Brown v. Cottrell

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 5th District Appellate » 2007 » Brown v. Cottrell

Brown v. Cottrell

State: Illinois

Court: 5th District Appellate

Docket No: 5-04-0099 Rel

Case Date: 04/24/2007

Preview:NO. 5-04-0099
N O T IC E Decision filed 04/24/07. The text of this dec ision m ay b e changed or corrected prior to the P e t i ti o n for filing of a or the

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

Re hea ring

FIFTH DISTRICT ___________________________________________________________________________ RAYM OND BROWN and GEORGIA BROW N, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) Madison County. ) v. ) No. 02-L-1569 ) COTTRELL, INC., and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ) ) Defendants-Appellants, ) ) and ) ) CASSENS & SONS, INC., CASSENS CORPORATION, ) ALBERT CASSENS, ALBERT CASSENS TRUST, ) GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, and Unknown ) Chain and Ratchet System Component Distributors/ ) Manufacturers, ) Honorable ) A. A. M atoesian, Defendants. ) Judge, presiding. ___________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHAPMAN delivered the opinion of the court: This appeal involves interstate forum non conveniens motions in a product liability suit against the manufacturer of an auto-hauling trailer. Raymond Brown, a truck driver residing in Missouri, was injured while loading a car onto the trailer in Louisville, Kentucky. Cottrell, Inc., the Georgia-based manufacturer of the trailer, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit Brown and his wife filed in Illinois, arguing that either Kentucky or Missouri would be a more convenient forum. Other defendants also moved to dismiss. The trial court denied the motions, and this court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court vacated our earlier order and directed us to reconsider our holding in light of its recent decisions in Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430, 848 N.E.2d 927 (2006), and Gridley v. State Farm

disposition of the same.

1

Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 217 Ill. 2d 158, 840 N.E.2d 269 (2005). Brown v. Cottrell, Inc., 219 Ill. 2d 562, 847 N.E.2d 511 (2006). We once again affirm the trial court's ruling, and we grant, in part, the plaintiffs' motion to strike Cottrell, Inc.'s brief. On June 20, 2002, plaintiff Raymond Brown was injured while loading vehicles onto an auto-hauling trailer in Louisville, Kentucky. Brown resides in Dexter, Missouri. He received medical treatment and physical therapy for his injuries in St. Louis, Missouri, the St. Louis suburb of Fenton, Missouri, and Cape Girardeau, Missouri. On November 22, 2002, Brown and his wife, Georgia Brown, filed a complaint in Madison County, Illinois, seeking damages for Raymond's injuries. The complaint named as defendants Cottrell, Inc. (Cottrell), the manufacturer of the trailer; Ford Motor Company (Ford); General Motors Corp. (GM); Cassens & Sons, Inc.; Cassens Corp.; Albert Cassens; and the Albert Cassens Trust. Cottrell is headquartered in Georgia. The Cassens defendants are all located in Madison County, as is Brown's employer, Cassens Transport Company (Cassens Transport). While not a party, Cassens Transport maintains documents relating to the maintenance of the trailer and Brown's injury. Although the record does not disclose the locations of Ford and GM, we may take judicial notice of the fact that these companies are headquartered in Michigan. See Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 177, 797 N.E.2d 687, 696 (2003) (noting that we may take judicial notice of matters capable of instant and indisputable demonstration). On August 26, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September 9, Cottrell filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens . It argued that the case should be filed in either Bullitt County, Kentucky, where the accident occurred, or in Stoddard County, Missouri, where the plaintiffs reside. Later in September 2003, GM and Ford filed separate motions to join Cottrell's forum motion. On January 2, 2004, the court denied the forum motions. The defendants appealed that ruling, and on May 25, 2005, this

2

court affirmed. Brown v. Cottrell, Inc., No. 5-04-0099 (2005) (unpublished order pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23 (166 Ill. 2d R. 23)). On May 24, 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court vacated our decision and directed us to reconsider in light of its recent forum decisions in Langenhorst and Gridley. On July 14, 2006, Cottrell filed a supplemental brief, which Ford adopted. The plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, to strike Cottrell's supplemental brief. They argued that Cottrell referenced many matters outside the original record on appeal

Download Brown v. Cottrell.pdf