Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1982) p110.
Subject:
jurisdiction: forum non conveniens
Facts:
Five Scottish subjects were killed in the crash of a small aircraft in the Scottish highlands during a charter flight. An inexperienced pilot was found to be the cause of the crash. Survivors employed counsel in California, whose legal secretary, Reyno, qualified as administrator of the decedents' estates.
Procedure:
Reyno then commenced wrongful death actions in CA state court against Piper, and the manufacturer of the propellers. The case was removed to federal court and transferred to Pennsylvania. Piper moved for dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens. District Court granted the motion and dismissed. The Court of Appeals reversed. Held that the dismissal was never appropriate when the law of the alternate forum is less favorable to the plaintiff.
Issue:
Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that P may defeat a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in the alternate forum is less favorable to the plaintiffs than that if the present forum?
Rule:
Motions for forum non conveniens should be upheld when relocating the trial is much more convenient. A change in law should not be given substantial weight when deciding motions non conveniens.
Holding:
Yes, the Court of Appeals did err in its holding.
Rationale:
If the possibility of a change in law were given substantial weight, declining motions to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens would become quite difficult. Doctrine of forum non conveniens is designed in part to held courts avoid conducting complex exercises in comparative law. Flow of litigation into the US would increase and further congest already crowded courts if the Court of Appeals decision was upheld. Also there would be fewer evidentiary problems if case was heard in Scotland as much of the evidence and witnesses are located there. The incremental deterrence that would possibly be gained by holding the trial in an American court is likely to be insignificant.
Policy/Notes:
Do not hold that a change in law should never be a relevant consideration in a forum non conveniens inquiry.
