Resolving Conflicts of Jurisdiction: Forum Non Conveniens

Case: Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981)

454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419

Summary: A small plane crash in Scotland. Scottish relatives sued the American
manufacturers (PA). Plaintiff filed in PA b/c more favorable for plaintiff.
Defendant removed the case to Federal Court, transferred to PA, and was granted a
forum non conveniens dismissal. The issue was whether trial court had a right to
issue the forum non conveniens dismissal. Court follows Gulf Oil, and decides the
best forum is in Scotland.
i. Forum non conveniens cannot be inflexibly defeated merely on the basis
that the alternative forum would have laws less favorable to the plaintiff.
ii. The interests of foreign plaintiffs should be weighted less heavily than
the interests of domestic defendants (more convenient and favorable for defendants
to litigate in Scotland).
iii. Court acknowledges that Scotland has many contacts with the litigation
and that it would be best if it moved there

Notes
· Comparison of facts test
· Test for non conveniens
○ The jurisdiction's oppressiveness and vexation have to be outweighs the
inconvenience
· Why did they (foreign nationals) choose to bring the claim in the U.S.?
○ American law is more hospitable to them
o Opportunity for higher punitive damages
o Stricter tort laws
· Court ultimately decides the best forum is Scotland
· Gilbert Test - Factors (fact based analysis as opposed to Souter's test which is
a comparison of laws) pg 819-821:
○ Public
o U.S.
□ If trial were to be held in PA, both U.S. & Scottish laws would
apply and this would be confusing to the jury.
® U.S. courts not familiar with Scottish law
® However, appeals court said only U.S. law would apply, so
this may not have been an issue.
□ American interest here is not so much as for the courts to
spend so much time and judicial resources to try the case.
o Scotland
□ Wanting Scotland to see justice done with their citizens
□ Best to resolve local disputes in a local forum
○ Private
o U.S.
□ Some evidence here, but nothing so major that a trial in
Scotland would be unfair (the design - plane made in PA)
o Scotland
□ More convenient, b/c witnesses and evidence is in Scotland
□ Possible 3rd party Dfs in Scotland
· U.S. case law - principle that we usually defer to the Pls choice of venue
○ But here, the Pl is foreign. Are they really asking this because it's more
convenient? No, it's b/c US law is more convenient.
o Court wants to discourage forum shopping - and flood U.S. courts
· Pg 819 (2nd paragraph in subsection A) - diff btwn foreign Pls and domestic Pls,
and level of deference to Pl's choice
Notes:
· Court used the forum non conveniens as a factually-oriented test to evaluate the
reasonableness of one jurisdiction against another