GEORGE KILLINGSWORTH, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY, AND RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, 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 Killingsworth family sued Montgomery Ward and Ryder Truck Rental in Florida for injuries sustained in a New Mexico vehicle collision. The trial court abated the action based on forum non conveniens, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the doctrine does not apply when Florida residents sue foreign corporations doing business in Florida, and that Florida courts are the proper forum.
The doctrine of forum non conveniens is inapplicable because the plaintiffs are Florida residents suing foreign corporations with firmly established business interests in Florida. Florida courts have proper venue and are the appropriate forum, and the trial court lacked authority to abate the action.
[1] A trial court may not abate an action based on forum non conveniens when the plaintiff is a resident of the forum state and the defendant is a foreign corporation doing b…
[2] The doctrine of forum non conveniens is generally inapplicable when the plaintiff is a resident of the forum state.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that appellants should not be denied access to their own state courts in suing corporate entities whose interests, although nationwide, are also firmly established and entrenched in their state.”
Establishes the core holding that Florida residents have a right to sue foreign corporations in Florida courts when those corporations conduct business in the state.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Killingsworth family, Florida residents from Polk County, were vacationing in New Mexico when their automobile collided with a Ford truck operated…
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 Service Of Process On Corporations cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellants/plaintiffs, all members of the George Killingsworth family, residents of Polk County, Florida, were vacationing in the State of New Mexico when the automobile in which they were riding was involved in a collision with a Ford two-ton truck operated by an employee of appellee, Montgomery Ward & Company. Appellee, Ryder Truck Rental, leased said vehicle to Montgomery Ward & Company. The appellants filed suit in Polk County for damages in this personal injury action arising out of the collision. The appellees were foreign corporations authorized to do business in Florida. No action was filed in New Mexico. Appellees filed a motion to transfer, abate or dismiss the action on the ground of forum non conveniens. After hearing, the trial court entered its order abating the action, leaving appellants to seek redress of their claimed injury in the courts of the State of New Mexico. This timely appeal from that order followed.
There was no question as to jurisdiction of the circuit court in Polk County to proceed, service of process having been accomplished upon appellees here in Florida in accordance with Section 48.081(5), Florida Statutes, which authorizes service on any corporation having a business office in the state and engaged in transaction of business therefrom. This statute provides that the cause of action does not have to arise from business within the state. See Crown Colony Club Ltd. v. Honecker, Fla. App.3d, 1974, 307 So. 2d 889. The sole issue, therefore, concerns the question of whether Florida or New Mexico is the proper venue. Section 47.051, Florida Statutes, provides in essential part:
. Actions against foreign corporations doing business in this state shall be brought in a county where such corporation has an agent or other representative, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located. [Emphasis added].
The trial court, as stated previously herein, abated the action and in doing so applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens. While principles of this doctrine may have merit under certain peculiar factual circumstances, we find no such circumstances are present here. We are, however, persuaded by the decision of our sister court in the case of Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., Fla.App.1st, 1969, 224 So. 2d 797, which decided that the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies only where both parties are nonresidents and the cause of action accrued outside the state. We adopt the rationale of Adams, supra.
We hold that appellants should not be denied access to their own state courts in suing corporate entities whose interests, although nationwide, are also firmly established and entrenched in their state. Further, we believe that the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice will best be served by. this action being litigated in the courts of Florida.
In light of the applicable statutory provision and the rationale of Adams, supra, it is clear to us that the trial court did not have authority to abate this action.
We hold that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not applicable and, consequently, the courts of this state are the proper forum.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1978)…on of the Fourth District Court of Appeal is quashed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. ADKINS, Acting C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur. . Killingsworth v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 327 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976); Ganem v. Issa, 225 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 224 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Ganey, 125 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). . Respondent’s insur…
-
Dombroff v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 450 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ause of action sued upon: (a) does not arise from business activities conducted by the defendant corporation in Florida, Confederation of Canada Life Insurance Co. v. Vega y Arminan, 144 So. 2d 805 (Fla.1962); Killingsworth v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 327 So. 2d 50 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Crown Colony Club, Ltd. v. Honecker, 307 So. 2d 889, 891 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 320 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1975); Junction Bit & Tool Co. v. Institutional Mortgage Co., supra at 881, and (b) arises from the defendant’s business acti…
-
Houston v. Caldwell, 347 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…Ganem v. de Issa, 225 So. 2d 564 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); Southern Railway Company v. McCubbins, 196 So. 2d 512 (Fla.3d DCA 1967); Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Ganey, 125 So. 2d 576 (Fla.3d DCA 1960); Killingsworth v. Montgomery Ward & Company, 327 So. 2d 50 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); cf. Morgan v. Ande, 313 So. 2d 86 (Fla.4th DCA 1975). Our reading of Hagen and our understanding of the doctrine as discussed in Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert leads us to believe that residency of the parties is not an essentia…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Yewell Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 224 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- Crown Colony Club v. Christi M. Honecker, 307 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)