Piper Aircraft Co. v.

Reyno
Share on facebookShare on emailShare on print|More Sharing ServicesMore
View this case and other resources at:
Citation. 54 U.S. 235, 102 S. Ct. 252, 70 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1981)
Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiffs sued Defendants, in state court arising from injuries sustained in a
plane crash in Scotland. The cases were removed to federal court and transferred to the District
Court of Pennsylvania. Defendants moved to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens,
arguing that the better forum was located in Scotland.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to dismiss a case
that was brought in the wrong forum. When all or most of the significant events, witnesses and
evidence are centered in one location, then a court must dismiss a case brought in another location
under the doctrine of forum non conveniens unless the alternate forum provides the plaintiff with
absolutely no remedy. Whether the law of the forum chosen by the plaintiff is more favorable to the
plaintiff should not be given weight.
Facts.
There was a plane crash in Scotland, where five citizens of Scotland were killed. The aircraft was
manufactured in Pennsylvania by Piper Aircraft Company (Defendant) and the propellers were made
in Ohio by Hartzell Propeller, Inc. (Defendant). The plane was registered in Great Britain and owned
and operated by people from the United Kingdom. The wreckage was in England. An investigation
conducted by The British Department of Trade concluded that there was no evidence of defective
equipment and that the crash was probably due to pilot error. Reyno, Plaintiff, a legal secretary for
the attorney of the decedents survivors, was appointed administratrix of the decedents estate by a
California probate court. Plaintiff commenced separate wrongful death actions against the Piper and
Hartzell in California Superior Court, claiming negligence and strict liability. They also filed suit in the
United Kingdom against the owner and operator. Plaintiff admits that she filed suit in the United Stat
es because of its laws regarding liability and capacity to sue. Defendant filed motion to remove to the
District Court in California which was granted. Piper moved to transfer to the District Court in
Pennsylvania. Hartzell moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to
transfer. The District Court quashed service and transferred the case to Pennsylvania. Plaintiff then
served Hartzell with process in the District Court in Pennsylvania. Defendants moved to dismiss for
forum non conveniens.
The District Court of Pennsylvania granted the motions based on the analysis articulated in [Gulf Oil
Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947)], namely that: 1) An alternative
forum existed in Scotland; 2) The plaintiff only filed in the U.S. for the favorable law; 3) There were
overwhelming connections with Scotland; 4) Witnesses and evidence were beyond the reach of
compulsory process.; 5) All of Defendants witnesses are in Great Britain; 6) There should be only
one trial to preserve judicial expense and avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts; 7) Scottish law
would apply to Hartzell, and Pennsylvania law would apply to Piper, which would be excessively
confusing for a jury; 8) The jurors have little connection to the controversy; 9) Scotland has a
substantial interest in the outcome of litigation.
The Circuit Court reversed and remanded District Courts decision. It held that the District Court
abused its discretion when using the Gilbert analysis. In addition, the court baed its argument on
several additional factors: (1) dismissal is never appropriate where the law of the alternative forum is
less favorable to Plaintiffs; (2) Plaintiffs choice of forum deserves substantial weight even though
they are non-residents; (3) Defendants did not prove that all their witnesses were in Great Britain; (4)
Defendants inability to implead other defendants would be burdensome but not unfair; (5) viewing
the wreckage and Scottish topography was not that significant; (6) application of foreign law does
not require dismissal; (7) Pennsylvania and Ohio would be the governing law anyway, because
these states have the greatest policy interests; and finally (8) a dismissal for forum non conveniens
should not result in a change in the applicable law, just a change in the location of the trial. T
he Supreme Court read this holding to mandate that dismissal is automatically barred if it would lead
to a change in the applicable law unfavorable to the plaintiff.

Issue. Should a case be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens when all the witnesses
and evidence are in another country, the other countrys jurors would be more connected to the
problem, it is inconvenient to the parties to try the case in the jurisdiction where it was brought, and
the other countrys law will be applied?

Held. Yes. Reversed.

The possibility of a change of law should not be given substantial weight in a forum non conveniens
analysis. Plaintiffs can choose among many forums, and generally choose the most favorable one. If
they do not choose the most favorable but the action can be dismissed anyway, it would not be
proper. In addition, courts would have to interpret the law of foreign districts, which would pose a lot
of problems and inconsistencies. This is why there is a doctrine of forum non conveniens, to get rid
of this kind of confusion.
Upholding the Court of Appeals judgment would also increase the flow of litigation, and the courts
would be overwhelmed.
Choice of law should only be considered in this scenario when the remedy in the alternative forum is
totally inadequate or when the alternative forum lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The facts of the
case do not show either scenario.
Giving the plaintiffs interests less weight is justified when the plaintiffs are foreign. Under this
circumstance, the choice of forum is not necessarily convenient. The connections with Scotland were
not necessarily overwhelming, but the District Court correctly found that there would be fewer
evidentiary problems. If Defendants had to prove exactly what persons it would be difficult to identify
and bring as witnesses, Defendants required expenditures would defeat the purpose of their motion.
Even if Scottish law would not apply, the other public interest factors would be sufficient to support
dismissal. There is a local interest. The American interest is not sufficient.

Gulf Oil Corp. vs. Gilbert Digest

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert

Forum Non-Conveniens

Facts:
1. Plaintiff Gilbert filed an action in New York against the petitioner for negligence due to the delivery
of gasoline to his tanks and pumps. The venue statutes of the United States permit this. Gilbert
resides in Virginia, USA.

2. Petitioner Gulf Oil is a company organized under the laws of Pennsylvania with authority to do
business in both Virginia and New York. It designated officials in each state as agents to receive the
process. Gulf Oil invoked the doctrine of 'forum non-conveniens' and claimed that Virginia is the
appropriate venue for the trial becuase it is where the plaintiff resides, where corporation does
business, where the witness likewise resides and it is also the place where the events took place.

3. On one hand, plaintiff contends that the action filed in New York is justified since the action
involved an amount for claim for damages close to $400 thousand which may stagger the
imagination of the local jury, the diversity of the citizenship of the parties and that plaintiff's counsel
resides in New York.

4. The District Court of New Yorl dismissed the tort action pursuant to FNC (forum non-conveniens)
while the Appeals Court reversed the decision.

Issue: Whether or not the action was properly dismissed from NY court under the doctrine of
FNC thought personam jurisdiction and venue are proper

HELD:

YES. The application of the doctrine lies in the the discretion of the court. However, tje interests of
the plaintiff, the defendant and the forum state need to be considered. Here, there is not interest for
any party to have the litigation in New York. In fact, interests weigh against it.

Moreover, the plaintiff may not choose an inconvenient forum to harass the petitioner. Finally, the
state has an interest in avoiding the overcrowding of its own courts and subjecting its citizens to jury
duty in a case having no ties to their state.