PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNELIESE SCHWENDEMANN, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court concurred in the result, finding it consistent with prior Florida appellate decisions regarding forum non conveniens.
German citizens, victims of an aircraft crash in Germany, sued the plane's manufacturer, a US corporation that moved its principal place of business t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Principal Place Of Business cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
As was correctly held below, it is established Florida law that, even though the cause of action sued upon arose in a foreign state or nation, the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply as a matter of law, when, as here, the principal place of business of the defendant corporation is in this state. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Swain, 362 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1978); Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1978); Transportes Aeros Mercantiles Pan Americanos v. Calderon, 480 So. 2d 125 (Fla.3d DCA 1985) (Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring); Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 224 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); see Oboussier-Lowe v. Kuehne & Nagel (A.G. & Co.), 531 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Tropigas, S.A. v. Anderson, 447 So. 2d 338 (Fla.3d DCA 1984), pet. for review dismissed, 453 So. 2d 45 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1074, 105 S.Ct. 568, 83 L.Ed.2d 509 (1984); Sempe v. Coordinated Caribbean Transport, Inc., 363 So. 2d 194 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1979).
Affirmed.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN, J., concur.
FERGUSON, Judge
(concurring).
This action arises out of an aircraft crash in Munich, Germany, which killed three occupants of the plane, nine people on the ground, and injured twenty-seven others on the ground. The decedents, their survivors, and the persons injured are all German citizens who reside in Germany. The eyewitnesses, investigators, and medical witnesses also reside in Germany.
Four of the decedents’ estates and four of the injured persons, including the appel-lee, filed wrongful death and personal injury actions against Piper, the plane’s manufacturer, in Dade County, Florida. Piper, a Pennsylvania corporation, moved its principal place of business to Florida after the fatal crash.
I concur in the result because it is consistent with this court’s decision in Sempe v. Coordinated Caribbean Transport, Inc., 363 So. 2d 194 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. den., 372 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1979), and a more recent fifth district decision, Oboussier-Lowe v. Kuehne & Nagel (A. G. & Co.), 531 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). In the leading cases of the Supreme Court of Florida, Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1978) and Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Swain, 362 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1978), the issue of whether the forum non conve-niens doctrine applies where a party is a resident of the locality where the suit was filed, arose in the factual framework of a choice between two or more states or counties within the continental United States. Although both Sempe and Oboussier-Lowe cite Houston and Swain as authority for their holding, the Supreme Court of Florida has never decided whether the rule of those cases would apply where all the plaintiffs are citizens of a foreign country where the accident occurred.
I write separately only to note that the construction of Houston and Swain given by the third and fifth districts is different from federal law. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981) (foreign plaintiff’s choice of forum in action against domestic manufacturer not conclusive; court must balance private and public interests).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moliver v. Avianca, Inc., 580 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…re, applies only when all of the parties are citizens of, and the cause of action accrued in, another jurisdiction.” [*788] Envases Venezolanos, S.A. v. Collazo, 559 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); see also Piper Aircraft Corporation v. Schwendemann, 578 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Affirmed.…
-
Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. Anneliese Schwendemann, 579 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Swain, 362 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1978); Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1978); Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Schwendemann, 578 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Transportes Aeros Mercantiles Pan Americanos v. Calderon, 480 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring); see Sempe v. Coordinated Caribbean Transport, Inc., 363 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. deni…
-
Murdoch v. A.P. Green Indus., Inc., 603 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…none of the parties involved in the suit are residents of this state.” Seaboard Coast Line R.R. v. Swain, 362 So. 2d 17, 18 (Fla.1978) (emphasis added); see also Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858, 861 (Fla.1978); Piper Aircraft Corp. Schwendemann, 578 So. 2d 319, 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Sempe v. Coordinated Caribbean Transport, Inc., 363 So. 2d 194, 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1979). In the instant case, the record reflects that at least one of the defendant corporations has it…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981)
- Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1978)
- Yewell Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 224 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Myrtice Mae Swain, 362 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1978)
- Sempe v. Coordinated Caribbean Transp., Inc., 363 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Transportes Aeros Mercantiles PAN Americanos (Tampa) & Batch Air, Inc. v. Calderon, 480 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Manetas v. United States, 469 U.S. 1074 (U.S. 1984)
- O.D. Priest, Jr. v. Plus Three, Inc., 447 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Brigitte Oboussier-Lowe v. Kuehne & Nagel (A.G. & Co.), 531 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Tropigas, S.A. v. Anderson, 447 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)