Capitol Research Services of Texas > Reports

Forum Non Conveniens (1993 Enactment)

eBook

  • Senate Bill 2 (1993)
  • Sec. 71.051, Civil Practice and Remedies Code
  • PDF Format eBook (Fully searchable)
  • Report: 85 pages
  • Exhibits: 118 pages
  • Fee: $195
  • Download the eBook directly from the Capitol Research website


Visa LogoMasterCard LogoDiscover LogoAmerican Express LogoeCheck LogoPayPal Logo

Hard Copy Report

  • Senate Bill 2 (1993)
  • Sec. 71.051, Civil Practice and Remedies Code
  • PDF Format eBook (Fully searchable)
  • Report: 85 pages
  • Exhibits: 118 pages
  • Fee: $295
  • Shipping: $20


Visa LogoMasterCard LogoDiscover LogoAmerican Express LogoeCheck LogoPayPal Logo

Abstract

In the 1990 Alfaro decision (Dow Chemical Co. v. Castro Alfaro, 786 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. 1990)), the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of forum non conveniens had been statutorily abolished by Art. 4678, which had been passed on 1913 and was codified as § 71.031, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

In response to that decision, in 1993 the Texas Legislature enacted S.B. 2 which statutorily recognized the doctrine of forum non conveniens in § 71.051, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

The House Research Organization summed up the bill as follows:

Background

The doctrine of forum non conveniens ("inconvenient court" in Latin) allows civil courts to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a citizen of another state or country when the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice would be better served if the action were brought and tried in another forum.

In a 1990 case, Dow Chemical v. Castro Alfaro, 786 S.W. 2d 674, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the forum non conveniens doctrine is not applicable in Texas to dismiss wrongful death and personal injury action against a Texas defendant stemming from an incident in another state or a foreign country.

Digest

SB 2 would allow a state court to dismiss partially or totally a wrongful-death or personal-injury lawsuit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens on the motion of any party, depending on the residency of the claimant in the suit.

If the claimant was not a legal resident of the United States, the court would have to find that, in the interest of justice, the suit would be more properly heard out-of-state.

If the claimant was a legal resident of the United States, but not of Texas, the party seeking to stay or dismiss the suit would have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an out-of-state forum was more appropriate because it offered a remedy for the cause of action, could exercise jurisdiction over all parties and claims joined in the action and could provide a place of trial that was fair, reasonable and convenient to all parties. The party also would have to prove that keeping the suit in Texas courts wold work a substantial injustice to the party seeking the stay or dismissal, that the balance of the private interests of all parties and the public interest of the state predominated in factor of bringing the action an out-of-state forum and that a stay or dismissal would not, in reasonable probability, result in unreasonable duplication of proliferation of litigation.

If the claimant was a legal resident of Texas, the court could not stay or dismiss a suit under the forum non conveniens doctrine.

A court also would be prohibited from staying or dismissing a suit if a party, by a preponderance of the evidence, made a prima facie showing that an act or omission that was the proximate cause of the injury or death occurred in Texas or the suit involved an airplane designed, manufactured, sold, maintained, inspected or reported in Texas, a flight to or from Texas or exposure to asbestos fibers. Suits brought under the certain federal laws involving railroads (the Employers’ Liability Act, the Safety Appliance Act and the Boiler Inspection Act) also could not be stayed or dismissed.

The bill would not affect personal-injury or wrongful-death suits involving violation of state or federal law, specifically including laws concerning transportation of hazardous waste.

Before a stay or dismissal was granted, all defendants would have to stipulate that they would submit to the jurisdiction of the out-of-state court and waive any defense based on the statute of limitations. A Texas court would withdraw the order of stay or dismissal if the moving party violated this stipulation.

The bill would apply to suits filed on or after September 1, 1993.

Sec. 71.051, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, was further amended in 1995 and 1997.

Exhibits

1993
1. Tex. S.B. 2, 73rd Leg., R.S., Master Bill History Report (1993)
2. Tex. S.B. 2, As Introduced, 73rd Leg., R.S. (1993)
3. Tex. S.B. 2, Senate Committee Report, 73rd Leg., R.S. (1993)
4. Tex. S.B. 2, House Committee Report, 73rd Leg., R.S. (1993)
5. SENATE STAFF SERVICES, Hearings on S.B. 2 Before the Senate Committee on Economic Development, 73rd Leg. R.S. (January 26, 1993)
6. SENATE STAFF SERVICES, Debate on S.B. 2 On the Floor of the Senate (Second and Third Readings), 73rd Leg. R.S. (January 28, 1993)
7. SENATE STAFF SERVICES, Hearings on S.B. 2 Before the House Committee on State Affairs, 73rd Leg. R.S. (February 15, 1993)
8. SENATE STAFF SERVICES, Debate on S.B. 2 On the Floor of the House (Second and Third Readings), 73rd Leg. R.S. (February 22 & 23, 1993)
9. S.J. of Tex., 73rd Leg., R.S. 138 (1993)
10. HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, S.B. 2 Bill Analysis (February 22, 1993)
11. H.J. of Tex., 73rd Leg., R.S. 454-455, 466 (1993)
12. Act of March 4, 1993, 73rd Leg., R.S., ch. 4, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws, 10
1995
13. Act of June 14, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 567, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws, 3363
1997
14. Act of May 29, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 424, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws, 1680
15. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, § 71.051 (Vernon 1997 & Supp. 2003)