Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Company
932 F.2d 170 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A district court abuses its discretion in dismissing a case on forum non conveniens grounds if the plaintiff demonstrates that essential evidence for their claim is beyond the control of the defendants and cannot be accessed through the discovery mechanisms of the alternative foreign forum.
Facts:
- In 1985, Graeme MacArthur Lacey, an Australian citizen working temporarily in British Columbia, boarded a Cessna 421A aircraft for a non-scheduled passenger flight.
- Almost immediately after takeoff, the aircraft's right engine lost power, and the plane crashed, causing Lacey and other passengers severe burn injuries.
- Lacey was treated for three months at Foothills Hospital in Calgary, Canada, and then transferred to a hospital in Melbourne, Australia.
- The Canadian Aviation Safety Board (CASB) investigated the crash and attributed it to the plane's exhaust system, specifically the entry of metal pieces from deteriorating internal sliding sleeves into the turbocharger.
- The Cessna 421A was manufactured by Cessna Aircraft Company (Kansas), its engines by Teledyne, Inc. (Delaware), and its exhaust system by Hanlon & Wilson Company (Pennsylvania).
- In May 1985, Hanlon & Wilson sold its aircraft exhaust system business to Wall Colmonoy Corporation (Oklahoma corporation) and transferred all related documents to Colmonoy.
Procedural Posture:
- Graeme MacArthur Lacey filed a diversity action seeking compensatory and punitive damages against Cessna Aircraft Company, Hanlon & Wilson Company, and Teledyne, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
- Defendants Cessna, Hanlon & Wilson, and Teledyne moved separately to dismiss Lacey's suit on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing the case should be litigated in British Columbia, Canada.
- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted defendants' motions, dismissing the suit, giving 'little weight' to Lacey's forum choice.
- Lacey appealed this dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (appellant Lacey, appellees Cessna, Hanlon & Wilson, and Teledyne).
- The Third Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the defendants had not submitted sufficient evidence and the district court had not adequately considered the relevant factors, and remanded the case for further consideration (appellant Lacey, appellees Cessna, Hanlon & Wilson, and Teledyne).
- On remand, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania again dismissed Lacey's suit on forum non conveniens grounds, conditioned on defendants making relevant witnesses and documents in their control available in British Columbia, finding the factors preponderated strongly in favor of dismissal.
- Lacey appealed this second dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (appellant Lacey, appellees Cessna, Hanlon & Wilson, and Teledyne).
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 a district court abuse its discretion in granting a forum non conveniens dismissal if the plaintiff demonstrates that essential evidence for their products liability claim is beyond the control of the defendants and inaccessible through the discovery mechanisms of the alternative foreign forum?
Opinions:
Majority - Becker, Circuit Judge
Yes, a district court abuses its discretion in granting a forum non conveniens dismissal if the plaintiff would be unable to access essential sources of proof in the alternative foreign forum. The court's initial dismissal was predicated on the erroneous assumption that evidence essential to Lacey's products liability claim remained under the defendants' control. However, Hanlon & Wilson had sold its aircraft exhaust system business and transferred all relevant documents to Wall Colmonoy Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation, making that evidence no longer within Hanlon & Wilson's control. Furthermore, British Columbia's discovery rules appear inadequate for obtaining documents from non-parties in the United States or compelling discovery depositions for trial. While a foreign plaintiff's forum choice is given less deference, the court still required a 'strong preponderance' in favor of dismissal, which is not met if the alternative forum practically denies access to essential evidence. The court emphasized that while other factors like the ability to join all parties in British Columbia are important, they cannot justify dismissal if the plaintiff is thereby emasculated in prosecuting their claim. The district court also likely erred in its choice of law analysis, as Pennsylvania's conflicts rules (following Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc. and Reyno v. Piper Aircraft Co.) suggest a 'false conflict' where Pennsylvania's strict liability law would apply without impairing British Columbia's interests, making the foreign law factor neutral. Therefore, the case is remanded for the district court to determine whether Lacey would indeed have access to essential witnesses and documents in British Columbia; if not, the motion to dismiss must be denied, as the balance of factors would not favor dismissal.
Concurring - Louis H. Pollak, District Judge
Yes, I join the majority's judgment and its opinion. I agree that remand is necessary. If the district court concludes that Lacey would not have access to essential sources of proof in British Columbia, then, as a matter of law, dismissal would not be appropriate. I would reach the same conclusion by classifying British Columbia not merely as an inconvenient forum under the 'relative ease of access to sources of proof' factor, but as an 'inadequate alternative forum' in the first instance. Under Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, an alternative forum is inadequate if the remedy offered is 'clearly unsatisfactory.' If British Columbia purports to entertain products liability cases but cannot assure a plaintiff like Lacey access to essential evidence to prove his claim, its remedy is clearly unsatisfactory, thus failing the initial requirement for forum non conveniens dismissal.
Dissenting - Nygaard, Circuit Judge
No, I respectfully dissent in part, as the majority's analysis and remand order unduly restrict the district court's discretion and stray erroneously from Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno. The majority improperly makes a single forum non conveniens factor (access to sources of proof) dispositive, contradicting Piper's caution against reducing multi-factor balancing to a single inquiry. Reanalysis of 'essential' proofs at this pre-discovery stage is speculative, and Piper instructs against making dismissals dependent on differences in procedural rules. The district court's finding that British Columbia's ability to join all potentially culpable parties (including third-party defendants for contribution and indemnity) strongly favored dismissal is an important 'fair trial' factor, which the majority wrongly discounts. Furthermore, the district court's conclusion that Canadian law would apply, or that foreign law problems would arise even with Pennsylvania law for Lacey's claim due to third-party actions, was not a clear error and should have been given weight. Even if the majority's assessments of the contested factors are accepted (access to proof might favor Lacey, choice of law is neutral), at least three uncontested factors (jury duty burden, local interest, and eliminating duplicative proceedings) would still preponderate in favor of dismissal. The district court's overall balancing and dismissal was reasonable and should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the application of the forum non conveniens doctrine, particularly the 'ease of access to sources of proof' factor established in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert and Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno. It clarifies that this factor can become dispositive if practical impediments in the alternative forum would deny the plaintiff access to essential evidence, thus rendering the alternative forum 'inadequate' for a meaningful prosecution of the claim. The Third Circuit's emphasis on a qualitative, rather than purely quantitative, balancing of factors prevents mechanical application of the doctrine and ensures that dismissals do not effectively 'inter' potentially meritorious lawsuits. This ruling serves as a crucial precedent for plaintiffs, especially in complex products liability cases involving multiple jurisdictions and evidence controlled by non-parties, by establishing a higher bar for defendants seeking dismissal when such access is demonstrably curtailed.
