Capitol Research Services of Texas > Reports

Forum Non Conveniens (2005 Amendment)

eBook

  • House Bill 755 (2005)
  • Sec. 71.051, Civil Practice and Remedies Code
  • PDF Format eBook (Fully searchable)
  • Report: 164 pages
  • Exhibits: 437 pages
  • Fee: $195
  • Download the eBook directly from the Capitol Research website


Visa LogoMasterCard LogoDiscover LogoAmerican Express LogoeCheck LogoPayPal Logo

Hard Copy Report

  • House Bill 755 (2005)
  • Sec. 71.051, Civil Practice and Remedies Code
  • PDF Format eBook (Fully searchable)
  • Report: 164 pages
  • Exhibits: 437 pages
  • Fee: $395
  • Shipping: $20


Visa LogoMasterCard LogoDiscover LogoAmerican Express LogoeCheck LogoPayPal Logo

Abstract

The Senate Research Center summarized the 2005 amendment to the forum non conveniens statute (§ 71.051, Civil Practice and Remedies Code) as follows:

The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss cases otherwise within their jurisdiction in order to allow the litigation to proceed in a more convenient forum. For Texas cases involving wrongful death, survival, or personal injury (occurring outside the state of Texas), Section 71.051, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, governs forum non conveniens analysis. Section 71.051(f) prohibits a court from dismissing a claim or action if an act or omission that was a proximate or producing cause of the injury or death occurred in the State of Texas.

This bill attempts to rectify the problem with Section 71.051(f) as applied in the Pomranky case. The plaintiff in the Pomranky case was a Michigan resident who had worked through his life at various factories, all located in Michigan. He filed suit in Texas alleging asbestos-related injuries against various property owners and manufacturers, all located in Michigan. He claimed that he was injured from asbestos located at the property where he worked and contained in the products with which he worked. Incidentally, all of the property at issue was located in Michigan and all of the products at issue were used in Michigan. Furthermore, the plaintiff, defendants, physicians, and other witnesses with knowledge of the case were located in Michigan. Continuing the case in Wharton County, Texas, would require the parties to travel across the country for court appearances.

Nonetheless, the judge presiding over the case denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case for forum non conveniens. Because one of the defendants manufactured a glove in Wharton County that may have been a proximate or producing cause of the plaintiff's injury, the judge felt that he had no choice but to deny the motion. Section 71.051(f) required the case to remain in Texas.

C.S.H.B. 755 modifies Sections 71.051(b) and (f) to give judges more discretion in cases of forum non conveniens.