Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
Encyclopedia
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court considered the lower court's application of its power of forum non conveniens
.
while on a charter flight from Blackpool
to Perth
, killing the pilot and five passengers instantly. The aircraft was a Piper Aztec
manufactured by Piper Aircraft Co. in the U.S. state
of Pennsylvania
, and Hartzell Propeller, Inc. manufactured the propeller
s in the U.S. state of Ohio
. A British
Department of Trade found no evidence of defective equipment and indicated that pilot error may have caused the accident. A California probate court appointed respondent Gaynell Reyno administratrix of the estates of the five passengers. She did not know nor was she related to any of the decedents, she was merely the legal secretary to the attorney who filed this lawsuit. Reyno admitted the choice of the United States as a venue was more favorable to her case.
The defendants first removed to federal district court in California invoking diversity jurisdiction. Piper then sought to transfer under S1404(a) to the Middle District of Pennsylvania on grounds of convenience because Piper engaged in business in Pennsylvania. Hartzell moved to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, or in the alternative to transfer the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. S 1631, where Hartzell's business with Piper supported jurisdiction. The district court transferred. With both cases now moved to federal district court in Pennsylvania, both defendants then sought to dismiss the case on grounds of forum non conveniens.
The District Court granted these motions in October 1979. The Third Circuit reversed, on the ground that dismissal for forum non conveniens is never appropriate where the law of the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiff.
2) The Court of Appeals also erred in rejecting the District Court's Gilbert analysis.
Additionally, this would lead to other practical problems. At least where the foreign plaintiff named an American
manufacturer as defendant, a court could not dismiss the case on grounds of forum non conveniens where dismissal might lead to an unfavorable change in law. The American
courts, already very attractive to plaintiffs, would become even more attractive. The flow of litigation into the United States would increase and further congest already crowded courts.
Also, Pennsylvania would not be a good venue because there would need to be two law standards - the Pennsylvania law would apply to Piper and Scottish law would apply to Hartzell. A trial involving two sets of laws would be confusing to the jury. A lack of familiarity with Scottish
law would also be confusing. Another powerful reason why Pennsylvania is a bad venue is that Scotland has a very strong interest in this litigation. There is "a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home."
The incremental deterrence that would be gained if this trial were held in American court is likely to be insignificant. The American interest in this accident is simply not sufficient to justify the enormous commitment of judicial time and resources that would inevitably be required if the case were to be tried there.
Forum non conveniens
Forum non conveniens is a common law legal doctrine whereby courts may refuse to take jurisdiction over matters where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties...
.
Facts
In July of 1976, an airplane was involved in an accident in the Scottish HighlandsScottish Highlands
The Highlands is an historic region of Scotland. The area is sometimes referred to as the "Scottish Highlands". It was culturally distinguishable from the Lowlands from the later Middle Ages into the modern period, when Lowland Scots replaced Scottish Gaelic throughout most of the Lowlands...
while on a charter flight from Blackpool
Blackpool
Blackpool is a borough, seaside town, and unitary authority area of Lancashire, in North West England. It is situated along England's west coast by the Irish Sea, between the Ribble and Wyre estuaries, northwest of Preston, north of Liverpool, and northwest of Manchester...
to Perth
Perth, Scotland
Perth is a town and former city and royal burgh in central Scotland. Located on the banks of the River Tay, it is the administrative centre of Perth and Kinross council area and the historic county town of Perthshire...
, killing the pilot and five passengers instantly. The aircraft was a Piper Aztec
Piper Aztec
-Accidents and incidents:*On 18 April 1974, Aztec G-AYDE was involved in a ground collision with BAC One-Eleven G-AXMJ at London Luton Airport after the pilot of the Aztec entered the active runway without clearance. He was killed and his passenger was injured...
manufactured by Piper Aircraft Co. in the U.S. state
U.S. state
A U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of...
of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a U.S. state that is located in the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. The state borders Delaware and Maryland to the south, West Virginia to the southwest, Ohio to the west, New York and Ontario, Canada, to the north, and New Jersey to...
, and Hartzell Propeller, Inc. manufactured the propeller
Propeller (aircraft)
Aircraft propellers or airscrews convert rotary motion from piston engines or turboprops to provide propulsive force. They may be fixed or variable pitch. Early aircraft propellers were carved by hand from solid or laminated wood with later propellers being constructed from metal...
s in the U.S. state of Ohio
Ohio
Ohio is a Midwestern state in the United States. The 34th largest state by area in the U.S.,it is the 7th‑most populous with over 11.5 million residents, containing several major American cities and seven metropolitan areas with populations of 500,000 or more.The state's capital is Columbus...
. A British
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIn the United Kingdom and Dependencies, other languages have been officially recognised as legitimate autochthonous languages under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages...
Department of Trade found no evidence of defective equipment and indicated that pilot error may have caused the accident. A California probate court appointed respondent Gaynell Reyno administratrix of the estates of the five passengers. She did not know nor was she related to any of the decedents, she was merely the legal secretary to the attorney who filed this lawsuit. Reyno admitted the choice of the United States as a venue was more favorable to her case.
Procedural History
Several days after her appointment, Reyno commenced separate wrongful-death actions against Piper and Hartzell in the Superior Court of California, claiming negligence and strict liability.The defendants first removed to federal district court in California invoking diversity jurisdiction. Piper then sought to transfer under S1404(a) to the Middle District of Pennsylvania on grounds of convenience because Piper engaged in business in Pennsylvania. Hartzell moved to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, or in the alternative to transfer the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. S 1631, where Hartzell's business with Piper supported jurisdiction. The district court transferred. With both cases now moved to federal district court in Pennsylvania, both defendants then sought to dismiss the case on grounds of forum non conveniens.
The District Court granted these motions in October 1979. The Third Circuit reversed, on the ground that dismissal for forum non conveniens is never appropriate where the law of the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiff.
Holding
1) The Court of Appeals (3d Circuit) erred in holding that plaintiffs 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 alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiffs than that of the present forum.2) The Court of Appeals also erred in rejecting the District Court's Gilbert analysis.
Holding 1
The possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry. If conclusive or substantial weight were given to the possibility of a change in law, the forum non conveniens doctrine would become virtually useless. Jurisdiction and venue requirements are often easily satisfied. As a result, many plaintiffs are able to choose from among several forums. Ordinarily, these plaintiffs will select that forum whose choice-of-law rules are most advantageous. Thus, if the possibility of an unfavorable change in substantive law is given substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry, dismissal would rarely be proper.Additionally, this would lead to other practical problems. At least where the foreign plaintiff named an American
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
manufacturer as defendant, a court could not dismiss the case on grounds of forum non conveniens where dismissal might lead to an unfavorable change in law. The American
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
courts, already very attractive to plaintiffs, would become even more attractive. The flow of litigation into the United States would increase and further congest already crowded courts.
Holding 2
Because the central purpose of any forum non conveniens inquiry is to ensure that the trial is convenient, a foreign plaintiff's choice deserves less deference. The District Court's holding that the case would be better suited in Scotland was not unreasonable. First, because the majority of evidence was there and second, because the decedents were not able to properly implead the defendants.Also, Pennsylvania would not be a good venue because there would need to be two law standards - the Pennsylvania law would apply to Piper and Scottish law would apply to Hartzell. A trial involving two sets of laws would be confusing to the jury. A lack of familiarity with Scottish
Scotland
Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, it shares a border with England to the south and is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the...
law would also be confusing. Another powerful reason why Pennsylvania is a bad venue is that Scotland has a very strong interest in this litigation. There is "a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home."
The incremental deterrence that would be gained if this trial were held in American court is likely to be insignificant. The American interest in this accident is simply not sufficient to justify the enormous commitment of judicial time and resources that would inevitably be required if the case were to be tried there.