Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, JURISDICTION—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT—Ill. App.: Injured worker’s choice of venue upheld despite little relation to lawsuit, (Feb 12, 2020)

By David Yucht, J.D.

The county in which the distributor of allegedly defective painting equipment owned and operated three stores was not an inconvenient forum for the company.

An Illinois trial court properly denied a motion for change of venue filed by a distributor and two manufacturers of allegedly defective painting equipment in a lawsuit brought by an injured worker, an appellate panel in that state advised in a decision designated as not for publication. There was no showing that the forum chosen by a worker injured by the equipment was unduly burdensome or inconvenient and that another forum was more convenient, the panel found (Herron v. Sherwin-Williams Co., February 11, 2020, Cates, J.).

A resident of Franklin County, Illinois, was working at an equipment repair and service plant in Saline County, Illinois. The plant was located near the border with Williamson County, Illinois. He was cleaning an airless spray paint assembly with solvent into a metal drum that exploded. Due to his severe burns, he was airlifted to a hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, and was placed into a medically induced coma. For approximately one year, he was treated at various medical facilities in St. Louis. Subsequently, he was treated in Williamson County.

Sherwin-Williams, a Delaware corporation and Ohio resident, was the distributor of the spray gun. Graco, Inc., a Minnesota corporation and resident, allegedly manufactured one of the parts of the sprayer. Campbell Hausfeld, a Delaware corporation and Ohio resident, manufactured the spray gun. Alleging that the explosion occurred as a result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous conditions of the spray-gun apparatus, the worker filed a lawsuit in state court in St. Clair County, Illinois, against those three companies and others. The trial court denied motions filed by Sherwin-Williams, Graco, and Campbell Hausfeld for a change of venue. The three companies appealed.

Venue—forum non conveniens. The appellate court refused to disturb the lower court’s decision, noting that the choice of forum of an individual or entity filing suit is entitled to substantial deference and rarely should be disturbed unless other factors strongly favor transfer. Moreover, a trial court’s determination concerning venue should not be reversed on appeal unless there was an abuse of discretion.

Among the factors considered by the court was convenience of the parties. Concerning this factor, Sherwin-Williams owned and operated three stores in St. Clair County and, thus, was a resident of St. Clair County. As such, St. Clair County could not be an inconvenient forum for Sherwin-Williams. Moreover, both Graco and Campbell Hausfeld had retailers selling their products across the country, including St. Clair County.

Another relevant factor was ease of access to evidence. The potential witnesses were scattered throughout St. Louis, Missouri, and southern Illinois. Regardless of whether the case remained in St. Clair County or was transferred to another county, some witnesses would be inconvenienced However, technological advances in communications allow for the presentation of live testimony from remote locations. Additionally, the distributor and manufacturers did not show that pertinent records could not be easily copied for distribution. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that this factor did not strongly weigh in favor of venue transfer.

The possibility of viewing the accident scene was irrelevant because it had substantially changed due to the explosion and it would be difficult to identify where the injury had occurred. The appellate court would not disturb the trial court’s finding that issues involving the relative interests of forums in resolving this matter or the efficient administration of justice did not militate in favor of changing venue.

Dissenting opinion. Justice John Barberis stated in a dissenting opinion that the trial court erred in denying the forum non conveniens motion. Although the injured worker should be given some deference in his forum choice, his choice should not have been given much deference because he did not reside in St. Clair County and St. Clair County had no practical connection to the lawsuit. The fact that Sherwin-Williams had several stores in the county was irrelevant because none of those stores had been involved in selling the allegedly defective spray gun. Justice Barberis believed that the choice of forum in the instant case had not been motivated by legitimate private concerns but, rather, had been motivated by forum shopping. Consequently, it was unfair to burden the residents of St. Clair County with jury duty for a case that had little connection to that county, he said, adding that it was wrong to burden the justice system in St. Clair County, which had a large case back log compared to other counties in the area.

The case is No. 5-18-0163.

Attorneys: Joseph A. Bartholomew (Cook, Bartholomew, Shevlin & Cook, LLP) for George Herron. Randall J. Pattee (Fox Rothschild, LLP) for Graco Inc. Christopher D. Baucom (Armstrong Teasdale LLP) for The Sherwin-Williams Co.

Companies: The Sherwin-Williams Co.; Graco, Inc.; Campbell Hausfeld

Cases: CourtDecisions JurisdictionNews IndustrialCommercialEquipNews IllinoisNews