ALVA J. TOUCHTON, APPELLANT,
v.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
A Florida resident sued a foreign railroad corporation in Dade County for personal injuries from an accident in Alachua County. The trial court dismissed under the forum non conveniens doctrine, but the appellate court reversed, holding that this doctrine does not apply when a Florida resident sues a foreign corporation in a venue authorized by statute.
The forum non conveniens doctrine is inapplicable when a Florida resident sues a foreign corporation on a transitory action in a venue that the legislature has statutorily authorized. The court may not override the legislature's specification of proper venue by invoking forum non conveniens.
“the doctrine of forum non conveniens is inapplicable to a case where a Florida resident sues a foreign corporation on a transitory action which arose in Florida”
Establishes the core holding of the case regarding when forum non conveniens cannot be applied
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlva J. Touchton, a Florida resident of Hillsborough County, was injured in an accident in Gainesville, Alachua County. He sued Atlantic Coast Line Ra…
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 Transitory Action cases and more on FLexlaw
The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company was sued in the circuit court in Dade County by Alva J. Touchton in an action for personal injuries growing out of an accident which occurred in the City of Gaines-ville, Alachua County, Florida. The plaintiff-Touchton is a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Hillsborough County. The defendant-Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company is a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida and has a resident agent in Dade County. Service of process was directed to this agent.
The trial judge dismissed the appellant’s complaint under the doctrine of *739forum non conveniens. We reverse. As has previously been stated, the doctrine of forum non conveniens is inapplicable to a case where a Florida resident sues a foreign corporation on a transitory action which arose in Florida. Greyhound Corp. v. Rosart, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 708; Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Ganey, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 576.
Upon this appeal, the appellee concedes that venue was proper. The statutes of this State give the plaintiff a right to sue in any county wherein the defendant-foreign corporation has an agent or other representative. The language of § 46.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. is explicit:
“Suits against domestic corporations shall be commenced only in the county (or justice’s district) where such corporation shall have or usually keep an office for the transaction of its customary business, or where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located; and in the case of companies incorporated in other states or countries, and doing btisiness in this state, suit shall be commenced in a county or justice’s district wherein such company may have an agent or other representative, or where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is situated.” [Emphasis supplied]
The appellee urges that the doctrine of forum non conveniens arises out of the court’s inherent right to protect itself from actions inadvisably brought far from the residence of the plaintiff and the witness. We must reject that theory because where the legislature provides that an action may be brought in a certain court, that court may not impose its will as to venue in order to force a plaintiff to accept another forum for the action which the courts conceive to be better than one specified by the legislature.
The reason, as we understand it, that the doctrine has been applied in Florida to nonresident plaintiffs is because as to such plaintiffs, there is no statutory right to bring the action in any particular forum. This cannot be said to be so in a case of a resident plaintiff acting under the section of the Florida Statute above quoted.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yewell Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 224 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…ope v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 345 U.S. 379, 73 S.Ct. 749, 97 L.Ed. 1094. . Texas Gulf Sulphur Company, Inc., v. Downtown Investment Company, (Fla. App.1966) 188 So. 2d 19; Touchton v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, (Fla.App.1963) 155 So. 2d 738; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Ganey, (Fla.App.1960) 125 So. 2d 576. . Greyhound Corporation v. Rosart, (Fla. App.1960) 124 So. 2d 708, 712. . Hagen v. Viney, 124 Fla. 747, 169 So. 391, 392, 393. . Southern Railway Company v. Bowling,…
-
Stewart v. Harriette E. Carr, 218 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…irmatively that an action may be brought in a certain county or choice of counties, a Court may not impose its will as to venue in order to force the plaintiff to accept another forum. Touchton v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.App. 1963, 155 So. 2d 738. The statute under which the case sub judice was filed seeking modification of the West Virginia divorce decree is F.S. § 61.14 F.S.A., and inter alia is as follows: “When a husband and wife * * * enter into an agreement for * * * support, mainten…
-
Luci Vellanti v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 394 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…f process ..., in a particular county would establish the propriety of venue in that county as to a foreign corporation.” [e. o.] Accord, Greyhound Corp. v. Rosart, 124 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); see also, Touchton v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 155 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Reversed. . Clements Naval Stores Co. v. J. S. Betts Co., 85 Fla. 49, 95 So. 126 (1923); Barnes v. Willis, 65 Fla. 363, 61 So. 828 (1913); Rorick v. Stilwell, 101 Fla. 4, 133 So. 609 (1931); see, Klo-senski v. Flaherty, 116…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Ganey, 125 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Greyhound Corp. v. Rosart, 124 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)