In previous issues we have talked about the concept of venue, which generally establishes the location of the court hearing a particular case. The rules on venue prescribe the proper place for a case to be tried; these rules require a logical connection between the location of the trial and the subject matter of the lawsuit. For example, it would not make sense to have a car accident case take place in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania if the drivers involved are from Ohio and New Jersey and the accident took place in Delaware.
Sometimes there are multiple places where venue might be proper. A car accident between two drivers residing in Bucks County might be proper in Bucks County, but also might be proper in Montgomery County if the accident took place in Montgomery County. Enter the doctrine of forum non conveniens. This doctrine is based upon the right of a court in the exercise of its equitable powers to refuse jurisdiction if it appears that for the convenience of the parties and witnesses the action should be brought in another forum. In our example, if all of the parties and wit nesses reside in Bucks County it might make more sense to try the case in Bucks County even though, technically, Montgom ery County could be asked to hear the case as well.
There is often more than one place where venue might be proper in a given case. The doctrine of forum non conveniens is designed to allow the court system to determine the best place for the case to be heard.
– Kevin Palmer