Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Ind. Decisions - One posted today, filed late yesterday, from the Supreme Court, re forum non conveniens
In Dalmas Maurice Otieno Anyango and Jane Tinna Agola Otieno, as Natural Parents and Next of Kin of Isaiah Omondi Otieno, Deceased v. Rolls-Royce Corporation, Honeywell International Inc., et al., a 14-page,5-0 opinion, Justice Sullivan writes:
Parents of a young man killed in a bizarre helicopter accident in British Columbia appeal an Indiana trial court’s dismissal of their complaint in favor of the Canadian forum, arguing that their claim should be tried here because they would only be entitled to nominal damages under British Columbia law. Because we conclude that British Columbia provides an available and adequate forum under applicable law, and that the trial court did not otherwise abuse its discre-tion in dismissing the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. * * *
[O]ur Trial Rule 4.4(C) wisely entrusts the forum non conveniens decision to the trial court “under such reasonable conditions as the court in its discretion may determine to be just.” We find no basis for questioning the trial judge’s exercise of discretion here in granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Rather, it is overwhelmingly clear from his order that Judge Keele did exactly what Trial Rule 4.4(C) required of him.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 31, 2012 09:16 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions