has indisputably been satisfied in this case, because defendant moved
for dismissal based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens in a timely manner.
With that procedural predicate addressed, we now turn to the private and public
interest factors that are in considerable dispute.
The first factor concerns the “private interest of the litigant.” Cray, supra
at 396. Subfactor 1(a) pertains to the “[a]vailability of compulsory process for
attendance of unwilling and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses.”
Id. It is undisputed that Michigan courts lack powers of compulsory process over
witnesses in Croatia.6 If trial were held in Michigan, defendant would be forced to
use “letters rogatory” in order to obtain testimony from any foreign witnesses who
6
As the United States Supreme Court has explained, “[T]o fix the place of
trial at a point where litigants cannot compel personal attendance [of witnesses]
and may be forced to try their cases on deposition, is to create a condition not
satisfactory to court, jury or most litigants.” Gulf Oil Corp, supra at 511.
6
could not voluntarily travel to Michigan for trial.7 The use of letters rogatory is
acknowledged to be a very time consuming and cumbersome process.8 However,
this subfactor cuts the other way as well because it is also undisputed that Croatian
courts lack powers of compulsory process over witnesses in Michigan.
Further, even if all the witnesses are willing to travel in order to testify, the
cost of obtaining the attendance of these witnesses will be high regardless of
whether this case is tried in Croatia or in Michigan; obviously, if this case is tried
in Croatia, all the Michigan witnesses will have to travel to Croatia to testify and if
this case is tried in Michigan, all the Croatian witnesses will have to travel to
Michigan to testify. Therefore, subfactor 1(a) does not clearly favor one forum
over the other where the difficulties implicit in the travel arrangements would be
identical.
Subfactor 1(b) concerns the “[e]ase of access to sources of proof.” Cray,
supra at 396. The trial court concluded that, because the accident occurred in
Croatia, a Croatian court will have easier access to sources of proof and it will be
easier for defendant to obtain documents relating to the accident in Croatia.
7
See the United States Department of State website at
<http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_695.html> (accessed April 26,
2006).
8
Illusorio v Illusorio-Bildner, 103 F Supp 2d 672, 677 (SD NY, 2000);
United
States
Department
of
State
website
at
<http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial683.html> (accessed April 26,
2006).
7
Although all the documentary evidence pertaining to the choice of transmission
for the vehicle is in Michigan, it would be easier for plaintiffs to obtain these
Michigan documents if the trial were held in Croatia than it would be for
defendant to obtain the Croatian documents if trial were held in Michigan because
MCR 2.305 authorizes subpoenas for document production in connection with an
action pending in another country and we are aware of no similar Croatian
provision, nor have plaintiffs cited any. Therefore, subfactor 1(b) favors the
Croatian forum over the Michigan forum.
Subfactor 1(c) concerns the “[d]istance from the situs of the accident or
incident which gave rise to the litigation.” Cray, supra at 396. Michigan is a
great distance from the situs of the accident, i.e., Croatia. However, plaintiffs
argue that this is not controlling because the specific incident that gave rise to this
litigation was defendant’s choice of transmission, which occurred in Michigan.
This subfactor does not favor one forum over the other.
Subfactor 1(d) concerns the “[e]nforcibility of any judgment obtained.”
Cray, supra at 396. It is uncontested that a judgment in this case would be
enforceable whether rendered by a Michigan court or a Croatian court. Therefore,
subfactor 1(d) does not favor one forum over the other.
8
Subfactor 1(e) concerns the “[p]ossible harassment of either party.” Id.
Neither party has argued harassment. Therefore, subfactor 1(e) does not favor one
forum over the other.9
Subfactor 1(f) concerns “[o]ther practical problems which contribute to the
ease, expense and expedition of the trial.” Id. If this case is tried in Michigan,
defendant will not be able to implead Croatian persons or entities that may be
responsible for plaintiffs’ injuries. As the United States Supreme Court has held,
“the problems posed by the inability to implead potential third-party defendants”
is “sufficient to support dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens.” Piper
Aircraft Co v Reyno, 454 US 235, 259; 102 S Ct 252; 70 L Ed 2d 419 (1981).
Therefore, subfactor 1(f) favors the Croatian forum over the Michigan forum.
9
Justice Kelly argues in her dissent that the harassment factor favors
Michigan as a forum. We disagree. Indeed, even after the Court of Appeals
concluded that this factor favored Michigan as a forum, plaintiffs state as follows
in their brief: “There is no cause for accusation of ‘harassment of either party’
herein.” (Plaintiff’s brief, p 15). Thus, with reference to this factor, Justice Kelly
is advancing an argument the plaintiffs do not even make.
Justice Kelly maintains, on the basis of statements by foreign witnesses that
they are willing to travel to Michigan to testify, that defendants would have less
trouble bringing reluctant Croatian witnesses to testify in Michigan than plaintiffs
would have in bringing reluctant defense witnesses to Croatia. This belief,
however, is merely speculative and without force. In weighing this factor, a trial
court could not rely on the purported intention of foreign witnesses because, as
Justice Kelly concedes, a trial court in Michigan cannot compel foreign witnesses
to appear. Therefore, Justice Kelly is incorrect that this subfactor favors Wayne
County as the proper forum.
9
Subfactor 1(g) concerns the “[p]ossibility of viewing the premises.” Cray,
supra at 396. If this case is tried in Michigan, it will not be possible for the trier of
fact to view the scene of the accident because the accident occurred in Croatia.
Therefore, subfactor 1(g) favors the Croatian forum over the Michigan forum.
In sum, three of the “private interest” subfactors favor the Croatian forum
over the Michigan forum, and four of these subfactors do not favor one forum over
the other. None of the “private interest” subfactors favors the Michigan forum
over the Croatian forum. Therefore, “[t]he private interest[s] of the litigant,”
Cray, supra at 396, favor the Croatian forum over the Michigan forum.
The second broad Cray factor pertains to “[m]atters of public interest.” Id.
Subfactor 2(a) concerns “[a]dministrative difficulties which may arise in an area
which may not be present in the area of origin.” Id. As the United States Supreme
Court has explained, “[a]dministrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation
is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin.” Gilbert,
supra at 508. If every automotive design defect case against Michigan-based
automobile manufacturers must be heard in Wayne County if a foreign plaintiff so
desires, there will certainly be increased congestion in an already congested local
court system. It can hardly be argued that Croatia would face increased court
congestion. Unlike Michigan, Croatia is not a recognized center for automotive
design, engineering, and manufacturing, or to our knowledge, a center for
litigation concerning automotive design defects.
Therefore, subfactor 2(a)
generally favors the Croatian forum over the Michigan forum.
10
Subfactor 2(b) concerns “[c]onsideration of the state law which must
govern the case.” Cray, supra at 396. If this case is tried in Wayne County, the
Wayne Circuit Court will most likely have to apply Croatian law. In order to
determine whose laws apply, courts look to see which jurisdiction has a greater
interest in the case. Sutherland v Kennington Truck Service, Ltd, 454 Mich 274,
286; 562 NW2d 466 (1997). Croatia appears to have a greater interest in this case
than does Michigan because it involves residents and citizens of Croatia who were
injured in an accident in Croatia. Therefore, Croatian law would most likely apply
in this case. See Farrell v Ford Motor Co, 199 Mich App 81; 501 NW2d 567
(1993) (holding that North Carolina law applies in a defective automobile action
involving a North Carolina resident, a North Carolina accident, and a vehicle
purchased in North Carolina). As the United States Supreme Court has explained,
“[t]here is an appropriateness . . . in having the trial . . . in a forum that is at home
with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some
other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.”
Gilbert, supra at 509.
dismissal.”
Accordingly, “the need to apply foreign law favors
Piper, supra at 260 n 29.
Therefore, subfactor 2(b) favors the
Croatian forum over the Michigan forum.
Subfactor 2(c) concerns “[p]eople who are concerned by the proceeding.”
Cray, supra at 396. The people of Croatia obviously are concerned by this
proceeding given that several Croatian citizens and residents were injured and one
was killed in an accident that occurred in that country. As the United States
11
Supreme Court has explained, “[t]here is a local interest in having localized
controversies decided at home.”
Gilbert, supra at 509.
The “localized
controversy” involved in this case concerns whether defendant is liable for injuries
suffered by Croatian citizens and residents in Croatia. Croatia obviously has a
considerable “local interest” in determining the redress available to its citizens and
residents who are injured in Croatia. That is, Croatia has a “local interest” in
having this “localized controversy” decided by its own rules and procedures. On
the other hand, there is no denying that Michigan citizens have an interest in
product liability lawsuits filed against Michigan manufacturers. On the whole,
however, for the reasons we discussed concerning subfactor 2(b), we conclude that
Croatia’s interest is greater than Michigan’s interest. Therefore, subfactor 2(c)
favors a Croatian forum.
In sum, the three Cray “public interest” subfactors favor the Croatian
forum over the Michigan forum. None of them favors a Michigan forum. Thus,
the “[m]atters of public interest,” Cray, supra at 396, favor the Croation forum
over the Michigan forum. Therefore, an analysis of both the “private interest” and
“public interest” factors of Cray demonstrates that the trial court’s decision that
Croatia is the most appropriate forum for this case was within the principled range
of outcomes.
In Cray, this Court held that the factors listed in its 1973 opinion were not
the only factors that could ever be considered. Id. at 395. As we explained,
“‘[w]isely it has not been attempted to catalogue the circumstances which will
12
justify or require either grant or denial of remedy’”; rather, “‘[t]he doctrine leaves
much to the discretion of the court to which the plaintiff resorts . . . .’” Cray,
supra at 395, quoting Gilbert, supra at 508. In response to our invitation to brief
whether the Cray public interest factors should be revised or modified, defendant
argues that we should explicitly follow the United States Supreme Court’s lead
from Piper, supra at 257, in stating that a foreign plaintiff’s choice of forum in
entitled to “less deference” than would apply to a domestic plaintiff.
In Piper the United States Supreme Court expressed its concern regarding
allowing foreign plaintiffs to sue American businesses and manufacturers in
America on the basis that American law is more favorable to plaintiffs as a class
than is foreign law. Piper, supra at 252. The Court explained, “American courts,
which are already extremely attractive to foreign plaintiffs, would become even
more attractive [if dismissal was barred whenever the law in the alternative forum
were less favorable to the plaintiff].[10] The flow of litigation into the United
10
The United States Supreme Court explained that the following factors
make the United States “extremely attractive to foreign plaintiffs”:
First, all but 6 of the 50 American States—Delaware,
Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wyoming—
offer strict liability. 1 CCH Prod. Liability Rep. § 4016 (1981).
Rules roughly equivalent to American strict liability are effective in
France, Belgium, and Luxembourg. West Germany and Japan have
a strict liability statute for pharmaceuticals. However, strict liability
remains primarily an American innovation. Second, the tort plaintiff
may choose, at least potentially, from among 50 jurisdictions if he
decides to file suit in the United States. Each of these jurisdictions
(continued…)
13
States would increase and further congest already crowded courts.” Id. As the
United States Supreme Court has held, “dismissal may be warranted where a
plaintiff chooses a particular forum, not because it is convenient, but solely in
order to . . . take advantage of favorable law.” Piper, supra at 249 n 15.
In Piper, supra at 256, the United States Supreme Court held that in
contrast to the presumption in favor of a domestic plaintiff's forum choice, “a
foreign plaintiff’s choice [of forum] deserves less deference.” Id. at 256. This
makes sense because, as the United States Supreme Court explained, when a
plaintiff chooses to bring a lawsuit in another country thousands of miles away
from home and where the underlying accident occurred, there is no basis to
presume that this faraway forum will be more convenient to the parties and to the
court, and, thus, there is no basis to defer to the plaintiff’s choice in forum. Id.
Thus, we modify our statement in Anderson, supra, that a plaintiff's selection of a
(…continued)
applies its own set of malleable choice-of-law rules. Third, jury
trials are almost always available in the United States, while they are
never provided in civil law jurisdictions. G. Gloss, Comparative
Law 12 (1979); J. Merryman, The Civil Law Tradition 121 (1969).
Even in the United Kingdom, most civil actions are not tried before a
jury. 1 G. Keeton, The United Kingdom: The Development of its
Laws and Constitutions 309 (1955). Fourth, unlike most foreign
jurisdictions, American courts allow contingent attorney’s fees, and
do not tax losing parties with their opponents’ attorney’s fees. R.
Schlesinger, Comparative Law: Cases, Text, Materials 275-277 (3d
ed. 1970); Orban, Product Liability: A Comparative Legal
Restatement—Foreign National Law and the EEC Directive, 8 Ga. J.
Int’l & Comp. L. 342, 393 (1978). Fifth, discovery is more
extensive in American than in foreign courts. Schlesinger, supra, at
307, 310, and n. 33. [Piper, supra at 252 n 18.]
14
forum is ordinarily accorded deference to indicate that a foreign plaintiff’s choice
of forum is entitled to less deference than that accorded to a domestic plaintiff’s
choice of forum.
In the instant case, plaintiffs are residents and citizens of Croatia who were
injured in an accident in Croatia and plaintiffs have chosen to file their lawsuit in
Michigan. Given that plaintiffs live in Croatia and that the underlying accident
occurred in Croatia, there is no basis to presume that plaintiffs chose to file this
lawsuit in Michigan out of convenience. Further, while there is no direct evidence
that the primary reason why plaintiffs chose to file this lawsuit in Michigan was to
take advantage of Michigan’s favorable laws and to avoid Croatia’s less favorable
laws, no other reasonable explanation has been presented. It is important to
consider the foreign jurisdiction’s interest in the case and the effect that a
Michigan court’s resolution of the case will have in that jurisdiction. In this case,
a Michigan court is being asked to apply Croatian law to Croatian plaintiffs in a
lawsuit pertaining to an accident that occurred in Croatia. Certainly, a Croatian
court would be better equipped at handling a matter of this sort than a Michigan
court. We find it appropriate, in light of the continuing globalization of our
economy, to follow Piper and indicate that a foreign plaintiff’s choice of venue is
entitled to less deference than a domestic plaintiff’s choice of venue.
Although a majority of the Cray private and public interest factors supports
the trial court’s decision that Croatia is the more appropriate forum to hear this
case, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion in so
15
concluding. More specifically, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court
abused its discretion in dismissing this action on the basis of the forum non
conveniens doctrine because Michigan is not a “seriously inconvenient” forum,
relying upon Robey v Ford Motor Co, 155 Mich App 643, 645; 400 NW2d 610
(1986).
In Robey, supra at 645, the Court of Appeals held that “the court . . . may
not decline jurisdiction unless its own forum is seriously inconvenient.” The
Court of Appeals in the instant case relied heavily on Robey’s “seriously
inconvenient” requirement, stating:
[T]he trial court did not make a finding that Wayne County
was a seriously inconvenient forum. Even if another more
appropriate forum exists, the court still may not resist jurisdiction
unless its own forum is seriously inconvenient. . . . Without a
determination that Wayne County is a seriously inconvenient forum,
the trial court could not resist jurisdiction. It therefore abused its
discretion in granting the dismissal. [Slip op at 2-3.]
The “seriously inconvenient” language appears traceable to the Restatement
Conflict of Laws, 2d, which was cited in footnote 2 of the Cray decision. 389
Mich 394 n 2. While this language from the Restatement was cited in a footnote
of Cray, this “seriously inconvenient” language was not part of the test adopted in
Cray and in subsequent forum non conveniens decisions from this Court we did
not cite or utilize a “seriously inconvenient” test. See, e.g., Anderson v Great
Lakes Dredge & Dock Co, supra, and Russell v Chrysler Corp, supra.
Indeed,
imposing a “seriously inconvenient” requirement is inconsistent with this Court’s
16
holding, in Cray, supra at 396, that it is “within the discretion of the trial judge to
decline jurisdiction in such cases as the convenience of the parties and the ends of
justice dictate.” Therefore, we reject the “seriously inconvenient” standard and
overrule Robey, supra, to the extent that it held that a court cannot decline
jurisdiction unless the exercise of such jurisdiction would be “seriously
inconvenient.”
Because there is no requirement that a trial court can only dismiss a case on
the basis of the forum non conveniens doctrine if the forum is “seriously
inconvenient,” the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the trial court abused
its discretion in dismissing this case on the basis of the forum non conveniens
doctrine without concluding that the forum is “seriously inconvenient.”
Finally, we note the similarities this case has with Piper, supra. In Piper,
the plaintiffs were residents of Scotland who were involved in an airplane crash in
Scotland.
The plaintiffs sued a company that manufactured the airplane in
Pennsylvania and a company that manufactured the airplane’s propellers in Ohio.
The suit was brought in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, but was transferred to the United States District Court for the Central
District of Pennsylvania.11 The federal district court dismissed the suit on the
basis of the forum non conveniens doctrine and the United States Court of Appeals
11
The action, which was originally filed in California, was transferred to
Pennsylvania because one of the defendants was not subject to personal
jurisdiction in California, but was subject to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania.
17
for the Third Circuit reversed.
The United States Supreme Court reversed,
concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
Scotland was the appropriate forum. Just as the district court in Piper, supra, did
not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action involving Scottish residents and a
Scottish accident on the basis of the forum non conveniens doctrine, the trial court
in this case did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this action involving Croatian
residents and a Croatian accident on the basis of the forum non conveniens
doctrine. “The burden on our courts and upon the defendant’s ability to prepare a
defense greatly outweighs the remote interest the plaintiff has shown in behalf of
conducting this trial in Michigan.” Anderson, supra at 631.
IV. Response to the Dissent
The dissent pays lip service to the abuse of discretion standard, but does not
apply it. There are ten subfactors to be considered in evaluating a motion to
dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. According to the dissent, five of
the seven private factors are a draw, i.e., do not favor one forum over the other,
and one favors Croatia as a forum and one favors Michigan. (But, as noted in
footnote 8, the one that Justice Kelly says favors Michigan is a conclusion that
even plaintiffs do not claim.) With reference to the public interest factors, the
dissent finds that two are a draw and one favors Michigan. Given that a foreign
plaintiff's choice of forum deserves less deference, even using Justice Kelly's
analysis of the Cray factors, one would be hard-pressed to conclude that a trial
18
court’s conclusion, whichever way it would have gone, was not within the
principled range of outcomes.
Justice Kelly asserts that the trial court abused its discretion, citing
language from Gulf Oil Corp, supra, to the effect that unless the balance is
strongly in favor of the defendant the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be
disturbed. 330 US 508.12 But, “‘the ultimate inquiry is where trial will best serve
the convenience of the parties and the end of justice.’” Cray, supra at 391
(citation omitted). The trial court’s conclusion that a Croatian forum will best
serve the convenience of the parties and the end of justice was not an abuse of
discretion.
V. Conclusion
Because we conclude that the Wayne Circuit Court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing this case on the basis of the forum non conveniens
doctrine, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the circuit
court’s order dismissing the case. We also take this opportunity to hold that a trial
12
As previously explained, the United States Supreme Court no longer follows
this rule with reference to foreign plaintiffs because it is inconsistent with Piper
Aircraft. Justice Kelly , however, does not agree with, nor would she follow Piper
Aircraft. Unlike Justice Kelly, we find the animating reasons undergirding Piper
Aircraft persuasive and certainly not xenophobic.
19
court should afford a foreign plaintiff’s choice of forum less deference than it
would accord a domestic plaintiff.
Clifford W. Taylor
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
20
STATE OF MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT
JOSIP RADELJAK, Individually, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of ENA BEGOVIC,
Deceased, and as Next Friend of LANA
RADELJAK; LEO RADELJAK; and TEREZA
BEGOVIC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
No. 127679
v
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
MARKMAN, J. (concurring).
I concur with the majority’s analysis and with its conclusion that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this case on the basis of the
doctrine of forum non conveniens. I write separately to identify additional “public
interest” factors that I believe have become increasingly important for courts to
consider in light of contemporary economic and legal realities in determining
whether a case should be dismissed on the basis of the doctrine of forum non
conveniens.1
1
These contemporary realities include the growth of multinational
corporations, the expanding realm of international free trade, and the increasing
attractiveness of American courts to plaintiffs. Because an increasing number of
(continued…)
The first of these additional factors is the extent to which it is appropriate
for the state of Michigan to enable a foreign plaintiff to avail himself of the more
favorable substantive law and procedural rules afforded by Michigan courts in
(…continued)
American companies are doing business, and an increasing number of American
products are being sold and used, throughout the world, an increasing number of
foreign citizens are being injured by, and bringing lawsuits against, these
companies. Such globalization is also reflected in the evolving nature of the legal
profession and the growing presence of American law firms throughout the world.
As one commentator has explained:
This century has seen the development of the large-scale
multinational corporation (“MNC”), an entity whose transactions
can span several continents and establish contacts with many
nations. The growth of these businesses, along with procedural
innovations in jurisdiction, has created an environment easily
exploited by forum shopping plaintiffs seeking to recover large
awards against MNCs.
Generous in personam jurisdiction
provisions often permit plaintiffs to sue defendant MNCs in several
different state or federal courts, thereby providing plaintiffs with a
broad choice of fora. This flexibility in choice of forum, coupled
with significant pro-plaintiff elements in U.S. courts, has made the
United States a particularly attractive forum for plaintiffs seeking to
recover against MNCs.
As forum shopping in the United States has become more
feasible and desirable, technological advances in transportation and
an increase in transnational activity have increased the potential
number of international suits that plaintiffs can bring in the United
States. The result has been a dramatic increase in the number of
international or foreign disputes brought in the United States against
MNCs. American courts have responded, through certain procedural
reforms and refinements, to the increase in forum shopping
involving foreign plaintiffs. The most notable of these is an
expansion of the old doctrine of forum non conveniens. [Comment,
The forum non conveniens doctrine and the judicial protection of
multinational corporations from forum shopping plaintiffs, 19 U Pa J
Int’l Econ L 141, 141-142 (1998).]
2
comparison with those of the plaintiff’s own jurisdiction. As one commentary has
explained:
American courts have become, in the words of the Supreme
Court, “extremely attractive”[2] to foreign plaintiffs because of the
availability of jury trials, liberal discovery rules,[3] malleable choiceof-law rules, contingency fees[4] and potentially large compensatory
and punitive damage awards.[5] [Dunham & Gladbach, Forum non
conveniens and foreign plaintiffs in the 1990s, 24 Brook J Int’l L
665, 666 (1999) (internal citation omitted).][6]
2
As Lord Denning, former Master of the Rolls (the senior civil judge in the
Court of Appeal of England and Wales), has said:
As a moth is drawn to the light, so is a litigant drawn to the
United States. If he can only get his case into their courts, he stands
to win a fortune. At no cost to himself, and at no risk of having to
pay anything to the other side. [Smith Kline & French Laboratories
Ltd v Block, 2 All ER 72, 74 (1983).]
3
“Sometimes, a plaintiff engaged in litigation in a civil-law country will go
so far as to institute a second action here, without intending to bring the case to
trial in our courts, but merely for the purpose of obtaining the advantage of
American-style discovery.”
Schlesinger, Comparative Law: Cases--Text-Materials, p 400 (4th ed, 1980).
4
“[F]or the indigent foreign plaintiff whose access to local courts is
impeded by prohibitive filing fees and the absence of any viable legal aid program,
representation on a contingency fee basis constitutes a genuine advantage,
sufficient in itself to direct the plaintiff toward the courts of the United States.”
Note, Foreign plaintiffs and forum non conveniens: Going beyond Reyno, 64 Tex
L R 193, 199 (1985).
5
“Outside the United States and Canada, recovery of punitive damages in
wrongful death cases is uncommon, if not unknown.” Note, Foreign plaintiffs and
forum non conveniens: Going beyond Reyno, 64 Tex L R 193, 203 (1985).
6
These commentators noted:
In the 1990s, foreign plaintiffs have commenced product
liability actions in the United States with increasing frequency.
(continued…)
3
(…continued)
Citizens of the United Kingdom have filed suit in New York against
American and British tampon manufacturers alleging that design
defects in the product caused toxic shock syndrome and resulted in
the death of a family member. Nurseries located in Jamaica and
Costa Rica have brought strict products liability claims in Florida
against the American manufacturers and sellers of a pesticide that
allegedly had damaged or destroyed their crops. An Irish citizen
brought suit in New York against several U.S. manufacturers
claiming that he contracted HIV [human immunodeficiency virus]
due to contaminated blood clotting products caused by defective
manufacturing and processing. Numerous women from Australia,
Canada, and England brought actions in Alabama alleging, inter alia,
strict products liability against American corporate defendants for
design and manufacturing defects related to breast implants. [Id. at
665.]
Another commentator, writing about the litigation involving Union Carbide and
the Bhopal, India, gas leak disaster, has written:
The United States continues to attract the international forumshopping plaintiff. The trend is readily discernible in the field of
personal injury. If the plaintiff can name an American defendant
over whom jurisdiction can be constitutionally asserted in the United
States, litigation in the American forum almost inevitably ensues.
Examples abound: Victims of air crashes in Scotland, Taiwan, India,
and Saudi Arabia elect to vindicate their rights in the federal
courthouses of the United States. E.g., Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
454 U.S. 235 (1981); Cheng v. Boeing Co., 708 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied, 104 S. Ct. 549 (1983); In re Disaster at Riyadh Airport,
Saudi Arabia, 540 F. Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1982); In re Air Crash
Disaster Near Bombay, India, 531 F. Supp. 1175 (W.D. Wash.
1982). The daughters of British citizens who ingested drugs made,
marketed, and sold by the British subsidiary of an American
pharmaceutical company sued the latter in the Southern District of
Ohio. In re Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 545 F. Supp. 1130 (S.D. Ohio
1982), aff’d sub nom. Dowing v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 727 F.2d
608 (6th Cir. 1984). The representatives of a Nigerian citizen
injured off the coast of Nigeria while working on a drilling rig
operated by the Nigerian subsidiary of a Delaware-owned Bahamian
corporation filed suit in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Chiazor v.
(continued…)
4
And, as another commentary has explained:
Certain procedural features of the U.S. courts encourage
plaintiffs in international disputes to bring their cases in the United
States. First, the Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments give
plaintiffs the right to trial by jury in most civil suits. Jury trials
present several advantages to individual plaintiffs in civil suits
against large businesses. American jurors have very different
backgrounds and economic sympathies compared to those of the
professional judges and career bureaucrats who decide disputes in
most foreign courts. Consequently, these juries are more likely to
award judgment to individual plaintiffs suing large [multinational
corporations]. U.S. juries also award more generous damages than
do foreign tribunals, particularly in instances of plaintiffs alleging
injury by a corporate entity.[7] For example, in the infamous
(…continued)
Transworld Drilling Co., 648 F.2d 1015 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 455
U.S. 1019 (1981).
What these and similar cases have in common is the presence
of foreign plaintiffs, presumably unfamiliar with the laws of this
country, injured abroad by the allegedly tortious conduct of
American defendants, choosing to forego their own nations’ court
systems in favor of ours. Bhopal is merely the latest example of this
phenomenon. [Note, Foreign plaintiffs and forum non conveniens:
Going beyond Reyno, 64 Tex L R 193, n 14 (1985).]
7
As one commentator has observed:
[T]he United States has no equal with regard to the size of a
possible recovery. One British judge observed that “in the United
States the scale of damages for injuries of the magnitude sustained
by the plaintiff is something in the region of ten times what is
regarded as appropriate by . . . the courts of [England].” A
comparative legal scholar writing more than ten years ago made a
rather detailed comparison of the maximum awards of damages
reported by countries throughout the northern hemisphere and
concluded, “[T]he USA . . . is in a class of its own.” The difference
becomes even more dramatic if one compares the United States with
a Third World country. [Note, Foreign plaintiffs and forum non
conveniens: Going beyond Reyno, 64 Tex L R 193, 203-204 (1985)
(internal citations omitted).]
5
litigation stemming from an industrial accident in Bhopal, India, the
estimated value of the suit in India was no more than $75 million. In
contrast, experts estimated that an American jury would award
compensatory damages of $235 million, with an even greater
amount for punitive damages.
[Comment, The forum non
conveniens doctrine and the judicial protection of multinational
corporations from forum shopping plaintiffs, 19 U Pa J Int’l Econ L
141, 146-147 (1998).][8]
The United States Supreme Court has expressed its concern regarding
foreign plaintiffs being allowed to sue American businesses and manufacturers in
America on the basis that American law is more favorable to plaintiffs as a class
than is foreign law. Piper, supra at 252. The Court has explained, “American
courts, which are already extremely attractive to foreign plaintiffs, would become
even more attractive [if dismissal was barred whenever the law in the alternative
forum were less favorable to the plaintiff].[9] The flow of litigation into the United
8
This commentator noted additional reasons why the United States
constitutes an attractive forum: (1) “contingency fees make litigation more
accessible to indigent plaintiffs and provide risk averse plaintiffs with a form of
insurance”; (2) “[t]he so-called ‘American system’ in which the losing party does
not have to pay the expenses of the winner also reduces plaintiffs’ risks in
litigation and encourages risk averse plaintiffs to sue in the United States”; (3)
“[l]iberal pleading rules used by most courts in the United States allow plaintiffs
to enter court with vague claims”; (4) “[e]xtensive pre-trial discovery benefits
plaintiffs by allowing them to initiate proceedings with little evidence and to
acquire evidence that might otherwise be unavailable” and “discovery greatly
increases defendants’ litigation costs and improves plaintiffs’ bargaining positions
in settlement negotiations”; (5) “class actions and other procedures allowed in
U.S. courts decrease the economic costs of large-scale litigation and subsequently
allow large groups of individual plaintiffs, each with little monetary interest in the
dispute, to bring suit against a defendant.” Id. at 148-149.
9
The United States Supreme Court explained that the following factors
make the United States “extremely attractive to foreign plaintiffs”:
(continued…)
6
States would increase and further congest already crowded courts.” Id. I believe
(…continued)
First, all but 6 of the 50 American States-- Delaware,
Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wyoming-offer strict liability. 1 CCH Prod. Liability Rep. § 4016 (1981).
Rules roughly equivalent to American strict liability are effective in
France, Belgium, and Luxembourg. West Germany and Japan have
a strict liability statute for pharmaceuticals. However, strict liability
remains primarily an American innovation. Second, the tort plaintiff
may choose, at least potentially, from among 50 jurisdictions if he
decides to file suit in the United States. Each of these jurisdictions
applies its own set of malleable choice-of-law rules. Third, jury
trials are almost always available in the United States, while they are
never provided in civil law jurisdictions. G. Gloss, Comparative
Law 12 (1979); J. Merryman, The Civil Law Tradition 121 (1969).
Even in the United Kingdom, most civil actions are not tried before a
jury. 1 G. Keeton, The United Kingdom: The Development of its
Laws and Constitutions 309 (1955). Fourth, unlike most foreign
jurisdictions, American courts allow contingent attorney’s fees, and
do not tax losing parties with their opponents’ attorney’s fees. R.
Schlesinger, Comparative Law: Cases, Text, Materials 275-277 (3d
ed,
1970); Orban, Product Liability: A Comparative Legal
Restatement -- Foreign National Law and the EEC Directive, 8 Ga.
J. Int’l & Comp. L. 342, 393 (1978). Fifth, discovery is more
extensive in American than in foreign courts. R. Schlesinger, supra,
at 307, 310, and n. 33. [Piper, supra at 252 n 18.]
One commentator has stated:
Commentators generally agree that the following factors
encourage plaintiffs to sue in the United States: the availability of
contingency fees, absence of fee shifting, jury trials and the tendency
of American juries to award high damages, extensive pre-trial
discovery, choice of different state forums with differing choice of
law rules, and favorable American substantive law, including strict
liability and possibility of punitive damages, possibility of class
action suits, low court filing fees, and the sophistication of American
lawyers and courts. [Comment, The forum non conveniens doctrine
and the judicial protection of multinational corporations from forum
shopping plaintiffs, 19 U Pa J Int’l Econ L 141, n 37 (1998).]
7
that if a plaintiff’s primary reason for filing a suit in Michigan is to take advantage
of Michigan’s favorable laws and procedures and to avoid a foreign court’s less
favorable laws and procedures, this should be a relevant factor to be considered by
courts in deciding whether to expend the state’s limited resources on a lawsuit. As
the United States Supreme Court has held, “dismissal may be warranted where a
plaintiff chooses a particular forum, not because it is convenient, but solely in
order to . . . take advantage of favorable law.” Piper, supra at 249 n 15. As the
majority opinion states:
In the instant case, plaintiffs are residents and citizens of
Croatia who were injured in an accident in Croatia and plaintiffs
have chosen to file their lawsuit in Michigan. Given that plaintiffs
live in Croatia and that the underlying accident occurred in Croatia,
there is no basis to presume that plaintiffs chose to file this lawsuit in
Michigan out of convenience. Further, while there is no direct
evidence that the primary reason why plaintiffs chose to file this
lawsuit in Michigan was to take advantage of Michigan’s favorable
laws and to avoid Croatia’s less favorable laws, no other reasonable
explanation has been presented. [Ante at 15.]
A second additional “public interest” factor concerns the extent to which
resolving a particular legal dispute in a Michigan court would compromise
principles of judicial comity and undermine respect for the judicial sovereignty of
a foreign jurisdiction. “[P]rinciples of judicial comity support the dismissal of
controversies whose adjudication is a matter of vital interest to the alternative,
foreign forum.”
Note, Foreign plaintiffs and forum non conveniens: Going
beyond Reyno, 64 Tex L R 193, 195 (1985). “[T]olerance of international forum
shopping creates . . . conflicts with basic notions of comity and respect for foreign
8
sovereignty.” Comment, The forum non conveniens doctrine and the judicial
protection of multinational corporations from forum shopping plaintiffs, 19 U Pa J
Int’l Econ L 141, 142 (1998). As one commentator has explained:
In cases involving foreign litigants and alternative foreign
forums, a shift in the focus of forum non conveniens analysis is
needed, away from the convenience of the litigants and toward the
appropriateness of the forum, viewed from the perspective of
judicial comity. The degree of local interest of each forum is a basis
for comparison, and the determination of the applicable law, to the
extent that it reflects each forum’s interests, should be a vital
consideration as well.
* * *
Courts should recognize that the application of an American
Forum’s law to controversies in which other countries have a vital
interest is likely to offend the sovereignty or frustrate the public
policies of those countries. [Note, Foreign plaintiffs and forum non
conveniens: Going beyond Reyno, 64 Tex L R 193, 222-223 (1985).]
It is important to consider the foreign jurisdiction’s interest in the case and the
effect that a Michigan court’s resolution of the case would have upon that
jurisdiction.
In this case, a Michigan court is being asked to apply Croatian law to
Croatian plaintiffs in a lawsuit arising from an accident that occurred in Croatia.
Certainly, a Croatian court would be better equipped at handling a matter of this
sort than a Michigan court.
A third additional “public interest” factor concerns the interests of the state
of Michigan in establishing and enforcing standards that domestic businesses and
manufacturers must satisfy in selling their products abroad as compared to the
foreign jurisdiction’s interest in establishing and enforcing standards that foreign
9
businesses and manufacturers must satisfy in selling their products within its
borders. As one commentator has explained:
Imposing our legal solutions on other nations, however
beneficial when viewed from the perspective of individual litigants,
impedes the opportunity for other legal systems to craft local
solutions to their citizens’ legal problems. If a foreign forum proves
adequate and has the greater interest in the controversy, an American
court can best serve the interest of justice by permitting justice to be
done elsewhere. [Id. at 223.]
As another commentator has explained:
Allowing forum shoppers to sue in U.S. courts not only
hinders foreign relations, but also hurts foreign nations by
undermining their development of legal remedies to handle legal
controversies in their own courts. Other countries can better assess
their own localized needs and set appropriate standards for local
conditions. For example, U.S. courts are “ill-equipped to set a
standard of product safety for drugs sold in other countries.”
[Comment, The forum non conveniens doctrine and the judicial
protection of multinational corporations from forum shopping
plaintiffs, 19 U Pa J Int’l Econ L 141, 155-156 (1998), quoting
Harrison v Wyeth Laboratories Div of American Home Products
Corp, 510 F Supp 1, 4 (ED Pa, 1980) (holding “[t]he United States
should not impose its own view of the safety, warning, and duty of
care required of drugs sold in the United States upon a foreign
country when those same drugs are sold in that country”).]
And, as yet other commentators have explained:
Foreign plaintiffs will almost certainly continue to file
products liability actions in American courts, instead of their local
fora, in order to take advantage of the more favorable substantive
law and procedural rules available in the United States. In response,
American courts will likely continue to dismiss most such actions
based on the flexible doctrine of forum non conveniens. . . . Private
interest factors will often militate in favor of dismissal of suits
brought by foreign plaintiffs because the bulk of the witnesses and
physical evidence is likely to be located abroad. In addition, public
interest factors will tend to warrant dismissal given that foreign fora
plainly have a substantial interest in establishing and enforcing the
10
standards that manufacturers must satisfy in selling products there,
whereas American courts will often have only a marginal interest in
such matters. Accordingly, in dismissing these actions, American
courts will promote the fundamental goals of best serving the
convenience of the parties and the ends of justice. [Dunham &
Gladbach, Forum non conveniens and foreign plaintiffs in the 1990s,
24 Brook J Int’l L 665, 703-704 (1999).]
“An important factor that courts have looked to in deciding whether to dismiss an
action is the relative importance of the foreign jurisdiction’s public interest in
controlling the marketing and sale of products within its borders.” Id. at 686.
In Doe v Hyland Therapeutics Div, 807 F Supp 1117, 1130 (SD NY, 1992),
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded
that where Irish plaintiffs brought suit in New York against United States
manufacturers, claiming that they contracted the human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV) from contaminated blood clotting products supplied by the defendants, “our
‘generalized interest’ in regulating the flow of dangerously defective American
pharmaceutical products into the stream of world commerce cannot transcend
Ireland’s ‘intensely local interest’ in adjudicating a controversy that profoundly
affects its citizens.” As that court explained:
The forum whose market consumes the product must make its
own determination as to the levels of safety and care required. That
forum has a distinctive interest in explicating the controlling
standards of behavior, and in enforcing its regulatory scheme. The
standards of conduct implemented, and the level of damages
assessed, will reflect the unique balance struck between the benefit
each market derives from the product’s use and the risks associated
with that use; between the community’s particular need for the
product and its desire to protect its citizens from what it deems
unreasonable risk. The forum’s assessment will affect not merely
the quality of the product, but also the price, quantity, and
11
availability to its public. Such an assessment must remain the
prerogative of the forum in which the product is used; each
community faces distinct demands, and has unique concerns that
make it peculiarly suited to make this judgment. We are illequipped to enunciate the optimal standards of safety or care for
products sold in distant markets, and thus choose to refrain from
imposing our determination of what constitutes appropriate behavior
to circumstances with which we are not familiar. While imposing
our presumably more stringent standards to deter tortious conduct
within our borders could afford a higher degree of protection to the
world community, such an approach would also ignore the unique
significance of the foreign forum’s interest in implementing its own
risk-benefit analysis, informed by its knowledge of its community’s
competing needs, values, and concerns. [Id. at 1129-1130.][10]
Courts should consider which jurisdiction has the greatest interest in establishing
the legal standards that will be applied in the case.
In this case, Croatia has a stronger interest in determining whether the
Croatian plaintiffs are entitled to relief as a result of an accident that occurred in
Croatia than does Michigan. Croatia has a considerable interest in protecting its
citizens from unsafe products.
Michigan concomitantly has an interest in
protecting its businesses and manufacturers from unwarranted liability.11
10
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has likewise held that “the country
where the injury occurred has a greater interest in the ensuing products liability
litigation than the country where the product was manufactured.” Kryvicky v
Scandinavian Airlines Sys, 807 F2d 514, 517 (CA 6, 1986).
11
As one observer has explained:
The . . . problem of regulating the conduct of U.S. MNCs in
foreign countries is that the United States would, in effect, be
exporting its laws, policies, and social mores and imposing them on
sovereign foreign nations. While the Court in Piper recognized that
the United States has an interest in regulating its companies’ conduct
(continued…)
12
However, given that the manufacturer in this case does not want Michigan’s
protection,12 Michigan’s interest in providing such protection seems significantly
lessened. If defendant in these circumstances is amenable to subjecting itself to a
Croatian court, it is not immediately apparent why a Michigan court should
interfere with this result.
Fourth, on a related note, courts should also consider the sovereign interests
of the state of Michigan in shaping the law within a particular substantive realm as
compared to the foreign jurisdiction’s interests in this same regard. In this case,
Michigan does have an interest in shaping the law with regard to automobile
design defect cases given the importance of the automotive industry to the state of
Michigan. However, Croatia has an interest in shaping the law with regard to
automobile design defect cases as well, given the significant risks posed to its
citizens from the use of defectively designed automobiles within its borders. Just
(…continued)
abroad, the Court declined to give significant weight to this interest.
[Comment, International forum non conveniens: “Section 1404.5”—
A proposal in the interest of sovereignty, comity, and individual
justice, 45 Am U L R 415, 456 (1995).]
12
It seems worthy of comment that here, as in Davidson v DaimlerChrysler
Motors Co, a case being held in abeyance for this case, unpublished order of the
Supreme Court, entered June 10, 2005 (Docket No. 126556), a company that was
born in this state, that has grown to worldwide influence from within this state,
that has been a part of the community of this state for more than three-quarters of a
century, that has participated actively in the civic affairs of this state, that has
given employment to hundreds of thousands of workers within this state, and that
in countless ways has enriched the economy and social environment of this state,
should prefer to have its disputes decided in Croatian (or Canadian) courts rather
than in Michigan courts.
13
as the United States should not, for example, impose its own standards regarding
the safety of drugs onto foreign countries, the United States should not impose its
standards regarding the safety of automobiles onto foreign countries. Harrison,
supra; Doe, supra. Michigan’s “‘generalized interest’ in regulating the flow of
dangerously defective [Michigan automotive] products into the stream of world
commerce cannot transcend [Croatia’s] ‘intensely local interest’ in adjudicating a
controversy that profoundly affects its citizens.” Doe, supra at 1130.
Fifth, courts should consider the interests of the state of Michigan in either
encouraging or discouraging future lawsuits in which the forum non conveniens
doctrine may potentially be invoked.13 That is, courts should consider the extent
to which accommodating the instant lawsuit in Michigan will have consequences
for the numbers and types of future lawsuits heard by Michigan courts.
In this case, Croatian plaintiffs are asking a Michigan court to determine
whether, under Croatian law, they are entitled to any relief as a result of an
accident that occurred in Croatia. If the trial court in this case abused its discretion
13
One commentator has noted:
Courts not only consider the actual effect on the docket of
shouldering the foreign plaintiff’s claim, they also tend to be swayed
by “floodgates” arguments. Proponents of the doctrine assert that
not exercising forum non conveniens would constitute an open
invitation to make U.S. courthouses a “dumping ground” for
international claims.
[Comment, International forum non
conveniens: “Section 1404.5”— A proposal in the interest of
sovereignty, comity, and individual justice, 45 Am U L R 415, 448
(1995).]
14
by refusing to exercise its jurisdiction, one must consider whether every case
involving an automobile designed or assembled in Michigan must be tried in
Michigan if so desired by the plaintiff. If a Michigan court cannot refuse to
exercise jurisdiction in cases brought by foreign plaintiffs for injuries arising out
of automobile accidents occurring outside the United States, Michigan will likely
become the world’s automobile design defect courthouse. Because the Michigan
judiciary is not equipped to handle all the world’s automobile design defect
lawsuits along with all its other responsibilities, the trial court’s decision to
dismiss this action on the basis of the forum non conveniens doctrine should be
affirmed.
Sixth, courts should consider the interests of the state of Michigan in
expending limited judicial and other resources in trying a case. As commentators
have explained:
Courts that have granted forum non conveniens dismissals of
actions brought by foreign plaintiffs have often cited to the burden
that would be imposed on the American judicial system if it heard
such actions. One primary justification for dismissing these actions
is the view that it would be fundamentally unfair to permit foreign
plaintiffs to use already backlogged American courts that are “paid
for by U.S. taxpayers and whose juries are composed of U.S. citizens
who are asked to drop their everyday activities to” help adjudicate an
action. [Dunham & Gladbach, Forum non conveniens and foreign
plaintiffs in the 1990s, 24 Brook J Int’l L 665, 689 (1999) (internal
citation omitted).]
The United States Supreme Court has explained, “[j]ury duty is a burden that
ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to
the litigation.” Gulf Oil Corp v Gilbert, 330 US 501, 508-509; 67 S Ct 839; 91 L
15
Ed 1055 (1947). That is, the people of Michigan have a civic obligation to serve
as jurors, but it is an obligation that is predicated upon the idea that the people are
serving the obligations of their own community.
Jurors are being asked to
inconvenience themselves, and divert time and attention from their families, their
businesses, and their personal affairs in order to serve the larger community of
which they are a part. This rationale for the juror obligation becomes sharply
attenuated where this state increasingly takes cognizance of lawsuits that cannot
fairly be said to have arisen from within the community. It is not to be parochial
to suggest that the people of Michigan have a primary interest in “Michigan
cases,” cases that implicate the interests of Michigan and its people, cases in
which there is a significant element of “Michigan-ness.”
This indeed is the
primary reason why the people of Michigan “earnestly desiring to secure these
blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity,” Const of 1963, Preamble,
have ordained our Constitution and established a court system to exercise the
judicial power of their state. It is also to accord respect to the taxpayers of this
state to recognize that their taxes should be employed only in support of a judicial
system that primarily hears disputes arising from within this state.
In the instant case, plaintiffs are asking the Wayne Circuit Court to expend
considerable time and resources to ascertain whether, under Croatian law,
defendant is liable for the injuries that these Croatian plaintiffs suffered in an
accident that occurred in Croatia. As in Piper, supra at 261, “[t]he American
interest in this accident is simply not sufficient to justify the enormous
16
commitment of judicial time and resources that would inevitably be required if the
case were to be tried here.”
In summary, I believe that the following “public interest” factors (including
the new factors, Nos. 4 through 9) should be considered when determining
whether a case should be dismissed on the basis of the forum non conveniens
doctrine:
1. Administrative difficulties that may arise in an area that may not be
present in the area of origin;
2. Consideration of the state law that must govern the case;
3. People who are concerned by the proceeding;
4. The extent to which it is appropriate for the state to enable a foreign
plaintiff to avail himself or herself of the more favorable substantive law and
procedural rules afforded by state courts in comparison with those of the plaintiff’s
own jurisdiction;
5. The extent to which resolving a particular legal dispute in a state court
may compromise principles of judicial comity and undermine respect for the
judicial sovereignty of a foreign jurisdiction;
6. The interests of the state in establishing and enforcing standards that
domestic businesses and manufacturers must satisfy in selling their products
abroad as compared to the foreign jurisdiction’s interest in establishing and
enforcing standards that foreign businesses and manufacturers must satisfy in
selling their products within its borders;
7. The interests of the state in shaping the law within a particular
substantive realm as compared to the foreign jurisdiction’s interest in shaping the
law within a particular substantive realm;
8. The extent to which accommodating the instant lawsuit in this state will
have consequences for the numbers and types of future lawsuits heard by state
courts;
17
9. The interests of the state in expending its limited judicial and other
resources in trying a case.
This case is similar to Jemaa v MacGregor Athletic Products, 151 Mich
App 273; 390 NW2d 180 (1986), in which the plaintiff was injured in Ohio while
playing football. The plaintiff sued the defendant in Michigan, claiming that his
injury was due to a defect in the football helmet worn by the plaintiff. Although
the defendant did business in Michigan, its design and manufacture of football
helmets was done elsewhere. The trial court dismissed the case on the basis of the
forum non conveniens doctrine.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining,
“[N]either the plaintiff nor, apparently, the witnesses to the football accident
reside in Michigan and the accident occurred in Ohio” and “[a]lthough MacGregor
does business in Michigan, . . . its Michigan business is not connected to the
manufacturing of the football helmets.” Id. at 280. Likewise, in the instant case,
plaintiffs do not reside in Michigan and the accident occurred in Croatia, and
although defendant does business in Michigan, its Michigan business is not
connected to the manufacturing of the transmission.
In Anderson v Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co, 411 Mich 619, 631; 309
NW2d 539 (1981), a Florida plaintiff brought an action in Michigan pertaining to
an incident that occurred in Florida. We held that “[t]he fact that virtually all the
witnesses to the incident are apparently residents of Florida or nearby southern
states reveals a likelihood that the defendant will suffer considerable difficulty in
preparing any defense and is sufficient to overcome plaintiff’s slight interest in
18
having a trial in Michigan.” The vehicular accident at issue in this case occurred
in Croatia, and, thus, the witnesses more than likely are residents of Croatia. It
certainly would not be any easier to travel to Croatia to obtain witnesses than it
would be to travel to Florida to obtain witnesses.
Plaintiffs argue that there were no witnesses to the accident in Croatia.
However, as the trial court held, defendant should have an opportunity to confirm
plaintiffs’ assertions. Defendant should not have to blindly rely on plaintiffs’
account of the accident. As the trial court explained, “Plaintiffs want Defendant to
accept Plaintiffs’ good faith on many matters, such as the lack of witnesses to the
accident other than the vehicle’s occupants and the willingness of Plaintiffs to
supply relevant documents, but Defendant will no doubt want to assess these
matters itself and obtain the necessary documents first-hand, matters more easily
done in Croatia.”
Plaintiffs argue that defendant has not established that a Michigan forum
will be inconvenient because it has not established that there are any witnesses in
Croatia that it will be deprived of if this case is tried in Michigan. In other words,
plaintiffs argue that “any inconvenience to the defendant is speculative.”
Anderson, supra at 630. However, as we held in Anderson, supra at 630-631,
“[w]here, as here, there is little nexus between the litigation and the forum, there is
no need for the defendant to prepare extensively for trial in order to show exactly
how inconvenient a trial in Michigan would prove to be.”
19
For the reasons expressed both in the majority opinion and in this opinion, I
concur in the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in dismissing this case on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. I
also submit that the “public interest” factors in the forum non conveniens test of
this state should be expanded upon as suggested in this opinion.
Stephen J. Markman
20
STATE OF MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT
JOSIP RADELJAK, Individually, as
Personal Representative of the Estate of
ENA BEGOVIC, Deceased, and as Next
Friend of LANA RADELJAK; LEO
RADELJAK; and TEREZA BEGOVIC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
No. 127679
v
DAIMLERCHRYSLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
CAVANAGH, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with the majority that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing this case on the basis of forum non conveniens. In this particular case,
a review of the factors set forth by this Court in Cray v Gen Motors Corp, 389
Mich 382; 207 NW2d 393 (1973), reveals that the trial court’s decision to dismiss
was within the principled range of outcomes. I further agree with the majority that
a so-called seriously inconvenient “standard” is inappropriate, but only to the
extent that this “standard” is distinct from or inconsistent with Cray. Rather, the
seriously inconvenient “standard” is simply a shorthand reference for the
principles announced and factors set forth in Cray. In other words, Cray is the test
for courts to apply, and the Cray test clearly encompasses the principles that a
plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded deference and that a state will not exercise
jurisdiction only if the forum is seriously inconvenient. Further, because this case
can be decided solely by reference to Cray, I disagree with the majority’s decision
to adopt the reasoning set forth in Piper Aircraft Co v Reyno, 454 US 235; 102 S
Ct 252; 70 L Ed 2d 419 (1981).
Michael F. Cavanagh
2
STATE OF MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT
JOSIP RADELJAK, personal representative,
estate of ENA BEGOVIC, deceased; JOSIP
RADELJAK, individually and as next friend
of LANA RADELJAK, LEO RADELJAK,
and TEREZA BEGOVIC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
No. 127679
v
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant.
KELLY, J. (dissenting).
I agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court abused its discretion in
dismissing this case on the basis of forum non conveniens.1
Therefore, I
respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to reinstate the circuit court’s
dismissal. I would affirm the Court of Appeals judgment and remand the case for
trial.
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In the interest of clarity, it is necessary to give a brief statement of the facts
of this case. Forum non conveniens involves fact-driven analyses. Plaintiffs and
1
(7th ed).
A Latin term meaning “‘an unsuitable court.’” Black’s Law Dictionary
decedent, Ena Begovic, were Croatian citizens. They were using a 1993 Jeep
Grand Cherokee (hereinafter the Jeep) on the Island of Brac on the Dalmatian
coast of the Republic of Croatia. Allegedly, when the Jeep was stationary and its
transmission in park, the transmission slipped into reverse gear although no one
touched the controls. This caused the Jeep to roll over the lip of a promontory and
into a ravine. Ena Begovic died, and the other plaintiffs suffered serious injury.
It is undisputed that all decisions regarding the designing of the Jeep were
made in Michigan. This includes the decision that a transmission manufactured in
Japan would be built into the Jeep. The vehicle was manufactured in Wayne
County, Michigan, before being shipped to Italy where it was purchased.
Maintenance on the Jeep occurred in both Italy and Croatia.
Because the Jeep had been designed and manufactured in Michigan,
plaintiffs chose to file this product liability lawsuit here. Although Michigan is its
home state, defendant took the position that it is not a convenient forum and
moved for summary disposition. The circuit court agreed and dismissed the case
on the basis of forum non conveniens. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that
the trial court had improperly avoided acknowledging its jurisdiction. It decided
that Wayne County was not a seriously inconvenient forum.
Radeljak v
DaimlerChrysler Corp, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals,
issued December 14, 2004 (Docket No. 247781). We granted leave to appeal and
directed the parties to address two questions:
2
(1) whether the public interest factors of the forum non
conveniens doctrine set forth in Cray v Gen Motors Corp, 389 Mich
382, 396 (1973), should be revised or modified; and (2) whether,
even if another more appropriate forum exists, a Michigan court may
not resist jurisdiction unless its own forum is “seriously
inconvenient.” [472 Mich 924 (2005).]
THE BACKGROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS
When a judge applies the doctrine of forum non conveniens, he or she seeks
to determine whether the court where the plaintiff filed suit is inconvenient for the
litigants and witnesses. Also, the judge determines whether there is another more
convenient forum where the action should have been brought.2
The central goal of forum non conveniens is to provide a fair trial for all
parties involved. In the case in which the United States Supreme Court first
adopted the doctrine, Gulf Oil Corp v Gilbert, the Court stated:
The court will weigh relative advantages and obstacles to fair
trial. It is often said that the plaintiff may not, by choice of an
inconvenient forum, “vex,” “harass,” or “oppress” the defendant by
inflicting upon him expense or trouble not necessary to his own right
to pursue his remedy. But unless the balance is strongly in favor of
the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be
disturbed. [Gulf Oil Corp v Gilbert, 330 US 501, 508; 67 S Ct 839;
91 L Ed 1055 (1947).]
2
Forum non conveniens is
the doctrine that an appropriate forum—even though competent
under the law—may divest itself of jurisdiction if, for the
convenience of the litigants and the witnesses, it appear that the
action should proceed in another forum in which the action might
originally have been brought. [Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed).]
3
The Supreme Court elaborated on this point in its discussion of the difference
between the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the statute that governs change
of venue, 28 USC 1404. Norwood v Kirkpatrick, 349 US 29; 75 S Ct 544; 99 L
Ed 789 (1955). The Court noted the limitations of forum non conveniens:
“The forum non conveniens doctrine is quite different from
Section 1404(a). That doctrine involves the dismissal of a case
because the forum chosen by the plaintiff is so completely
inappropriate and inconvenient that it is better to stop the litigation
in the place where brought and let it start all over again somewhere
else. It is quite naturally subject to careful limitation for it not only
denies the plaintiff the generally accorded privilege of bringing an
action where he chooses, but makes it possible for him to lose out
completely, through the running of the statute of limitations in the
forum finally deemed appropriate.” [Id. at 31, quoting All States
Freight, Inc v Modarelli, 196 F2d 1010, 1011 (CA 3, 1952).]
Earlier, the Court had stated the central goal of the doctrine: “[T]he ultimate
inquiry is whether trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends
of justice.” Koster v (American) Lumbermens Mut Cas Co, 330 US 518, 527; 67 S
Ct 828; 91 L Ed 1067 (1947).
It is on this ground that the Michigan Supreme Court built its forum non
conveniens precedent. In Cray, the Court decided that the doctrine should apply
in Michigan. Cray, 389 Mich 395. The Court enumerated several factors and
subfactors that a trial court should weigh and balance in its decision on a motion
based on forum non conveniens.
A balancing out and weighing of factors to be considered in
rejecting or accepting jurisdiction in such cases should include:
1. The private interest of the litigant.
4
a. Availability of compulsory process for attendance of
unwilling and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses;
b. Ease of access to sources of proof;
c. Distance from the situs of the accident or incident
which gave rise to the litigation;
d. Enforcibility [sic] of any judgment obtained;
e. Possible harrassment [sic] of either party;
f. Other practical problems which contribute to the
ease, expense and expedition of the trial;
g. Possibility of viewing the premises.
2. Matters of public interest.
a. Administrative difficulties which may arise in an
area which may not be present in the area of origin;
b. Consideration of the state law which must govern
the case;
c. People who are concerned by the proceeding.
3. Reasonable promptness in raising the plea of forum
non conveniens. [Id. at 395-396.]
In Michigan, these factors are often referred to as the Cray factors. Cray made
clear that their application was intended to function as a balancing test with the
object of comparing the advantages of two possible courts.
“The courts are
charged to consider the plaintiff’s choice of forum and to weigh carefully the
relative advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction and the ease of and obstacles
to a fair trial in this state.” Id. at 396.
5
This Court also made clear in Cray that the balancing test is intended to be
an instrument used to avoid the injustice of forcing a party to litigate in a forum
that is fundamentally unfair. It stated:
[F]orum non conveniens “was designed as an instrument of
justice to avoid the unfairness, vexatiousness and oppressiveness of
a trial away from the domicile of a defendant.” . . . The basic
standards are said to be “convenience, efficiency and justice.”
Moore and Fink in Moore's Federal Practice indicate forum non
conveniens is applied when trial would be “unduly burdensome upon
the defendant”. [Id. at 391-392, quoting Barron and Holtzoff,
Federal Practice and Procedure, p 443.]
The Cray Court also quoted the Supreme Court of New Jersey:
“It is only in those exceptional cases where a weighing of all
the many relevant factors, of which residence is but a part, decisively
establishes that there is available another forum where trial will best
serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice, that the
doctrine is ever invoked.” [Id. at 392, quoting Gore v United States
Steel Corp, 15 NJ 301, 311; 104 A2d 670 (1954). ]
Finally, Cray quoted the Restatement Conflict of Laws, 2d, with approval:
“A state will not exercise jurisdiction if it is a seriously
inconvenient forum for the trial of the action provided that a more
appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff.” [Id. at 394 n 2,
quoting 1 Restatement Conflict of Laws, 2d, § 84, p 251 (emphasis
added).]
In referencing this, the Cray Court took special note of the comment on the quoted
section of the Restatement:
In the commentary, the most important rules are said to be
honoring plaintiff’s choice except in unusual circumstances and
never dismissing an action if there is no alternative forum.
Appropriate forums are the site of the incident, a corporation’s state
of incorporation or principal place of business and the state of
plaintiff's domicile. [Id. (emphasis added).]
6
THE “SERIOUSLY INCONVENIENT” STANDARD
It is in light of this background and history of the forum non conveniens
doctrine that we must assess the judgment of the circuit court in this case. The
Court of Appeals panel concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by
resisting jurisdiction without determining that Wayne County was a seriously
inconvenient forum. The panel reached this conclusion on the basis of the Court
of Appeals past decisions in Robey v Ford Motor Co3 and Manfredi v Johnson
Controls, Inc.4 Robey stated:
When a party requests that a court decline jurisdiction based
on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, there are two inquiries for
the court to make: whether the forum is inconvenient and whether
there is a more appropriate forum available. If there is not a more
appropriate forum elsewhere, the inquiry ends and the court may not
resist imposition of jurisdiction. If there is a more appropriate
forum, the court still may not decline jurisdiction unless its own
forum is seriously inconvenient. [Robey, 155 Mich App 645.]
The majority contends that the “seriously inconvenient” standard is
inconsistent with Cray. Therefore, it overturns Robey and eliminates the seriously
inconvenient standard.
As one can see from the earlier discussion of the
foundation of the forum non conveniens doctrine, Robey was far from inconsistent
with Cray. In fact, the seriously inconvenient standard is well grounded in the
precedents of this Court and the United States Supreme Court in the area. Rather,
it is the decision of this majority that is inconsistent with Cray.
3
155 Mich App 643; 400 NW2d 610 (1986).
4
194 Mich App 519; 487 NW2d 475 (1992).
7
The basic concept undergirding the forum non conveniens doctrine is that a
case should be dismissed if the plaintiff brought it in a completely inappropriate
forum. Norwood, 349 US 31. But the doctrine has limited application, and the
plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded significant deference.
“[U]nless the
balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should
rarely be disturbed.” Gulf Oil Corp, 330 US 508 (emphasis added). The balance
swings strongly in favor of the defendant when the plaintiff chooses a forum to
“‘vex,’” “‘harass,’” or “‘oppress’” the defendant. Id. (citation omitted).
The seriously inconvenient standard falls directly in line with this
precedent. It assures that a court does not force a plaintiff to run the risk of losing,
or the expense of refiling, his or her claim because of a mere trifle. To warrant a
dismissal based on forum non conveniens, the defendant must be faced with strong
or significant inconvenience such as vexation, harassment, or oppression. Id.
Only when a forum is “‘completely inappropriate and inconvenient [so] that it is
better to stop’” is forum non conveniens appropriate.
Norwood, 349 US 31
(citation omitted). The seriously inconvenient requirement recognized in Robey
assures that this standard is met.
It stretches the imagination to hold that the seriously inconvenient standard
is inconsistent with Cray. As has been noted already, Cray cited the Restatement
Second with approval. The section it cited applies the very same standard:
A state will not exercise jurisdiction if it is a seriously
inconvenient forum for the trial of the action provided that a more
8
appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff. [1 Restatement
Conflict of Laws, 2d, § 84, p 251 (emphasis added).]
Nothing else in Cray contradicts this standard and the Court did not distinguish it
elsewhere in the opinion or in subsequent cases. Instead, the Court articulated a
consistent standard of forum non conveniens review.5 Given that this Court noted
with approval the seriously inconvenient standard when first recognizing forum
non conveniens in this state, the standard is well founded in our law. It appears
rash for the majority to overturn this properly recognized minimum standard for
determining that a forum is sufficiently inconvenient.
In this case, the trial court did not make a finding that Wayne County was a
seriously inconvenient forum.
Hence, it failed to recognize the “‘careful
limitations’” that have applied to the forum non conveniens doctrine. Norwood,
349 US 31 (citation omitted). Because the court did not make this finding, it did
5
See Anderson v Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co, 411 Mich 619, 628; 309
NW2d 539 (1981):
A plaintiff’s selection of a forum is ordinarily accorded
deference. The United States Supreme Court, describing this
deference in [Gulf Oil v] Gilbert, stated, “unless the balance is
strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum
should rarely be disturbed”. [Gulf Oil Corp] 330 US 508. Various
factors, such as those outlined in Cray, supra, 396-397, are to be
considered in determining whether the balance strongly favors the
defendant. [Emphasis added.]
Although Anderson did not use the wording “seriously inconvenient,” it used a
standard that is consistent, “strongly in favor of defendant.” Id. Both Anderson
and Cray fall in line with the seriously inconvenient standard. The majority tries
in vain to meaningfully distinguish the standard in these cases from that cited in
Cray.
9
not conclude that the balance weighed so strongly in favor of defendant that
plaintiffs’ choice of forum warrants disturbance. Gulf Oil Corp, 330 US 508. As
the Court of Appeals noted, the failure of the trial court to meet this minimal
standard was an abuse of discretion.
THE FAILURE TO FULLY BALANCE THE CRAY FACTORS
While the trial court reviewed the Cray factors in its written opinion, it did
not properly weigh the two forums one against the other. The trial court focused
on the difficulties presented in retaining jurisdiction in Michigan. But it did not
give equal consideration to the difficulties that a Croatian court would face if it
had jurisdiction over the case.
For instance, the trial court considered the burden on defendant to obtain
evidence remaining in Croatia. But it ignored that plaintiffs would face a similar,
if not greater, burden in obtaining documents that remained in Michigan relating
to the manufacture of the Jeep. The failure to take this into consideration in a
product liability case is not excusable.
The trial court also considered, as a major factor disfavoring Wayne County
as the proper forum, that the transmission defendant chose to place in the Jeep was
designed and manufactured in Japan. However, this fact is irrelevant because a
10
Croatian court is in no better position to obtain documents or witnesses from Japan
than is a Michigan court.6
Also, the trial court assumed that Croatian law would apply, an
impermissible assumption. To properly apply the Cray factors, a court should first
determine which forum’s law should apply. See Manfredi, 194 Mich App 525526. This failure is yet another sign that the trial court neglected to conduct an
actual balancing test in deciding defendant’s forum non conveniens motion.
Cray requires such a balancing test. “The courts are charged to consider
the plaintiff’s choice of forum and to weigh carefully the relative advantages and
disadvantages of jurisdiction and the ease of and obstacles to a fair trial in this
state.” Cray, 389 Mich 396. The failure to conduct such a balancing test is an
abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
THE CRAY FACTORS DO NOT STRONGLY OR SIGNIFICANTLY
FAVOR CROATIA AS THE PROPER FORUM
The majority opines that the Cray factors support Croatia as the more
appropriate forum. I agree with the Court of Appeals assessment that, once the
factors are properly weighed, Wayne County is not a significantly inconvenient
forum.
6
Plaintiffs make the argument also that it was not the design of the
transmission that caused the accident. They argue that it was the particular
transmission that was placed in the Jeep that caused the accident. This makes the
involvement of Japan even more of a red herring.
11
1. PRIVATE INTERESTS
a. Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling
and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses
The trial court focused on the ease with which a Croatian court could
compel the attendance of Croatian witnesses. But this is a product liability case
involving the need for numerous documents. A great many of the necessary
documents are located within this state, given that the Jeep was designed and
manufactured here. Moreover, some witnesses are located in the United States.
Hence, difficulties will arise in obtaining witnesses and documents in both
locations.
Also, it appears that neither forum would have the benefit of
compulsory process in the other forum. Thus, this subfactor favors neither forum.
b. Ease of access to sources of proof
The trial court abused its discretion by focusing only on the problems
existing if Michigan remained the forum for this litigation. No matter in which
country this case is tried, one of the parties will be obliged to obtain documents
from the other country. Given the nature of the case, a primary concern will be the
design and manufacture of the Jeep. It seems likely that the majority of the
documents needed will be in Michigan.
Moreover, they will be in English.
Therefore, if the case is tried in Croatia, the parties likely will be obliged to have
thousands of highly technical documents translated into another language.
Accordingly, this subfactor arguably tends to favor Wayne County as the proper
forum.
12
The majority points out that MCR 2.305 provides that documents located in
Michigan can be subpoenaed for trials outside the state. It is unknown if Croatian
law has a similar provision. Therefore, this fact tends to support Croatia as the
proper forum.
Given that there is support for both sides, this subfactor evenly favors both
forums.
c. Distance from the situs of the accident or incident
that gave rise to the litigation
Again, this subfactor weighs evenly between the two forums.
Whereas the
accident occurred in Croatia, the Jeep was manufactured and designed in
Michigan. Manufacture and design are incidents that give rise to the litigation,
and Wayne County is much closer to these incidents.
d. Enforceability of any judgment obtained
There is no indication that the judgment would be unenforceable in either
forum. This subfactor favors neither forum.
e. Possible harassment of either party
This factor weighs in favor of Wayne County as the proper forum.
Defendant claims that some Croatian witnesses may be reluctant to testify. There
is evidence to the contrary. Plaintiffs offer statements by the deceased’s family
doctor, the mechanic who serviced the Jeep, and the person who investigated the
accident for the Croatian authorities. They stated that they will be willing to travel
to and testify in Wayne County.
There is no countervailing evidence that
13
witnesses located within the United States will be willing to travel to Croatia.
Therefore, it is more likely that plaintiffs would have difficulty bringing reluctant
witnesses related to defendant to testify in Croatia than that defendant could not
bring Croatian witnesses to Michigan. Hence, this subfactor should favor Wayne
County as the proper forum.7
f. Other practical problems that contribute to the
ease, expense, and expedition of the trial
Defendant and the majority discuss defendant’s need to implead third
parties in this case. But it remains unknown whether the Croatian courts allow
impleading. Defendant asks this Court to conclude that they do, without providing
legal and factual support for the conclusion. A party may not simply announce a
position and leave it to this Court to find support for it. Goolsby v Detroit, 419
Mich 651, 655 n 1; 358 NW2d 856 (1984). “The appellant himself must first
adequately prime the pump; only then does the appellate well begin to flow.”
Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959).
Moreover,
defendant names no parties it wishes to implead. There is no way to know in
which forum they could be impleaded inasmuch as they are not identified.
7
The majority contends that my analysis of this subfactor is incorrect
because the trial judge cannot compel foreign witnesses to attend trial in Wayne
County. The Wayne County judge would have no need to resort to compulsory
process with respect to the witnesses in question. Contrary to the majority’s
assertion, it is not mere speculation that these witnesses will attend without being
subpoenaed. They have stated that they would be willing to travel to Michigan of
their own free will. Given that they are the only witnesses who have clearly made
this statement, this subfactor favors Wayne County as the appropriate forum.
14
Even if it is assumed that there are parties in Croatia that defendant needs to
implead and that Croatia allows impleading, Croatia is not strongly favored as a
forum. This is because, if the trial were held in Wayne County and if defendant
could not implead third parties, defendant would face no greater liability. MCL
600.2957(1) provides:
In an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking
damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death,
the liability of each person shall be allocated under this section by
the trier of fact and, subject to section 6304, in direct proportion to
the person’s percentage of fault. In assessing percentages of fault
under this subsection, the trier of fact shall consider the fault of each
person, regardless of whether the person is, or could have been,
named as a party to the action.
Defendant points to no provision in Croatian law similar to this one.
Hence, it could be argued that Wayne County is the more appropriate forum
because a proper allocation of liability is assumed there.
At the very least,
considering the totality of the circumstance existing under this subfactor, it does
not clearly favor either Croatia or Wayne County.
g. Possibility of viewing the premises
This subfactor favors Croatia as the forum because the accident occurred
there.
In summary, most of the subfactors under “private interest” weigh evenly
between the two forums. The possibility of viewing the premises favors Croatia.
But the possibility of witness harassment favors Wayne County. In any event, the
“private interests” factor assuredly does not favor Croatia, as the majority asserts.
15
2. MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
a. Administrative difficulties that may arise in an area
which may not be present in the area of origin
Again, defendant provided the trial court no information about the legal
conditions in Croatia. The majority argues that the Wayne County docket would
be congested if every automotive design case arising abroad were brought there.
But we have no reason to believe that would occur. Instead, the evidence suggests
that, despite the existence for the past two decades of the Robey “seriously
inconvenient” standard, Wayne County has suffered no flood of automobile
product liability cases. The majority’s reasoning under this subfactor borders on
fear-mongering.
Because we have no idea how busy the Croatian courts are, we cannot
conclude in any event that the Wayne County docket would be more congested
than a Croatian court docket. The Cray factors are intended as a balancing test.
Cray, 389 Mich 396. The record in this case does not permit a proper balancing of
this subfactor. Therefore, it should not be concluded that it favors either forum.
b. Consideration of the state law that must govern the case
As previously discussed in my opinion, the trial court abused its discretion
by failing to analyze this subfactor.
It merely assumed inappropriately that
Croatian law would apply to the case.
I agree with the Court of Appeals that Croatian law may not apply. The
ancient rule in the field of choice of law was lex loci delicti. It required that a
16
court always apply the law of the place where the tort or wrong occurred.
Sutherland v Kennington Truck Service Ltd, 454 Mich 274, 278; 562 NW2d 466
(1997). But Michigan long ago abandoned this rule. Id. at 283-284. Sutherland
articulated the proper test for determining if Michigan law should apply:
[W]e will apply Michigan law unless a “rational reason” to do
otherwise exists. In determining whether a rational reason to
displace Michigan law exists, we undertake a two-step analysis.
First, we must determine if any foreign state has an interest in having
its law applied. If no state has such an interest, the presumption that
Michigan law will apply cannot be overcome. If a foreign state does
have an interest in having its law applied, we must then determine if
Michigan’s interests mandate that Michigan law be applied, despite
the foreign interests. [Id. at 286.]
It is undisputed that Croatia has an interest in this case. When another state
has a significant interest and Michigan’s interest is minimal, Michigan courts
should defer to the foreign state’s law. Hall v Gen Motors Corp, 229 Mich App
580, 585; 582 NW2d 866 (1998). But, in this case, I believe that Michigan has
more than a minimal interest.
The Jeep was designed and manufactured in this state. Michigan has easily
as much interest in the safe design and manufacture of its goods as does any other
state or country. Its interest may be greater because the state’s good name stands
to be diminished if its products are branded dangerous or deadly.
In addition, Michigan has an interest in protecting its manufacturers, given
that they provide a large percentage of the state’s job base. Michigan has an
interest in having known product liability laws applied to ensure fair
determinations of liability. The Michigan Legislature has implemented laws to
17
protect consumers against faulty products and to protect manufacturers against
Draconian liability determinations. Michigan has a legitimate interest in applying
those laws.8
The majority points to the Court of Appeals decision in Farrell v Ford
Motor Co,9 to support the argument that it is more likely that Croatian law applies
than Michigan law.
Farrell can be distinguished.
In Farrell, the plaintiff’s
argument was that Ford’s headquarters are in Michigan. Farrell, 199 Mich App
93-94. There was no evidence in the record regarding where the car in that case
was manufactured or designed. Id. at 94 n 3. And the Court of Appeals paid
special attention to the major connection Ford had to North Carolina:
Ford unquestionably generates substantial commerce within
the State of North Carolina. In connection with its motion for
summary disposition, Ford submitted substantial documentary
evidence in the form of affidavits that reveal that Ford directly
employs seventy employees at its Charlotte, North Carolina, facility
and purchased nearly $ 591 million worth of materials from North
Carolina suppliers in 1989. In addition, Ford and Lincoln-Mercury
vehicles accounted for 27.4 percent of all new cars and 30 percent of
new trucks sold in North Carolina in 1989. It is obviously in North
Carolina’s economic interest to encourage manufacturers, such as
Ford, to do business in North Carolina. The sales taxes collected,
8
Defendant wants this Court to assume that product liability law in Croatia
does not favor plaintiffs. Defendant argues that plaintiffs are shopping for a better
forum. Again, defendant refers to nothing in the record to support this
assumption. We have no reason to assume that Michigan’s laws are less favorable
to a defendant than Croatia’s. Given that defendant offers no support for its
argument on this point, this Court will not furnish support for it. Goolsby, 419
Mich 655 n 1.
9
199 Mich App 81; 501 NW2d 567 (1993).
18
salaries paid, and materials purchased all contribute to North
Carolina’s economy. [Id. at 93.]
Defendant fails to document such significant economic connections with
the Island of Brac, the Dalmatian Coast, or the Republic of Croatia. Given this,
we have no way of knowing what economic connections defendant has with the
alternate forum. The lack of a record in this regard clearly distinguishes this case
from Farrell. Because of it, I believe that Michigan may apply its own law to this
case.
Given that there is strong support for Michigan applying its own law, this
subfactor favors retaining jurisdiction in Wayne County.
c. People who are concerned by the proceeding
Parties from both forums have an interest in this case. Citizens of Croatia
were injured in the crash. Ena Begovic had the distinction of being a famous
actress.10 On the other hand, as discussed earlier regarding subfactor b, Michigan
has more than an incidental interest in this case. Therefore, this subfactor does not
clearly favor either forum.
Synthesizing the subfactors under the “matters of public interest” factor,
neither forum is strongly favored. But the consideration of state law slightly
10
See Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ena_Begovi%C4%87>
(accessed May 10, 2006), and the Internet Movie Database,
<http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0066807/> (accessed May 10, 2006).
19
favors Michigan as the forum. At the very least, the public interest factor does not
strongly favor Croatia as the proper forum, as the majority implies.
3. REASONABLE PROMPTNESS IN RAISING FORUM NON CONVENIENS
No assertion is made that defendant failed to promptly raise forum non
conveniens.
In summary, considering all the Cray factors, neither forum is strongly
favored. Instead, it appears that the two forums are rather equally matched. And a
strong argument could be made that the factors favor Michigan as a forum.
The factors assuredly do not strongly favor Croatia. Unless the “balance is
strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be
disturbed.” Gulf Oil Corp, 330 US 508. Because the reviewed factors do not
strongly weigh in favor of defendant, this is not one of those “‘exceptional cases’”
where it is decisively established that there is another forum where “‘trial will best
serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice . . . .’” Cray, 389 Mich
392, quoting Gore, 15 NJ 301.
There is no evidence that plaintiffs brought this case to vex, harass, or
oppress defendant. Therefore, the principles undergirding the doctrine are not
implicated, and Wayne County is not a completely inappropriate forum.
Norwood, 349 US 31. In such situations, Wayne County should not avoid its
jurisdiction.
20
The trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the case without finding
that Wayne County is a seriously inconvenient forum. Cray, 389 Mich 394 n 2;
Robey, 155 Mich App 645. I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
THERE IS NO NEED TO ADD TO THE CRAY FACTORS
We specifically asked the parties to address whether Cray’s public interest
factor should be revised or modified.
Justice Markman notes several
“contemporary realities” that support adding public interest subfactors such as the
globalization of American companies, the expansion of free trade, and the
attractiveness of American courts. Justice Markman’s additional factors would
strongly disfavor foreign plaintiffs.11 I feel that such additions are not necessary.
Despite the authority discussing the attractiveness of American courts, there
is little to demonstrate that Michigan has become an especially attractive forum.
There is no evidence that foreign nationals are rushing to file product liability or
other tort cases in Michigan. When specifically asked about the number of such
cases in Michigan, defendant’s attorney could point to only a handful, and he
could specifically name just two. There is simply no evidence that Michigan’s
courts are flooded with cases brought by foreign nationals. And there is no
indication that a sudden influx will occur if the law is not immediately altered.
11
By use of the term “foreign plaintiffs,” Justice Markman means
nonresidents of the United States.
21
Without a disease, there is no need for a cure. Courts have proven well
equipped to apply Cray as it stands. And the Cray factors have proven eminently
capable of handling the issue of forum non conveniens. Therefore, I would not
add to the public interest factors.
Similarly, I must dissent from the majority’s decision to adopt the United
States Supreme Court’s statement in Piper Aircraft Co v Reyno12 that a foreign
plaintiff’s choice of forum should be accorded less deference. The Supreme Court
stated:
The District Court acknowledged that there is ordinarily a
strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum, which
may be overcome only when the private and public interest factors
clearly point towards trial in the alternative forum. It held, however,
that the presumption applies with less force when the plaintiff or real
parties in interest are foreign.
The District Court’s distinction between resident or citizen
plaintiffs and foreign plaintiffs is fully justified. In Koster, the Court
indicated that a plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to greater
deference when the plaintiff has chosen the home forum. 330 U.S.,
at 524. When the home forum has been chosen, it is reasonable to
assume that this choice is convenient. When the plaintiff is foreign,
however, this assumption is much less reasonable. Because the
central purpose of any forum non conveniens inquiry is to ensure that
the trial is convenient, a foreign plaintiff’s choice deserves less
deference. [Piper, 454 US 255-256.]
Piper went on to provide:
Citizens or residents deserve somewhat more deference than
foreign plaintiffs, but dismissal should not be automatically barred
when a plaintiff has filed suit in his home forum. As always, if the
12
454 US 235; 102 S Ct 252; 70 L Ed 2d 419 (1981).
22
balance of conveniences suggests that trial in the chosen forum
would be unnecessarily burdensome for the defendant or the court,
dismissal is proper. [Id. at 255 n 23.]
I do not believe that we should adopt Piper. The reason that the Piper
Court is giving less deference to a foreign national’s choice of forum is because
the foreign national is foreign. Basing access to our courts on such a status is
highly suspect and smacks of xenophobia. As the Washington Supreme Court
noted:
The Court’s logic [in Piper] does not withstand scrutiny. The
Court is comparing apples and oranges. Foreigners, by definition,
can never choose the United States as their home forum. . . . [I]t is
not necessarily less reasonable to assume that a foreign plaintiff’s
choice of forum is convenient. Why is it less reasonable to assume
that a plaintiff from British Columbia, who brings suit in
Washington, has chosen a less convenient forum than a plaintiff
from Florida bringing the same suit? [Myers v Boeing Co, 115 Wash
2d 123, 138; 794 P2d 1272 (1990) (emphasis in original).]
Treating foreign nationals differently in every case simply does not make
logical sense. To offer a Michigan example, person A is a resident of Windsor,
Canada, but crosses the Ambassador Bridge each workday to work in Detroit.
While driving a vehicle designed, manufactured, bought, and maintained in
Michigan before crossing from Canada one day, person A is involved in an
accident caused by an automobile design defect.
Person B is a resident of
California. He drives a DaimlerChrysler vehicle that was designed in Germany
and manufactured outside Michigan.
He is also involved in an automobile
accident caused by a design defect, but it occurs in Nevada.
23
Under Piper, the circuit court must accord considerable deference to person
B’s choice of Michigan as a forum, but person A’s choice of Michigan would not
warrant such deference. This is despite the fact that person A has significantly
greater contact and connection to Michigan than person B. There is no reason for
this distinction aside from the desire to discriminate against person A because of
A’s status as a foreign national. I find such discrimination inappropriate and
unnecessary. The discrimination is needless in light of the fact that application of
the Cray factors would properly locate the correct forum.
Much of the 1981 Piper decision is based on the notion that American
courts are particularly attractive to foreign plaintiffs. Its rule was apparently
created with the object of preventing a flood of foreign cases into American
courts. But again, there is no real evidence of a threatened influx into Michigan.
And there is no evidence that the existing Cray factors are ill-equipped to prevent
an influx should it arise.
Moreover,
Piper
makes
forum-shopping
easier
for
corporations
headquartered in the United States. Foreign nationals often bring cases in the
home forum of the defendant corporation. But Piper enables a corporation based
in the United States not to defend the case on its home turf in a court minutes
away from home. Instead, the corporation can decide to fly halfway around the
globe to defend the case in an unfamiliar court and often in a language other than
English. The motivation for this is to find a forum more conducive to its victory.
Piper facilitates forum-shopping for these corporations by lowering the standard
24
necessary to escape the original forum’s jurisdiction. Forum-shopping in general
is inappropriate. And I would not encourage it by adopting the language cited
earlier from Piper.
But even under Piper, this case does not warrant dismissal based on forum
non conveniens. A foreign national’s choice of forum is still accorded deference.
“Citizens or residents deserve somewhat more deference than foreign
plaintiffs . . . .”
Piper, 454 US 255 n 23 (emphasis added).
Somewhat less
deference is a far cry from no deference at all. In fact, considering the statements
made in Gulf Oil Corp, a fair amount of deference for the plaintiff’s choice
remains under Piper. Gulf Oil Corp, 330 US 508. As was discussed earlier in this
opinion, there is an even balance between the convenience of the forums when the
Cray factors are applied. Hence, giving any deference at all to the plaintiffs’
choice of forum would result in Wayne County retaining jurisdiction.
The majority contends that the only reasonable explanation for plaintiffs’
decision to sue in Michigan was to take advantage of Michigan’s favorable laws
and to avoid Croatia’s less favorable laws. This simply is not true. There is a
legitimate argument that plaintiffs filed this case in Michigan as a matter of
convenience.
As noted earlier, there are likely thousands of documents in
Michigan relating to the design and manufacture of the Jeep. Also there are likely
numerous witnesses in the United States who could be called to testify regarding
the choices made in designing and manufacturing the Jeep. This is not to mention
the thousands of pages of documents that likely exist in Washington, D.C.,
25
involving a National Highway Safety Administration investigation of the problems
with this kind of Jeep. All these documents are in English, and few, if any, of the
witnesses speak Croatian. The choice of forum was appropriately influenced by
these considerations.
Rather than merely shopping for a favorably disposed forum, plaintiffs
came to defendant’s home state to facilitate calling witnesses and obtaining
documents that will form the foundation of their case. This choice seems more
than reasonable. It is defendant that is hard-pressed to argue that its reason for
opposing Wayne County's jurisdiction is not forum-shopping. It seeks to close the
doors to a court in its backyard, so that it could fly halfway around the world to
defend the case in a foreign country. Given that all identified Croatian witnesses
will come to this county, the sole remaining reason for defendant’s resistance to
the Wayne Circuit Court must be to find a more friendly forum.
Defendant has not and cannot demonstrate that plaintiffs’ choice is
unnecessarily burdensome for it or for the court. Even under Piper, the balancing
of the conveniences is decisive when deciding whether to dismiss a case. Piper,
454 US 255 n 23. Because the Wayne Circuit Court is not an unsuitable court, the
forum non conveniens doctrine does not permit the circuit court to avoid
jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
The Cray factors do not strongly favor Croatia as the proper forum in this
case. And Wayne County is not a seriously inconvenient forum. Therefore, the
26
trial court abused its discretion by dismissing this case on the basis of the doctrine
of forum non conveniens. I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The majority contends that I pay only lip service to the “abuse of
discretion” standard. It reaches this conclusion because I would decide the case
differently than it does. The majority misses the fact that I am applying the correct
standard, the seriously inconvenient standard, to this forum non conveniens case.
When this standard is applied, the trial court’s decision is not within the principled
range of outcomes because it pays no respect to plaintiffs’ choice of forum. The
decision that Wayne County can avoid its jurisdiction is an abuse of discretion
because the Cray factors do not strongly weigh in favor of Croatia as a forum.
Gulf Oil Corp, 330 US 508.
As noted elsewhere in this opinion, the trial court abused its discretion in
other ways as well. First, it failed to balance the Cray factors between the two
forums. Cray, 389 Mich 396. Next, it failed to determine which forum’s law to
apply.
To properly use the Cray factors, a court must first make such a
determination. See Manfredi, 194 Mich App 525-526. It is because of these
failures that I conclude that the trial court’s decision is not within the principled
range of outcomes. Hence it constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Also, there is no basis for adopting the Piper standard according less
deference to foreign plaintiffs’ choice of forum. Therefore, I oppose embracing
the United States Supreme Court’s reasoning in that case. Because the Cray
27
factors have served us well for many years, I would continue to use them without
amendment.
Marilyn Kelly
28
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
