Ex parte Ford Motor Company. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Daniel Siniard, administrator of the estate of Deborah S. Siniard, deceased v. Ford Motor Company)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/02/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080438 Ex parte F o r d Motor Company PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : D a n i e l S i n i a r d , a d m i n i s t r a t o r of the e s t a t e of Deborah S. S i n i a r d , d e c e a s e d v. Ford Motor Company) (Barbour C i r c u i t Court, PER CV-07-900030) CURIAM. F o r d M o t o r Company death action pending ("Ford"), the defendant i n the Barbour Circuit i na wrongful- Court, petitions 1080438 this Court for a writ o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g the t r i a l t r a n s f e r the a c t i o n to the Montgomery C i r c u i t the petition I. On 5, 2006, r o a d and 65 a Tennessee S. Siniard was driving purchased the Sloan dealership, Jim husband and vehicle Ford, the Court a g a i n s t F o r d and J i m S l o a n F o r d , based Ford as a on lack of to d i s m i s s personal i n Tennessee Daniel filed by of of the Inc. Jim jurisdiction, her Barbour The trial Sloan Ford, leaving only defendant. Siniard's seat-belt complaint system unreasonably marketing motion the Siniard, administrator Circuit Inc., left Inc. an a c t i o n i n t h e C l a y t o n d i v i s i o n the on vehicle filed granted 1999 north vehicle estate, court grant a S i n i a r d d i e d i n the a c c i d e n t . r e s i d e n t , had Deborah's We Procedural History sport-utility over. Tennessee Siniard, and i n M o n t g o m e r y C o u n t y when t h e rolled Court. to writ. Deborah Mountaineer Interstate a i s s u e the F a c t u a l Background April Mercury from and court and Manufacturer's in dangerous alleged the vehicle in their t h a t F o r d was that 2 roof, were design, liable L i a b i l i t y Doctrine the seat, and/or defective manufacture, under the Alabama ("the A E M L D " ) . and and/or Extended Siniard also 1080438 alleged n e g l i g e n c e and wantonness. In paragraph five of the complaint, S i n i a r d averred that "[v]enue i s proper pursuant to Ala. Code In (1975) i t s allegation that answer to the Ala. Code helped complaint, and hereby stated Ford as 27, the the the case t o Montgomery with scene officer the improper however, supported of the who responded investigation; witness. The two troopers affidavits that t h e y work and and to reside State the Jane testified the in filed based in § i t s motion accident; Ford County conveniens, c o d i f i e d f r o m S t a t e T r o o p e r Wayne D a i l e y , on pleads June Ford the defense affirmatively 2008, denied i t s 10th On 1 o f f o r u m non 1975. affidavits Jarrett, case." transfer doctrine officer the five Defendant in this a motion to of paragraph "[t]his venue § 6-3-7(a)(4)." on 6-3-21.1, in part by investigating Trooper accident Armstead, their Steve and an who eye¬ respective i n Montgomery County and t h a t i t w o u l d be a h a r d s h i p f o r t h e m t o t e s t i f y i n the C l a y t o n division 70 of Montgomery. 1 filed Barbour County, Armstead, a which resident F o r d i n i t i a l l y removed t h i s i t s answer i n t h a t c o u r t . 3 i s located of action Culleoka, to f e d e r a l miles from Tennessee, court and 1080438 testified for her On i n her affidavit to t e s t i f y December denying Ford's provided, that i t would i n Montgomery. 10, 2008, motion to in pertinent the be more convenient 2 trial transfer court the e n t e r e d an case. The order order part: " T h i s m a t t e r comes b e f o r e t h e C o u r t u p o n t h e motion to transfer [this case] f o r forum non conveniens filed by the Defendant, Ford Motor Company ( ' F o r d ' ) . A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g each p a r t y ' s brief and oral arguments, i t i s CONSIDERED and ORDERED t h a t F o r d ' s m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r f o r f o r u m n o n c o n v e n i e n s i s DENIED. This Court f i n d s that the D e f e n d a n t has f a i l e d t o meet i t s b u r d e n o f p r o o f u n d e r A l a . Code (1975) § 6-3-21.1. See a l s o , Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a P o w e r C o . , 640 So. 2 d 921 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ; E x p a r t e I n d e p e n d e n t L i f e & A c c i d e n t I n s . C o . , 72 5 So. 2 d 955 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ; Ex p a r t e S u z u k i M o b i l e , I n c . , 940 So. 2 d 1 007 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ; Ex p a r t e V o l v o T r u c k s N o r t h A m e r i c a , 954 So. 2 d 583 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . " (Capitalization Ford f i l e d Court in original.) a petition to order the t r i a l Barbour Circuit Court II. for a writ court o f mandamus, a s k i n g to t r a n s f e r the case t o the Montgomery C i r c u i t Standard of from this the Court. Review "The p r o p e r m e t h o d f o r o b t a i n i n g r e v i e w o f a d e n i a l of a motion f o r a change of venue i n a c i v i l action i s to p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus. Armstead l a t e r f i l e d another a f f i d a v i t , however, i n which s h e s t a t e d t h a t i t w o u l d n o t be i n c o n v e n i e n t f o r h e r t o t r a v e l to e i t h e r c o u n t y . 2 4 1080438 L a w l e r M o b i l e Homes, I n c . v . T a r v e r , 492 S o . 2 d 2 9 7 , 302 ( A l a . 1986). 'Mandamus i s a drastic and e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y w h e r e t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e order sought; (2) a n i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e respondent t o perform, accompanied by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . ' Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 S o . 2 d 4 97 , 499 ( A l a . 1995). 'When we consider a mandamus petition r e l a t i n g t o a venue r u l i n g , our scope o f r e v i e w i s to determine i f the trial court abused i t s discretion, i . e . , whether i t exercised i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n an a r b i t r a r y a n d c a p r i c i o u s manner.' Id. Our r e v i e w i s f u r t h e r l i m i t e d t o t h o s e facts t h a t were b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Ex p a r t e A m e r i c a n Resources I n s . C o . , 663 S o . 2 d 9 3 2 , 936 ( A l a . 19 9 5 ) . " Ex parte National S e c . I n s . C o . , 727 S o . 2 d 7 8 8 , 78 9 (Ala. 1998). III. Section pertinent 6-3-21.1(a), Analysis A l a . Code 1975, provides, in part: "With respect to civil actions filed i n an a p p r o p r i a t e venue, any c o u r t o f g e n e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a l l , f o r t h e c o n v e n i e n c e o f p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s , or i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e , t r a n s f e r any c i v i l a c t i o n o r any c l a i m i n any c i v i l a c t i o n t o any c o u r t of g e n e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n w h i c h t h e a c t i o n might have been p r o p e r l y f i l e d and t h e case s h a l l p r o c e e d as t h o u g h o r i g i n a l l y f i l e d t h e r e i n . " (Emphasis added.) "A d e f e n d a n t § 6-3-21.1 h a s t h e i n i t i a l burden 5 moving for a transfer of showing under that the transfer 1080438 is justified, witnesses the or based on Ins. Co., 727 contends that both Ford witnesses" the on Sec. National of based and action the the convenience interest So. 2d the " i n t e r e s t of from Barbour of at of the justice." Ex and parte 789. "convenience justice" County parties to of parties warrant the Montgomery and transfer County. We responded to agree. As noted above, the accident both for them to testify division they of both in supervisory to go to state that troopers County. work Barbour Their in would County disrupt Barbour t h a t w o u l d be County to disrupted testify. principal office Montgomery; Ford A m b u l a n c e , as w e l l as site accident of the their for asserts other soon Haynes that 6 is paramedics i t work as had required notes that and that located from were p r e s e n t occurred, that t h a t he accident Ambulance w i t n e s s e s who after also that and i f he w e r e Ford Clayton explain Trooper J a r r e t t f u r t h e r explained duties convenient i n the affidavits Haynes Ambulance of Alabama r e s p o n d e d to the the more than Montgomery County who i t w o u l d be i n Montgomery County and public servants; two testified Barbour live testifying the will in Haynes at the offer 1080438 testimony the regarding their decedent's belt, and probative cause. o b s e r v a t i o n s as body, whether other the decedent circumstances they of t h e manner i n w h i c h to the p o s i t i o n was wearing that argues that the material because, i t argues, transfer of witnesses" against a is case to foregoing the considerations of allowing of parties the convenience "'prevent the waste unnecessary expense Siding, (quoting p a r t e New 956 of time, So. England Mut. Life Ford also notes "litigation occurred." s h o u l d be Ex energy, and t h e inconvenience.'" 882 (Ala. 1995)). that injury (Ala. 2d 307 , (Ala. I n s . Co., that handled parte Fuller, 312 Ex this i n the 955 663 So. 2d or and public parte 2003) So. Court forum a 2d has where 414, 416 2006). With § Ex Inc., and are purpose "for Perfection the be the a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d or i t s money a n d a l s o t o p r o t e c t w i t n e s s e s , l i t i g a n t s , stated may observed seat 3 Ford 952, a of respect 6-3-21.1(a), we to the have "interest-of-justice" held that "the 'interest provision of of justice' F o r d a s s e r t s i n i t s b r i e f t h a t , "upon i n f o r m a t i o n and b e l i e f , " none o f t h e w i t n e s s e s n e e d e d f o r t r i a l a r e r e s i d e n t s of B a r b o u r County. 3 7 1080438 require[s] little, a on transfer i f any, strong Ins. the this connection connection Co., 727 of to the to the So. 2d at standard, we have action the a to the action, action." 790 from Ex (emphasis added). with county with National parte county Sec. In expounding stated: " [ I ] n examining whether i t i s i n the i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e t o t r a n s f e r a c a s e , we c o n s i d e r ' t h e b u r d e n of p i l i n g court services and resources upon the p e o p l e o f a c o u n t y t h a t i s n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e c a s e and ... t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e p e o p l e o f a c o u n t y t o have a case t h a t a r i s e s i n t h e i r c o u n t y t r i e d c l o s e to p u b l i c view i n t h e i r county.'" Ex parte 2008) 484, Indiana (quoting 490 In (Ala. this occurred in Mills & Mfg., Ex p a r t e action, i t Montgomery Montgomery County, that Montgomery County, and decedent, is i s also resided that the 3d 536, that action the 540 (Ala. 982 So. venue that is are 2d proper Deborah Daniel in 8 Tennessee. accident in located in S. that located are in Montgomery Siniard, the Siniard currently t h a t the v e h i c l e t h a t purchased the authorities witnesses i n Tennessee, that of that accident relevant undisputed i n T e n n e s s e e , and was undisputed County, investigated resides the So. 2007)). and It 10 S m i t h s Water & Sewer A u t h . , responded County. Inc., i s the subject Although Ford 1080438 a p p a r e n t l y d i d b u s i n e s s by agent i n B a r b o u r County of the accident, is aware, and this that the only action current i s that so. So f a r a s t h i s c o n n e c t i o n between Barbour Siniard chose to f i l e Court County the action i n county. This So. i t no l o n g e r d o e s at the time Court 3d 219 Navistar recently d e c i d e d Ex p a r t e N a v i s t a r , ( A l a . 2009), concerned a case a with similar single-vehicle I n c . , 17 relevant heavy-truck facts. rollover a c c i d e n t i n which Edward S t e w a r t , t h e d r i v e r o f t h e t r u c k , killed. The a c c i d e n t occurred i n Colbert County. was Stewart's daughter and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t r i x o f h i s e s t a t e , B r o o k l y n P r i c e , filed an action designer, sought engineer, damages wantonness that the transfer forum reside for against manufacturer and County of Navistar's and i t s a l l e g e d truck was the case i n Barbour violation to Colbert County County. -- the truck. Price negligence that Navistar the and asserting moved to based on t h e d o c t r i n e of undisputed that I t was County, Navistar o f t h e AEMLD, "crashworthy." i n Barbour i n Barbour alleged not non c o n v e n i e n s . manufactured occur i n Barbour Price d i d not t h e t r u c k was n o t p u r c h a s e d o r County, and t h a t This Court 9 the accident d i d not concluded that the case 1080438 should be t r a n s f e r r e d to C o l b e r t of-justice accident prong of occurred § of Court the 6-3-21.1, same m o d e l was stated that and p o t e n t i a l witnesses this defect -- i n t e r e s t of case As to that the the -- to between the large number of place of b u s i n e s s i s no current county other the County trucks 17 was which the than the fact put, has a legal So. 3d The a transfer at County only the occurred of place -- connection fact that where has a in filed Siniard "there is 10 no filed -- witness, been sold there a c t i o n and the County action no a principal Here, Barbour the the Navistar Navistar i n Barbour County. was of strong a c t i o n had whatsoever between the action that venue a t r u c k i n g company whose located that evidenced 222. the This connection county i n which the was Navistar accident case present -to connection Simply connection product the -- the i n Barbour County. requires action. in county. interest- because the o n l y where Montgomery a c t i o n and Barbour reside i n the connection -- place venue." occurred filed located justice in Navistar, accident 1975, " [ t ] h e venue i n which the alleged the Code the t h a t a n o t h e r p u r c h a s e r of o t h e r its in Ala. i n C o l b e r t County, while t o B a r b o u r C o u n t y was trucks C o u n t y b a s e d on in -¬ that document, no 1080438 transaction, nexus with the Co., Navistar, 727 justice to Montgomery So. complains that Siniard states present an Volvo 2006), at the action j u s t i f y burdening case." 7 90. give Ex that parte National Thus, even case d i c t a t e that more a Sec. than in i n the i n t e r e s t t r a n s f e r r e d from Barbour County that the i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c eprong are that by this he i s the p r o d u c t of " d i v i n e l y Court subjective or of that "has objective." no defined a at a loss "finds himself As result, as t o how i s that Ford to argument." S i n i a r d does i t s burden applies the conveniens doctrine analysis" parameters meet 2d would County. f o r u m non What of t h e a c t i o n m u s t be Siniard inspired trial that that would the f a c t s i n t h i s of the anything else [Barbour] County county with Ins. or to the Trucks of facts argue, proof [of] e s t a b l i s h i n g of t h i s North America, f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n however, case." "[t]he § 6-3-21.1 S i n i a r d quotes I n c . , 954 that that " d i d not So. 2d 583, doctrine Ex parte 585 (Ala. [of forum non c o n v e n i e n s ] i s a p p l i c a b l e o n l y when t h e a c t i o n i s c o m m e n c e d i n a county i n which venue i s a p p r o p r i a t e . " argues that F o r d d i d n o t meet i t s b u r d e n 11 Ironically, because Ford Siniard "failed 1080438 to offer Siniard evidence that Barbour himself the time t h i s its answer filed this County" action a c t i o n was f i l e d . " that venue was -- t h e c o u n t y i n w h i c h -- "was [a] p r o p e r v e n u e a t He n o t e s t h a t F o r d d e n i e d i n proper i n Barbour County contends that Ford never presented evidence t o the t r i a l and court e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t v e n u e was p r o p e r i n B a r b o u r C o u n t y b e f o r e i t filed i t s motion Indeed, a change to transfer F o r d ' s memorandum b r i e f o f venue e x p l i c i t l y connection whatsoever Ford Barbour in County operation occurred, stated that "[t]his had i n Barbour a -- m a k i n g Barbour County h a s no County that, dealership -- B e a t t y F o r d i n C l a y t o n , case Alabama," and t h a t i n i t spetition Ford County. i n support of i t s motion f o r " d o e s n o t do b u s i n e s s b y a g e n t accident t o Montgomery w i t h Barbour County, On a p p e a l , F o r d a s s e r t s the the case which a proper at the time located in i s no l o n g e r venue under § 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975 ( s e t t i n g v e n u e " i n a n y c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e [ c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t ] was d o i n g b u s i n e s s b y a g e n t a t the time of the accrual of the cause of a c t i o n " ) . 4 Siniard F o r d ' s s t a t e m e n t i n i t s memorandum b r i e f i n s u p p o r t o f i t s m o t i o n f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e t h a t i t " d o e s n o t do b u s i n e s s by a g e n t " i n B a r b o u r County does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c o n t r a d i c t t h i s a s s e r t i o n because t h e d e a l e r s h i p may h a v e c e a s e d i t s operation before Ford f i l e d i t s motion. 4 12 1080438 notes, however, dealership court. in that any Because of Ford there the is parties' presented c o u r t i n d i c a t i n g t h a t v e n u e was S i n i a r d argues, Ford f a i l e d the f o r u m non d o c t r i n e of In support of no no AIG Baker Jefferson County an Ford the trial the trial "evidence" to conveniens applies in this Siniard 12 So. however, improper cites 3d address whether the plaintiffs i t was venue t h a t v e n u e i n J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y was doctrine of forum concerning Barbour non had C o u n t y a s an No improper parte (Ala. the AIG 2009). that action. the Court burden before conveniens. case. undisputed for the proper Ex 1204 B e c a u s e no d i s p u t e c o n c e r n i n g t h a t f a c t e x i s t e d , not County, t o meet i t s b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t Beach, was the a p p r o p r i a t e i n Barbour his position, Orange of before filings Baker Orange Beach Wharf, L.L.C., In mention of proving invoking such did the unanimity venue e x i s t s in this case. Although is a proper i n i t s answer Ford venue, venue based which, of only course, i t later on the i t was d i s p u t e d that Barbour filed doctrine free 13 to a of do motion forum as an for a non County change of conveniens, alternative to 1080438 p u r s u i n g the a l l e g a t i o n so d o i n g , F o r d m e r e l y allegation Barbour County. allegation Barbour t o o k as i n S i n i a r d ' s own County. Siniard i n h i s own 7 the premise 5 In f o r i t s motion the c o m p l a i n t t h a t v e n u e was proper i n 6 Furthermore, the i n i t s complaint r e g a r d i n g venue. never disputed complaint that i n the venue Thus, the o p p o s i t e of the f a c t s trial court i s proper i n AIG in Baker This i s e v i d e n t from the f a c t that n o t h i n g prevents a d e f e n d a n t from p l e a d i n g b o t h grounds i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , see R u l e 8 ( e ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., o r f r o m f i l i n g a m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r based on b o t h g r o u n d s as a l t e r n a t i v e arguments, see, e . g . , Ex p a r t e N a t i o n a l S e c . I n s . Co., 727 So. 2 d a t 789 (noting t h a t " N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y f i l e d motions to d i s m i s s or to t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n t o E l m o r e C i r c u i t C o u r t , b a s e d on i m p r o p e r v e n u e a n d on t h e d o c t r i n e o f f o r u m n o n c o n v e n i e n s " ) ; Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a G r e a t S o u t h e r n R.R., 78 8 So. 2 d 88 6, 8 90 n.6 ( A l a . 2000) ( s t a t i n g t h a t b e c a u s e t h e C o u r t g r a n t e d A l a b a m a G r e a t S o u t h e r n R a i l r o a d ' s " p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus on t h e ground of improper venue, we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f i t s alternative ground -- t h e s t a t u t o r y f o r u m non conveniens provisions"). 5 C o m p a r e E x p a r t e A s s o c i a t e s F i n . S e r v s . Co. o f A l a b a m a , Inc., 705 So. 2 d 8 3 6 , 837 ( A l a . 1998) (noting that the motion f o r a change of venue b a s e d upon the d o c t r i n e of forum non c o n v e n i e n s a s s u m e d t h a t v e n u e was p r o p e r i n t h e f o r u m i n w h i c h t h e m o t i o n was filed). 6 In h i s o p p o s i t i o n to Ford's motion to t r a n s f e r the case, S i n i a r d c o n t e n d e d t h a t F o r d f a i l e d " t o meet [ i t s ] b u r d e n o f p r o o f under § 6-3-21.1," not b e c a u s e i t d i d not d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t B a r b o u r C o u n t y was a p r o p e r venue, but because Ford a l l e g e d l y f a i l e d " t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t Montgomery County i s a 'significantly' more c o n v e n i e n t v e n u e so as to override [ S i n i a r d ' s ] r i g h t to choose [ h i s ] forum." 7 14 1080438 Orange Beach e x i s t s here: f a r from conceding that improper i n Barbour County, both p a r t i e s conceded court f o rpurposes Barbour County The burden the of Siniard's of proving only party that alleged County, before the t r i a l opposing party was p r o p e r . he now disputed h i s t o r y of this Barbour argument filed this this Ford had the i n h i s complaint that and t h a t court, failed i n this never now took venue that on venue he w o u l d Barbour This a r g u m e n t d e f i e s common s e n s e . appellate arguments review i s r e s t r i c t e d was n o t a p r o p e r review raised appeal that i n Barbour court have venue the County t h e argument been asking the on t h e g r o u n d f o r the action. I t also c o n f l i c t s with our because "'[t]his f o r the f i r s t time Court cannot on a p p e a l ; o u r t o t h e e v i d e n c e and arguments 15 that was p r o p e r i n t o keep t h e a c t i o n i n B a r b o u r County County County, any d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n complains to prove Court, Put another a c t i o n i n Barbour that consider i s that c a s e was F o r d i t s e l f . court of that f a c t a t any time d u r i n g t h e trial rules o f venue venue. H a d S i n i a r d made i n t h e t r i a l makes to the t r i a l t h a t v e n u e i n B a r b o u r C o u n t y was p r o p e r when that way, t h e p a r t y expressly f o r a change i s an a p p r o p r i a t e import procedural of the motion venue i s considered 1080438 by the t r i a l 1263 2d (Ala. court.'" 2005) 4 0 9 , 410 M a r k s v . T e n b r u n s e l , 910 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 5 , ( q u o t i n g Andrews v. M e r r i t t ( A l a . 1992)). Ford has demonstrated a transfer County the "interest trial for of the case that the facts from " f o r the convenience argument a exceeded change Barbour of parties of j u s t i c e . " to the contrary. court O i l C o . , 612 S o . Siniard County based on case to warrant Montgomery and w i t n e s s e s " and i n offers Accordingly, i t sdiscretion o f venue i n this no meaningful we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e i n denying the doctrine Ford's motion o f forum non requires the conveniens. IV. Section Conclusion 6-3-21.1(a), A l a . Code transfer of t h i s County. We mandamus and d i r e c t order action therefore transferring from grant Barbour Ford's the Barbour this action 1975, County petition Circuit to to Montgomery f o r the writ Court to enter t h e Montgomery of an Circuit Court. P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Cobb, Stuart, C . J . , and Lyons, Murdock, J . , concurs and B o l i n , i n the result. 16 J J . , concur. 1080438 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e I this concur § i n the action under the (concurring to i n the r e s u l t on Montgomery the ground that a transfer County should have been "convenience-of-parties-and-witnesses" 6 - 3 - 2 1 . 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975. concerns result). relating to the I write v e n u e s t a t u t e , § 6-3-7, A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , justice" p r o v i s i o n of Relatively § to 6-3-7(a)(1) resort provision recent appear to of the § improper venues. would avoid justice decisions to the to express applicable the " i n t e r e s t - o f - 6-3-21.1(a). have 6-3-21.1(a) I submit necessity p r o v i s i o n of § of in that of of forced invocation the Section be § and ordered p r o v i s i o n of separately i n t e r p l a y between of this Court defendants the i n some to a correct to avoid reading the seemingly of § Code 1975, provides: "(a) A l l c i v i l a c t i o n s a g a i n s t c o r p o r a t i o n s b r o u g h t i n any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c o u n t i e s : "(1) In the county in which a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of the events or omissions g i v i n g r i s e to the c l a i m o c c u r r e d , or a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of r e a l p r o p e r t y t h a t i s the s u b j e c t of the a c t i o n i s s i t u a t e d ; or 17 6-3-7 interest-of- 6-3-21.1(a). 6-3-7(a), A l a . cases interest-of-justice order resorting interpreting may 1080438 "(2) In the county corporation's principal office s t a t e ; or of in the this "(3) In the county i n which the p l a i n t i f f r e s i d e d , or i f the p l a i n t i f f i s an e n t i t y o t h e r t h a n an i n d i v i d u a l , w h e r e the p l a i n t i f f had i t s p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e i n t h i s s t a t e , at the time of the a c c r u a l of the cause of a c t i o n , i f such c o r p o r a t i o n does b u s i n e s s by agent i n t h e c o u n t y o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s r e s i d e n c e ; or " ( 4 ) I f s u b d i v i s i o n s ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , o r (3) do n o t a p p l y , i n a n y c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was d o i n g b u s i n e s s b y a g e n t a t the time of the a c c r u a l of the cause of action." (Emphasis venue was proper does i n a county not apply. 6-3-7(a)(1) conclusion in By i t s t e r m s , § 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) i n which " d o i n g b u s i n e s s by a g e n t " (3) § added.) which in that a I only suggest case such the action under is that as In is this and (1), (2), or plain would reading lead the a c c i d e n t therefore against a substantial the of the events 18 § f o r the 6-3-7(a)(4) simply states that a corporate defendant part that to of o c c u r r e d and i s a p r o p e r venue p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 6-3-7(a)(1) proper which provision injured a corporation applicable. not that was defendant i f subsection the county i n which the p l a i n t i f f a p p l i e s t o make ... " [ i ] n the giving venue county rise to in the 1080438 claim occurred." Siniard's claim" vehicle in this County. County, Put was plainly, an action. the "event[] This "rollover" ... "event" giving i n turn, rendered Deborah rise to the o c c u r r e d i n Montgomery I n my v i e w , t h e r e f o r e , v e n u e was which, of p r o p e r i n Montgomery venue improper in Barbour County. Because 940 So. change 2d 1007 of seeking of our d e c i s i o n i t had transfer conveniens, and provision § venue ( A l a . 2006), venue, a of i n Barbour i n Ex p a r t e S u z u k i M o b i l e , I n c . , no based in was i f F o r d was alternative on the particular 6-3-21.1(a), County however, rather but doctrine the 8 of seek a do so by forum non interest-of-justice than improper. to to on the In S u z u k i , basis the that Court stated: T h e same i m p e t u s f o r t h e i n v o c a t i o n o f t h e i n t e r e s t - o f j u s t i c e p r o n g o f § 6 - 3 - 2 1 . 1 ( a ) e x i s t e d i n Ex p a r t e N a v i s t a r , Inc., 17 So. 3d 219 ( A l a . 200 9 ) , which, l i k e this case, i n v o l v e d b o t h a n o n r e s i d e n t p l a i n t i f f and c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t s whose p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e s were n o t i n A l a b a m a , t h e r e b y m a k i n g the a p p l i c a b i l i t y v e l non o f t h e v e n u e p r o v i s i o n i n § 6-37 ( a ) ( 1 ) d i s p o s i t i v e o f w h e t h e r t h e v e n u e p r o v i s i o n i n § 6-37 ( a ) ( 4 ) w o u l d be t r i g g e r e d . B e c a u s e u n d e r Ex p a r t e S u z u k i and i t s p r o g e n y § 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) was n o t a v a i l a b l e , t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d no alternative but to invoke the d o c t r i n e of forum non conveniens, p a r t i c u l a r l y i t s i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e prong, i fi t was t o a v o i d a v e n u e i t c o n s i d e r e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e . 8 19 1080438 "'Section 6-3-7(a)(1) provides that a civil a c t i o n a g a i n s t a c o r p o r a t i o n may be b r o u g h t " [ i ] n the county i n which a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of the events or omissions g i v i n g r i s e to the c l a i m o c c u r r e d . " We c o n s t r u e "the e v e n t s or o m i s s i o n s g i v i n g r i s e to the c l a i m " t o be a c l e a r r e f e r e n c e t o t h e w r o n g f u l acts or o m i s s i o n s of the c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t . ' " 940 So. 2d at 844 So. 2d 1186, I submit rise to the 6-3-7 certain So. (a) ( 1 ) . Court, of parte 661 stated is would defendant we First a § acts been done Family the legal meaning act or may have of venue (setting "the the for omission" occurred). J u s t i c e Maddox, w r i t i n g f o r the of considerations and the of 718 a l l because administrative changed venue "'"when based on trial in oppressiveness or of omissions giving Inc., only convenience,' omitted). or or Club, omissions Financial Services, change of Country emphasis or 6-3-2(a)(3) ' e s t a b l i s h ... when events county i n which appropriate out (some "the (Ala. 1998), ... Pikeville effectively have that parte "the mean i n the may Ex conveniens forum to Compare 658, 2d construing claim" purposes Ex ( A l a . 2002)) defendant," complained In (quoting 1189 t h a t , by corporate § 1010 proportion 'chosen forum affecting problems.'"'" 20 and forum the vexation non chosen to a to plaintiff's [is] inappropriate the court's (Quoting own Piper 1080438 Aircraft turn 524 Co. Koster v. (1947).) based on ... plaintiff "the U.S. some p r i v a t e - and selected." cases we we are therefore "front In -- the ... could door" this of not nor Suzuki. For purposes as the main does 330 U.S. 2d at forcing 661. the to the i n t o our 518, only where the involved forum I question 9 the of the the whether door" of 6-3-21.1(a) § "back a plaintiff's accident -¬ was location of claim" and d e l i b e r a t i o n s through the i n Suzuki rise in through provision l o c a t i o n of in not the [plaintiff's] venue. case, improper venue, occur litigation now enter Co., quoting to e x p l a i n , a t r a n s f e r should So. giving (1981), Casualty 718 i n c o r r e c t l y decided "event[] 241 public-interest factors against "interest-of-justice" that 235, J u s t i c e M a d d o x w e n t on heavily consideration an 454 Lumbermens M u t u a l As weigh[] the Reyno, improper venue n o r m a l l y b a l a n c e of in v. Ford does does i t ask of this opinion, not us case, the seek to a transfer revisit therefore, propriety of our based on holding in I must venue in accept, Barbour T h e v i e w s e x p r e s s e d b y J u s t i c e M a d d o x on b e h a l f o f t h e Court i n F i r s t Family F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the n o t i o n t h a t v e n u e s t a t u t e s s u c h as § 6-3-7 reflect a legislative determination that the statutorily prescribed locations are generally and presumptively just and appropriate. 9 21 1080438 County. I defendant's concur motion granted under provision of § i n the for the result a change because of I believe venue should that have the been convenience-of-parties-and-witnesses 6-3-21.1(a). 22

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.