Pratt v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. ( 2020 )

NOTICE FILED
This order was filed under Supreme 2020 IL App (4th) 190476-U May 6, 2020
Court Rule 23 and may not be cited Carla Bender
as precedent by any party except in NO. 4-19-0476
the limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate
under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THERESA PRATT, Individually and as Executor of ) Appeal from
the Estate of Kenneth Pratt, Deceased, ) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Sangamon County
v. ) No. 17L258
ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY, )
Defendant-Appellee )
)
) Honorable
(Neil Oil Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-
) Ryan M. Cadagin,
Appellee). ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in granting defendant’s motion to transfer venue.
¶2 In November 2017, plaintiff, Theresa Pratt, individually and as executor of the
estate of Kenneth Pratt, filed a wrongful death and survival action against defendant, Archer
Daniels Midland Company (ADM), in the circuit court of Sangamon County. In March 2018,
ADM filed a third-party complaint against third-party defendant, Neil Oil Company, Inc. That
same month, ADM filed a motion to transfer venue based on the doctrine of
forum non conveniens. In June 2019, the trial court granted the motion to transfer venue.
¶3 This court allowed plaintiff’s petition for leave to appeal under Illinois Supreme
Court Rule 306(a)(2) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017). On appeal, plaintiff argues (1) the trial court abused its
discretion in finding ADM met its evidentiary burden and (2) the private and public interest
factors disfavored transfer from Sangamon County. For the following reasons, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
¶4 I. BACKGROUND
¶5 In November 2017, plaintiff filed a wrongful death and survival action in the
circuit court of Sangamon County. The complaint alleged ADM owned and operated a diesel
storage tank in Quincy, Illinois. ADM owned and maintained a hose and pump attached to the
tank that did not have any static elimination device. The complaint further alleged the pump was
not designed for the transfer of diesel fuel. On March 4, 2016, decedent—an employee of Neil
Oil Company—and an ADM employee worked together to transfer diesel fuel from the storage
tank to a fuel truck. A static spark ignited, and decedent’s clothes caught on fire. Decedent was
badly burned and transferred to Memorial Medical Center in Springfield, Illinois, where
numerous physicians treated decedent before his death on March 23, 2016.
¶6 Count I of the complaint alleged ADM owed a duty of care to provide safe and
proper equipment to transfer diesel fuel. The equipment provided was unreasonably dangerous
because the hose did not have a static elimination device and the pump was not designed to
transfer diesel fuel. ADM negligently failed to provide a proper hose and pump, allowed the use
of an improper and dangerous hose and pump, failed to provide proper warnings and instructions
to the user of the hose and pump, and was otherwise negligent. The complaint alleged that, as a
direct and proximate result of ADM’s negligent acts, decedent suffered significant personal
injuries and ultimately died due to those injuries. Count II incorporated the allegations of
negligence and further alleged decedent was survived by his wife and two children.
-2-
¶7 In March 2018, ADM filed a motion to transfer based on the doctrine of
forum non conveniens. In support of the motion, ADM argued plaintiff resided in Adams
County, as did decedent’s employer. The incident occurred in Adams County at the ADM diesel
storage tank facility in Quincy. Additionally, plaintiff sought to preserve equipment located in
Adams County, and ADM attached copies of the spoliation letter sent to ADM and plaintiff’s
motion for a protective order. ADM identified the maintenance mechanic present at the time of
the incident and six members of the Quincy fire department who responded to the scene.
Additionally, a fire and arson investigator for the Quincy fire department spoke with ADM and
Neil Oil Company employees. ADM attached a copy of the Quincy fire department report
including the names of the six responders and the eyewitness. ADM noted all the witnesses
present at the time of or immediately after the incident were employed in or resided in Adams
County. ADM argued decedent sought medical treatment in Adams County before being
transferred to the hospital in Springfield. However, ADM argued decedent’s treatment in
Springfield was the only Sangamon County connection to the case, as the incident occurred in
Adams County and numerous witnesses resided in Adams County. ADM contended the private
interest factors strongly favored transfer to Adams County.
¶8 Regarding the public interest factors, ADM argued Adams County had a greater
interest in providing a forum for the litigation because all the parties were residents of Adams
County and the incident occurred in Adams County. Given the minimal interest Sangamon
County had in the litigation, ADM argued it was unfair to impose the costs of the litigation and
the burden of jury duty on the courts and residents of Sangamon County. Finally, ADM argued
Adams County had a less congested docket than Sangamon County. ADM cited the
Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts 2016 Annual Report showing, in part, 162 new cases
-3-
filed in the law division of Sangamon County with a jury demand seeking more than $50,000 in
damages and 611 such cases pending at the end of 2016. In contrast, Adams County had 5 new
cases with a jury demand seeking more than $50,000 in damages and 11 such cases pending at
the end of 2016.
¶9 Plaintiff argued her choice of forum was entitled to substantial deference and
should not be disturbed. Plaintiff further argued ADM’s failure to file affidavits asserting the
inconvenience of trial in Sangamon County required the motion to be denied. Plaintiff also
asserted the private and public interest factors disfavored transfer.
¶ 10 Following a hearing on ADM’s motion to transfer venue, the trial court stated,
“I’m going to grant defendant’s motion to transfer venue based off the doctrine forum non
inconveniens [sic]. That’s the doctrine considering all the public and private interest factors.
Considering all of them, but, specifically, local controversies should be decided locally I think is
persuasive. So[,] I will grant the transfer of venue.”
¶ 11 This appeal followed.
¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 13 On appeal, plaintiff argues (1) the trial court abused its discretion in finding ADM
met its evidentiary burden and (2) the private and public interest factors disfavored transfer from
Sangamon County. ADM asserts the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting its motion
to transfer based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
¶ 14 In ruling on a forum non conveniens motion, the court considers the relative
convenience of a forum. Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430, 441, 848
N.E.2d 927, 934 (2006). “Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine founded in
considerations of fundamental fairness and the sensible and effective administration of justice.
-4-
[Citation.] This doctrine allows a trial court to decline jurisdiction when trial in another forum
‘would better serve the ends of justice.’ ” Id. (quoting Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306, 310,
579 N.E.2d 857, 858 (1991).
¶ 15 “The plaintiff has a substantial interest in choosing the forum where his rights will
be vindicated, and the plaintiff’s forum choice should rarely be disturbed unless the other factors
strongly favor transfer.” First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511, 517, 764 N.E.2d 54,
58 (2002). However, the plaintiff’s choice of forum receives less deference when neither the site
of the incident nor the plaintiff’s residence is in the chosen forum. Id. The plaintiff’s chosen
forum will prevail if venue is proper and the inconvenience factors attached to the plaintiff’s
chosen forum do not greatly outweigh the plaintiff’s substantial right to try the case in the
plaintiff’s chosen forum. Id. at 520.
¶ 16 In ruling on a forum non conveniens motion, the trial court must weigh all
relevant factors without emphasizing any single factor. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443. “In
Illinois, the private interest factors include (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the relative ease
of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real evidence; and (3) all other practical
problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive ***.” Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d
at 516. “Public interest factors include (1) the interest in deciding controversies locally; (2) the
unfairness of imposing trial expense and the burden of jury duty on residents of a forum that has
little connection to the litigation; and (3) the administrative difficulties presented by adding
litigation to already congested court dockets.” Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443-44. The burden is
on the defendant to show the relevant factors strongly favor transfer to another forum. Id. at 444.
¶ 17 The trial court is granted considerable discretion to rule on a
forum non conveniens motion. Id. at 441. We reverse only if the circuit court abused its
-5-
discretion in balancing the relevant factors. Id. at 442. “A circuit court abuses its discretion in
balancing the relevant factors only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by
the circuit court.” Id. “This court has repeatedly noted that the forum non conveniens doctrine
gives courts discretionary power that should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances
when the interests of justice require a trial in a more convenient forum.” (Emphasis in original.)
Id.
¶ 18 Plaintiff asserts the trial court failed to engage in any analysis of the public and
private factors. However, “[w]hen an appellate court reviews a trial court’s
forum non conveniens order, ‘[t]he issue is not the detail of the underlying order, but whether the
circuit court abused its discretion.’ ” Ruch v. Padgett, 2015 IL App (1st) 142972, ¶ 40, 40
N.E.3d 448 (quoting Estate of Rath v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 2012 IL App (5th) 100096,
¶ 23, 968 N.E.2d 1247). An inadequate record of the trial court’s analysis does not, in and of
itself, require reversal. Id.¶ 19 A. Defendant’s Evidentiary Burden
¶ 20 Plaintiff first contends ADM has failed to provide competent evidence from a
party or a witness in the form of an affidavit or testimony regarding the inconvenience of
plaintiff’s chosen forum. Plaintiff argues courts “have repeatedly found that the failure to
provide a sufficient reason to transfer with competent evidence in and of itself is a sufficient
basis to deny a motion to transfer.” We first note the case law plaintiff primarily relies on
involves a court of review affirming a lower court’s decision to deny a forum non conveniens
motion because the ruling was not an abuse of discretion. See Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 454.
¶ 21 Plaintiff asserts ADM was required to provide affidavits from witnesses
indicating their unwillingness to testify in Sangamon County or their inconvenience if they were
-6-
to testify in Sangamon County. Plaintiff further argues ADM may not rely on exhibits attached
to their motion to transfer because the exhibits were without foundation and irrelevant. Finally,
plaintiff asserts ADM has failed to identify any witnesses in response to written interrogatories.
¶ 22 ADM argues plaintiff misconstrues the supreme court’s holding in Langenhorst.
Specifically, ADM asserts that Langenhorst did not impose a specific evidentiary burden on the
moving party but expressly followed precedent and considered the relevant public and private
factors.
¶ 23 In Langenhorst, the decedent was struck by a train in Clinton County.
Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 434. The defendant railroad company’s registered agent for service
was in adjacent St. Clair County. Id. Multiple witnesses were scattered in various counties in
Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri. Id. at 434-35. The plaintiff filed suit in St. Clair County and the
defendants filed a motion to transfer to Clinton County based on the doctrine of
forum non conveniens. Id. In support of the motion, the defendants filed affidavits stating trial
in Clinton County would not be inconvenient and identified several neighbors who were at the
scene of the incident. Id. at 437. The trial court denied the motion to transfer. Id. at 438-39.
¶ 24 The supreme court reviewed the standards for considering a motion based on the
doctrine of forum non conveniens. Id. at 441-44. The court noted, “The burden is on the
defendant to show that relevant private and public interest factors ‘strongly favor’ the
defendant’s choice of forum to warrant disturbing plaintiff’s choice.” Id. at 444. In considering
the public and private factors, the supreme court concluded the total circumstances of the case
did not strongly favor transfer to Clinton County. Id. at 448. In weighing the private interest
factors, the court noted a visit to the incident site was not appropriate because the railroad
crossing was substantially changed after the incident. Conversely, the plaintiff’s investigator,
-7-
who resided in St. Clair County, had documented the conditions at the time of the incident and
all the documentation was in St. Clair County. Id. at 449. Additionally, there were witnesses
“disbursed among several counties, St. Louis, Missouri, and Indiana, required to travel regardless
of the place of trial.” Id. The court noted that no affidavits had been filed stating that St. Clair
County would be an inconvenient forum for any of the witnesses. Id. at 450. The court
concluded the defendants failed to show any inconvenience, particularly where St. Clair and
Clinton counties were adjacent. Id. The court then considered the public interest factors and
concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to transfer. Id. at 451-
54.
¶ 25 Nothing in Langenhorst imposes a requirement that the moving party file
affidavits asserting inconvenience to prevail on a motion to transfer. Rather, Langenhorst
requires a court to balance the relevant private and public factors, while giving some measure of
deference to plaintiff’s chosen forum, in determining whether those factors strongly favor
transfer.
¶ 26 The authority plaintiff relies on involved courts of review pointing out the
weaknesses in a party’s motion to transfer or dismiss while determining the lower court did not
abuse its discretion in denying the forum non conveniens motion. They do not stand for the
proposition that such a weakness requires the denial of a motion to transfer, nor do they stand for
the proposition that a court has abused its discretion in granting a motion to transfer. Put another
way, pointing to failures that support the denial of a motion to transfer does not mean such
failures preclude the granting of a motion to transfer.
¶ 27 We further note a panel of the First District Appellate Court has rejected a similar
argument in Koss Corp. v. Sachdeva, 2012 IL App (1st) 120379, ¶¶ 104-08, 975 N.E.2d 236. In
-8-
Koss, the trial court granted the defendant’s interstate motion to dismiss the case based on
forum non conveniens. Id. ¶ 2. The plaintiff appealed, arguing the defendant failed to meet its
evidentiary burden because they did not provide affidavits from witnesses stating they would be
unwilling to testify in Cook County. Id. ¶ 106. The First District Appellate Court rejected this
argument, stating,
“In the case at bar, [the defendant] did not proffer any evidence
that witnesses are unwilling to testify in Cook County or that
Illinois would be an inconvenient forum, and [the plaintiff] claims
that the trial court thus abused its discretion when it held that
Wisconsin is a more convenient forum for witnesses. However,
we know of no rule that bars a trial court from inferring the relative
convenience of alternative forums, based on its knowledge of their
residence and workplace.” Id.The plaintiff in Koss relied on three cases plaintiff relies on in this case: Erwin ex rel Erwin v.
Motorola, Inc., 408 Ill. App. 3d 261, 945 N.E.2d 1153 (2011); The Cradle Society v. Adopt
America Network, 389 Ill. App. 3d 73, 904 N.E.2d 1137 (2009); and Brant v. Rosen, 373 Ill.
App. 3d 720, 869 N.E.2d 232 (2007). The appellate court rejected the reliance on these cases,
concluding they all involved scenarios where the defendant had not yet identified witnesses and
the court declined to speculate as to the unknown witnesses’ willingness to testify. Koss, 2012
IL App (1st) 120379, ¶ 107.
¶ 28 Here, plaintiff claims ADM has yet to identify any witnesses in its responses to
written interrogatories. Our review of the record shows that ADM identified numerous witnesses
who resided in Adams County, including an eyewitness who worked in Adams County, six
-9-
members of the Quincy fire department, the fire and arson investigator, and a Neil Oil Company
employee. Because ADM has identified some witnesses, it is not speculative to consider the
inconvenience to the witnesses without requiring affidavits asserting their unwillingness to
travel.
¶ 29 For the foregoing reasons, we reject plaintiff’s argument that ADM’s failure to
file affidavits asserting Sangamon County was an inconvenient forum requires denial of their
motion to transfer as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s cited authority does not stand for the proposition
that the moving party must produce affidavits from witnesses stating their unwillingness to travel
to the chosen forum. Nor does the case law support the proposition that a trial court abuses its
discretion in granting a motion to transfer in the absence of such affidavits. Rather, the
authorities all stand for the proposition that this court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion to
transfer for an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we turn to the relevant private and public
interest factors to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining ADM
sustained its burden of showing the factors strongly favored transfer.
¶ 30 B. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum
¶ 31 As discussed above, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is afforded substantial
deference. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 517. However, the plaintiff’s choice of forum receives less
deference when neither the site of the incident nor the plaintiff’s residence is in the chosen
forum. Id. Plaintiff argues her choice should receive substantial deference because Sangamon
County is within Illinois, which she alleges is her home forum. However, intrastate
forum non conveniens analysis considers a party’s county of residence as their “home forum.”
Therefore, plaintiff’s home forum is Adams County. Accordingly, plaintiff’s chosen forum—
- 10 -
Sangamon County—is neither the site of the incident nor the plaintiff’s residence. We therefore
accord plaintiff somewhat less deference. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 448.
¶ 32 C. Private Interest Factors
¶ 33 Plaintiff asserts the private interest factors disfavor transfer of this case to Adams
County. Specifically, plaintiff argues travel into Springfield is easier for the out-of-state
witnesses than travel into Adams County. Further, plaintiff asserts numerous physicians who
reside or work in Sangamon County will testify and two employees of ADM who reside in
Decatur, Illinois, would have to travel a shorter distance to Sangamon County than Adams
County. ADM argues multiple key witnesses either live or work in Adams County, plaintiff is a
resident of Adams County, the parties’ attorneys are in Adams County, and critical evidence is in
Adams County.
¶ 34 As discussed above, private interest factors “include (1) the convenience of the
parties; (2) the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real evidence;
and (3) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive
***.” Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 516.
¶ 35 We discussed plaintiff’s response to ADM’s arguments regarding inconvenience
above. As said, we find the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in considering the
inconvenience witnesses in Adams County would face with a trial in Sangamon County.
Although plaintiff argues Springfield is more easily accessible than Quincy, most of the
witnesses who must travel to testify will be expert witnesses. Their travel will be compensated,
unlike the numerous fact witnesses located in Adams County. While we acknowledge plaintiff
intends to call numerous physicians to testify about decedent’s medical care and those physicians
are in Springfield, this testimony does not go to the heart of this case. This is not a medical
- 11 -
malpractice case. This is a negligence case about an incident that occurred in Adams County—
not Sangamon County.
¶ 36 We do not intend to minimize the impact of testimony from the physicians in this
case, but testimony from 10 physicians would likely be cumulative and irrelevant to the elements
of duty, breach, and causation necessary for plaintiff to prevail on her two negligence claims. It
is undisputed decedent passed away in Sangamon County and received substantial medical care
there, however his injuries were sustained in Adams County and he received his initial medical
care in Adams County.
¶ 37 Plaintiff cites Langenhorst in support of her argument that the trial court abused
its discretion in granting the motion to transfer when witnesses were dispersed throughout
various counties in Illinois and Missouri. However, “[e]ach forum non conveniens case must be
considered as unique on its facts.” Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443. While the potential
witnesses in this case may be disbursed throughout Illinois—and indeed throughout the
country—most of the key witnesses either reside in or work in Adams County. Moreover, our
review is for an abuse of discretion. We cannot say no reasonable person would take the trial
court’s view as to the convenience of holding this trial in Adams County instead of Sangamon
County.
¶ 38 The next factor weighs the relative ease of access to evidence. It is undisputed the
incident occurred in Adams County, ADM has preserved physical evidence in Adams County,
and the only eyewitness lives in a county in Missouri adjacent to Adams County. Moreover, a
view of the incident site may be required (plaintiff does not argue the site has substantially
changed or that a viewing would be inappropriate), which is relevant in considering the private
interest factors. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 449; Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 178 (“This convenience
- 12 -
factor is not concerned with the necessity of viewing the site of the injury, but rather is concerned
with the possibility of viewing the site, if appropriate.” (Emphases in original.)). Indeed, the only
evidence “located” in Sangamon County is testimonial—the testimony from decedent’s treating
physicians. Beyond the testimony from fact witnesses located in Adams County, there is
physical evidence located in Adams County. Although plaintiff anticipates critical testimony
from two ADM employees located in Decatur, there are many more key witnesses located in
Adams County.
¶ 39 Finally, both parties have counsel located in Adams County. Although this factor
carries minimal weight, it is relevant. Therefore, we note counsel for the parties would also be
inconvenienced by travel from Adams County to Sangamon County. Schuster v. Richards, 2018
IL App (1st) 171558, ¶ 35, n.3, 103 N.E.3d 545. While not dispositive, this factor is an
appropriate consideration in the overall balancing test required by a forum non conveniens
analysis.
¶ 40 D. Public Interest Factors
¶ 41 Plaintiff argues the public interest factors weigh in favor of Sangamon County
remaining the forum for the litigation. Specifically, plaintiff asserts the controversy is “local” to
Sangamon County because decedent received most of his medical care in Sangamon County and
the Sangamon County courts are not more congested than those of Adams County. ADM asserts
the public interest factors support the trial court’s decision to grant to motion to transfer the
litigation to Adams County. “Public interest factors include (1) the interest in deciding
controversies locally; (2) the unfairness of imposing trial expense and the burden of jury duty on
residents of a forum that has little connection to the litigation; and (3) the administrative
- 13 -
difficulties presented by adding litigation to already congested court dockets.” Langenhorst, 219
Ill. 2d at 443-44.
¶ 42 As to the public interest factor considering deciding controversies locally, we note
the circumstances of this case primarily occurred in Adams County. Although decedent received
extensive medical care in Springfield, the underlying incident and injury occurred in Adams
County. The record shows decedent was known in the community and ADM has litigated
previous lawsuits in Adams County. The fire occurred in Adams County, the Quincy Fire
Department responded to the scene, and decedent received his initial medical care in Adams
County. We note the trial court stated it found this factor the most persuasive.
¶ 43 Although plaintiff asserts this matter is local to Sangamon County due to
decedent’s medical care, we disagree. The heart of this controversy is ADM’s alleged
negligence in Adams County. Decedent received his initial medical care in Adams County, and
the mere fact that ADM conducts business in Sangamon County does not mean Sangamon
County has a significant interest in this specific litigation. As discussed, the incident occurred in
Adams County and involved a resident of Adams County. Therefore, Adams County has a
significant interest in this case, and it would not be unfair to burden Adams County residents
with jury duty in this matter. Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 183.
¶ 44 Finally, court congestion favors transfer to Adams County. Schuster, 2018 IL
App (1st) 171558, ¶ 42. Plaintiff argues only 16 new cases with a jury demand seeking more
than $50,000 in damages were filed in Sangamon County in 2017. However, as ADM points
out, Sangamon County had 666 such cases pending at the end of 2017, while Adams County had
only 182 such cases pending at the end of 2017. It was appropriate for the trial court to consider
- 14 -
court congestion as a factor in favor of transferring this case to Adams County, and it was not
unreasonable to conclude that court congestion favored transfer.
¶ 45 Considering all the relevant private and public interest factors, we cannot say the
trial court’s decision to grant transfer of venue was unreasonable. We conclude the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in transferring this case to Adams County, the county where plaintiff
resides, and where the incident occurred. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
¶ 46 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 47 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 48 Affirmed.
- 15 -