TortsProf Blog

Editor: Christopher J. Robinette
Widener Commonwealth Law School

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Behrens & Silverman on PA Venue Reform

Mark Behrens & Cary Silverman (Shook, Hardy & Bacon) have published Litigation Tourism in Pennsylvania:  Is Venue Reform Needed? in the Widener Law Journal.  Mark will argue for venue reform at an upcoming symposium here at Widener in Harrisburg.  Scott Cooper, the President of PA Justice, will argue the plaintiffs' perspective.  Stay tuned for more about the symposium. 

The article (pdf) is here:  Download DC-#447980-v1-Pennsylvania_venue_reform_article_pdf[1]  The conclusion:

Recent changes have made Philadelphia fairer for civil defendants in mass tort cases, but more needs to be done.  Pennsylvania should take the next step and adopt venue reform through legislation or court rule. As the Illinois Supreme Court recently observed: "Decent judicial administration cannot tolerate forum shopping as a persuasive or even legitimate reason for burdening communities with litigation that arose elsewhere and should, in all justice, be tried there."

One approach for Pennsylvania would be to extend the venue provision for medical liability actions so that all tort claims have to be brought in the county where the cause of action arose. That approach would achieve greater uniformity and predictability in the law. Alternatively, tort actions not involving medical liability could be brought in the county (1) where the plaintiff resides, (2) where all or a predominant part of the cause of action arose, or (3) where the defendant resides if the defendant is an individual, or where the defendant has its principal place of business if the defendant is a corporation or similar entity. If the action involves multiple corporate defendants, then venue should be limited to the county where the plaintiff resides or where all or a predominant part of the cause of action arose. In an action against a single small business defendant, venue could be limited to the county where all or a predominant part of the cause of action arose. Either approach would refocus Pennsylvania litigation on Pennsylvania citizens, help ensure that claims are heard in the county with the most logical connection to the case, and discourage joinder of local defendants simply for the purpose of having a case heard in a particular county. In the meantime, trial courts should do their part by granting defendants' forum non conveniens motions in cases that should be heard elsewhere.


February 7, 2013 in Conferences, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Amicus Brief on Duty/Proximate Cause Issue

Mike Green and Jonathan Cardi (Wake Forest) have authored an amicus brief in a Missouri toxic tort case against Monsanto.  They invite any legal academic who is interested to join the brief.  From the e-mail:

In the case, the trial court dismissed the case on duty grounds (1) because plaintiffs could not specify the manner in which the PCBs (99% of which were made by Monsanto) had entered their bodies and (2) because the PCBs might have entered their bodies by disposal or misuse of the products. The brief argues that this is not a duty question but one of proximate cause.  Monsanto owed a duty to distribute dangerous chemicals reasonably, unless the court thinks of some extraordinary public policy reason not to impose such a duty.  The issues regarding manner of injury are properly handled by proximate cause.

A copy of the brief (pdf) is here:  Download Nishida Draft 1[1].  Parties interested in joining should e-mail Brent Rosenthal by February 7th at 
Updated:  Apparently, the brief was authored by Brent Rosenthal.  Mike and Jonathan offered comments and support its thesis.

February 5, 2013 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)