Darnell v. Ralph Korte Equipment Co‪.‬

Plaintiff, Marion M. Darnell, filed a damage action in the circuit court of St. Clair County for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when he fell from a ladder while working as an employee of defendant Ralph Korte Equipment Co. (Korte) at a church owned by defendant Catholic Diocese of Belleville (the Diocese) on a project for which defendant Stauder, Fine & Bildner, Inc. (SFB), served as architect. Plaintiff's complaint against Korte sounded in negligence. His causes of action against the Diocese and SFB arose under the Structural Work Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 48, pars. 60 through 69). Defendants each moved for transfer of the case to Franklin County based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Following discovery by the parties, the circuit court heard arguments of counsel on the motions filed by defendants the Diocese and SFB. Those motions were denied in an order dated July 24, 1985. The record is silent as to the disposition of the motion filed by defendant Korte. Defendant the Diocese then petitioned this court for leave to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(1)(ii) (94 Ill.2d R. 306(a)(1)(ii)). We granted the Diocese's petition, and the sole question now before us is whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the Diocese's motion to transfer venue from St. Clair to Franklin County on grounds of forum non conveniens. We affirm. • 1-3 Relying on common law principles, our supreme court has held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies intrastate. (Torres v. Walsh (1983), 98 Ill.2d 338, 456 N.E.2d 601.) In ruling on motions to transfer venue based on intrastate forum non conveniens, a trial court must consider: (1) the availability of an alternative forum, (2) the access to sources of proof, (3) the accessibility of witnesses, (4) the relative advantages and obstacles to obtaining a fair trial, (5) the congestion of court dockets and (6) the convenience of the parties. (98 Ill.2d 338, 351, 456 N.E.2d 601, 607.) Unless these factors strongly favor the defendant, then the plaintiff should be allowed to exercise his choice in deciding in what forum to bring the case, provided venue is proper. (98 Ill.2d 338, 351, 456 N.E.2d 601, 607.) Each case must be considered as unique on its facts. (Satkowiak v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. (1985), 106 Ill.2d 224, 228, 478 N.E.2d 370, 372.) Whether a forum non conveniens motion should be granted or denied rests with the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed on review absent an abuse of discretion. See Bland v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. (1986), 140 Ill. App.3d 862, 866, 489 N.E.2d 435, 438, leave to appeal granted (1986), 112 Ill.2d 557.