3M Co. v. Johnson
| Docket Number: | 2004-IA-00289-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-M-00289-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-13-2006 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Forum non conveniens Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Easley, J., Concurs in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-24-2004 Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: Denied Appellant's Motion to Dismiss for forum non conveniens Case Number: 2000-181 |
|
| Note: | NATURE OF THE CASE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. En Banc opinion on interlocutory appeal. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | 3M COMPANY |
BARRY W. FORD, WALKER (BILL) JONES, III, SCOTT WILLIAM BATES,
BARRY CLAYTON CAMPBELL |
||
| Appellee: | SIMEON JOHNSON, et al. | SUZANNE GRIGGINS KEYS, ISAAC K. BYRD, JR. |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Forum non conveniens |
| Summary of the Facts: | 3M is one of many defendants in this asbestos action, which initially involved a single complaint by 185 plaintiffs against 70 defendants seeking damages for injuries from exposure to asbestos-containing products. Only 36 of the 185 plaintiffs in the initial mass tort action had a claim against 3M, and only 17 of those 36 clearly had a connection with Mississippi. One plaintiff, Willie Kern, had a connection with Mississippi, but his connection with Illinois was longer in duration. None of the 18 wholly out-of-state appellees worked, resided or had any connection with Holmes County. 3M now argues that the 19 out-of-state appellees should be dismissed because 3M is substantially inconvenienced by having to litigate their claims in Holmes County. Twelve of the 19 claim exposure to asbestos-containing products at the Greenlee Brothers Foundry in Rockford, Illinois. Six claim similar asbestos exposure in other places including: Chicago, Colorado, Minnesota, Louisiana, Missouri and North Carolina. Only Kern claims exposure from more than one place. 3M filed its motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens against the out-of-state plaintiffs. In response, the out-of-state plaintiffs argued that, while they were not from Mississippi, they were properly joined with plaintiffs from Mississippi, and therefore venue was proper in Holmes County. The court denied 3M’s motion. The Supreme Court granted 3M’s petition for interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The appellees argue this appeal is moot, because, prior to the filing of briefs, they had offered to “dismiss out of state plaintiffs who did not have exposure here in Mississippi or have a Mississippi defendant”. However, the letter was at best an offer to begin negotiations and not one that would moot the appeal. When the appeal was taken, the dispute was seasonable, and the offer was incomplete and ambiguous in both scope and effect. Therefore, this case is ripe for review. When considering an application for forum non conveniens dismissal, the reviewing court must balance various public and private interests in order to determine if litigation in the chosen forum would seriously inconvenience a party. The factors are relative ease and access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for obtaining attendance of unwilling witnesses; possibility of a view of the premises (if appropriate); expense or trouble to the defendant not necessary to the plaintiff’s own right to pursue his remedy; administrative burden on Mississippi courts in entertaining the suit; whether there are local interests in deciding the case at home; and the plaintiff’s forum should rarely be disturbed. In the present case virtually all the relevant evidence, both witnesses and documents, for the wholly out-of-state appellees is located outside of Mississippi. This includes the appellees’ medical histories, work sites and employment information. This leads directly to an additional difficulty for 3M– any witnesses and evidence for the wholly out-of-state appellees are beyond the compulsory subpoena power of the trial court. This would require 3M to travel to multiple locations and obtain assistance from foreign courts to secure process. A view of the premises by the jury would is unnecessary, because the appellees do not assert that 3M’s facilities caused their injuries. There will be serious administrative difficulty if this case is tried in Holmes County. First, the trial court will have difficulty compelling the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses from other states. Second, the trial court will likely have to apply foreign products liability statutes and give multiple jury instructions. If all 18 wholly out-of-state appellees were not dismissed, the trial court would likely have to apply the laws of Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, North Carolina, Minnesota, Missouri and Mississippi. Holmes County lacks the required interest in the wholly out-of-state appellees’ claims, and it would be a waste of judicial resources if tried in Mississippi. Because of the obvious difficulties presented to the appellees who would have to come from seven different states, it is likely that the choice of forum here was made for the convenience of counsel rather than the convenience of the parties. The wholly out-of-state appellees have not chosen their home forum, and therefore they are afforded less deference than traditionally expected. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
