Gore v. United States Steel Corp.
15 N.J. 301, 48 A.L.R. 2d 841, 104 A.2d 670 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may dismiss a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens when a weighing of private and public interest factors decisively establishes that an alternative forum would better serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice, even if the defendant is a resident corporation.
Facts:
- The defendant, United States Steel Corporation, is incorporated in New Jersey but operates a tin mill in Fairfield, Alabama.
- The plaintiffs are the widow and children of Hubert Gore, all of whom are residents of Alabama.
- Hubert Gore was working at the defendant's Alabama tin mill as an employee of an independent contractor when he was fatally injured on August 10, 1952.
- Gore's death was allegedly caused by an uninsulated wire on the defendant's premises in Alabama.
- All potential witnesses for both the plaintiffs and the defendant are residents of Alabama.
- The plaintiffs' attorney stated that the suit was brought in New Jersey in the expectation of receiving a substantially larger monetary verdict than would be likely in Alabama, asserting that Alabama juries are more conservative in awards for Black claimants.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, dependents of Hubert Gore, filed a wrongful death complaint against United States Steel Corporation in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Hudson County.
- The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
- The Law Division (trial court) denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
- The Appellate Division granted the defendant (appellant) leave to appeal the trial court's denial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of forum non conveniens permit a court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by non-resident plaintiffs against a domestic corporation when the cause of action, all witnesses, and all physical evidence are located in the plaintiffs' home state?
Opinions:
Majority - Jacobs, J.
Yes. The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits dismissal where an available alternative forum will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice. The doctrine's application turns on considerations of convenience and justice, not simply on the residency of the parties. While a plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed, it can be overcome when the balance of factors is strongly in favor of the defendant. Here, all of the private interest factors (access to proof, availability of witnesses, possibility of a jury view) and public interest factors (avoiding court congestion, relieving jury duty burden on an unrelated community, local interest in a local controversy) point decisively to Alabama as the proper forum. The defendant's incorporation in New Jersey is entitled to little weight given its far-flung operations, and the plaintiffs' motive of seeking a higher verdict is not a legitimate reason to burden New Jersey's courts with a controversy that arose elsewhere.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the modern application of the forum non conveniens doctrine in New Jersey, establishing that it is a flexible tool based on justice and convenience rather than a rigid rule based on party residence. The court's decision signals that the nominal fact of a corporation's domestic incorporation is not dispositive when the substance of the dispute has no connection to the forum state. By explicitly rejecting the plaintiffs' desire for a higher verdict as a valid reason for forum selection, the court strongly discourages 'forum shopping' and reinforces the principle that litigation should be handled in the community with the greatest interest in the controversy.
Unlock the full brief for Gore v. United States Steel Corp.