Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
454 U.S. 235 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The possibility that the substantive law of an alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiff should not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in a forum non conveniens inquiry. An unfavorable change in law might be a relevant factor only if the remedy provided by the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate that it is no remedy at all.
Facts:
- In July 1976, a small commercial aircraft crashed in the Scottish highlands, killing the Scottish pilot and five Scottish passengers.
- The decedents and their heirs were all Scottish subjects and residents.
- The aircraft was manufactured in Pennsylvania by Piper Aircraft Co. (Piper), and its propellers were manufactured in Ohio by Hartzell Propeller, Inc. (Hartzell).
- The aircraft was owned, maintained, and operated by Scottish companies and was registered in Great Britain at the time of the crash.
- A British investigation suggested mechanical failure, while a subsequent review board indicated potential pilot error.
- Gaynell Reyno, a California legal secretary with no relation to the decedents, was appointed administratrix of the passengers' estates to file a lawsuit in the United States.
- Reyno admitted to filing suit in the U.S. because American laws on strict liability and damages were more favorable to her position than Scottish law, which does not recognize strict liability in tort.
Procedural Posture:
- Gaynell Reyno, as administratrix, sued Piper and Hartzell for wrongful death in California Superior Court.
- The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- Upon Piper's motion, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- Both defendants then moved to dismiss the case on the ground of forum non conveniens.
- The District Court granted the motions and dismissed the case, finding Scotland to be the more appropriate forum.
- Reyno, as appellee, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that dismissal is barred when the law of the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiff.
- Piper and Hartzell, as petitioners, were granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 possibility of an unfavorable change in substantive law, by itself, bar a district court from dismissing a case on the ground of forum non conveniens?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
No. A plaintiff may not defeat a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law of the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiff. The Court reasoned that giving substantial weight to this factor would effectively render the forum non conveniens doctrine useless, as plaintiffs would invariably choose the forum with the most advantageous law. This would also burden courts with complex comparative law analyses and increase the flow of foreign litigation into already congested U.S. courts. The central purpose of the doctrine is convenience, not guaranteeing the most favorable law for the plaintiff. While a plaintiff's choice of forum is typically given a strong presumption, this presumption applies with less force when the plaintiff is foreign. The Court concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in balancing the private and public interest factors from Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, which pointed towards Scotland as the more appropriate and convenient forum.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, but only in answering the certified question. The dissent agreed with the majority that an unfavorable change in law does not automatically bar dismissal. However, the dissent would not have proceeded to re-evaluate the District Court's balancing of the Gilbert factors. Instead, it would have answered only the narrow legal question presented and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration of whether the District Court's dismissal was appropriate.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice White
Agreed with the dissent. Justice White joined the majority's reasoning on the central legal question regarding unfavorable law (Parts I and II) but would have remanded the case rather than ruling on the District Court's application of the convenience factors (Part III).
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the forum non conveniens doctrine in federal courts, particularly in the context of international litigation. It establishes that the prospect of less favorable substantive law in a foreign forum is not a bar to dismissal, which curtails forum shopping by foreign plaintiffs seeking access to advantageous U.S. tort laws like strict liability. The decision reinforces the broad discretion of trial courts in balancing public and private convenience factors. By creating a distinction that gives less deference to a foreign plaintiff's choice of forum, the Court signaled a policy to prevent U.S. courts from becoming a clearinghouse for global disputes that have only a tenuous connection to the United States.
Unlock the full brief for Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno