In the case of Ranck
v. Coatesville Little League, Inc., September Term 2017 No. 01990 (C.P. Phila. Co. July
25, 2018 Patrick, J.), the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted a
Defendant’s Petition to Transfer Venue based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
This matter arose out of an incident when the Plaintiff was
allegedly injured while volunteering at a concession stand during a little
league baseball game and a fryer full of hot cooking oil fell upon her, causing
injuries. Although the incident
apparently occurred in Chester County, the Plaintiff filed suit in Philadelphia
County.
The Defendant moved to transfer venue based upon the
doctrine of forum non conveniens.
The Plaintiff initially asserted that the Defendant waived
this argument regarding improper venue because it did not raise the issue in
Preliminary Objections.
The court explained that the issues of improper venue and forum non conveniens were two separate and distinct issues.
The court reiterated the rule of law that the question of improper venue could be waived if not raised by way of Preliminary Objections as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.
However, the issue of forum
non conveniens was not waived by the failure to assert the same in
Preliminary Objections.
The court noted
that the issue of forum non conveniens
was properly raised by way of petition under Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1). As such, the court found that the Defendant’s
failure to raise the doctrine of forum
non conveniens by way of Preliminary Objections did not serve to defeat its
request for relief in this regard.
Turning to the merits of the motion, the court held that
venue in Philadelphia County would be both vexatious and oppressive under the
circumstances. The court noted that none of the parties resided or did business
in Philadelphia. The incident did not occur in Philadelphia. All of the Plaintiff’s medical providers and
other witnesses were located outside of Philadelphia. The court also stated
that it was foreseeable that a visit to the ball park in Chester County where
the incident happened may prove necessary for the jury to obtain a full
understanding of the case at trial.
The court even ruled that, given the Plaintiff’s claim of
extensive physical injuries, venue in Philadelphia County would be
oppressive to the Plaintiff as well in terms of having to travel to that county
for the proceedings.
Given that the record before the court confirmed that the
parties’ connection to Philadelphia County were tenuous, the court found that a
transfer of the case to Chester County based upon the doctrine forum non conveniens was warranted.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may click this
LINK.
Source: “Digest of
Recent Opinion” Pennsylvania Law Weekly
(Aug. 14, 2018).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.