454 U.S. 235 (1981)
In July 1976, a small commercial aircraft crashed in the Scottish highlands during the course of a charter flight from Blackpool to Perth.1 The pilot and five passengers were killed instantly.2 The decedents were all Scottish subjects and residents, as are their heirs and next of kin.3 There were no eyewitnesses to the accident.4 At the time of the crash the plane was subject to Scottish air traffic control.5
The aircraft, a twin-engine Piper Aztec, was manufactured in Pennsylvania by petitioner Piper Aircraft Co.6 The propellers were manufactured in Ohio by petitioner Hartzell Propeller, Inc.7 At the time of the crash the aircraft was registered in Great Britain and was owned and maintained by Air Navigation and Trading Co., Ltd.8 It was operated by McDonald Aviation, Ltd., a Scottish air taxi service.9 Both Air Navigation and McDonald were organized in the United Kingdom.10 The wreckage of the plane is now in a hangar in Farnsborough, England.11
The British Department of Trade investigated the accident shortly after it occurred.12 A preliminary report found that the plane crashed after developing a spin, and suggested that mechanical failure in the plane or the propeller was responsible.13 At Hartzell’s request, this report was reviewed by a three-member Review Board, which held a 9-day adversary hearing attended by all interested parties.14 The Review Board found no evidence of defective equipment and indicated that pilot error may have contributed to the accident.15 The pilot, who had obtained his commercial pilot’s license only three months earlier, was flying over high ground at an altitude considerably lower than the minimum height required by his company’s operations manual.16
In July 1977, a California probate court appointed respondent Gaynell Reyno administratrix of the estates of the five passengers.17 Reyno is not related to and does not know any of the decedents or their survivors.18 She was a legal secretary to the attorney who filed this lawsuit.19 Several days after her appointment, Reyno commenced separate wrongful-death actions against Piper and Hartzell in the Superior Court of California, claiming negligence and strict liability.20 The survivors of the five passengers whose estates are represented by Reyno filed a separate action in the United Kingdom against Air Navigation, McDonald, and the pilot’s estate.21
On petitioners’ motion, the suit was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.22 Piper then moved for transfer to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1404(a).23 Hartzell moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to transfer.24 In December 1977, the District Court quashed service on Hartzell and transferred the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.25 Respondent then properly served process on Hartzell.26
In May 1978, after the suit had been transferred, both Hartzell and Piper moved to dismiss the action on the ground of forum non conveniens.27 The District Court granted these motions in October 1979.28 On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for trial.29 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in these cases to consider the questions they raise concerning the proper application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.30
Whether the possibility of an unfavorable change in substantive law bars dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens?31
The possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry.32
No. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that plaintiffs may defeat a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiffs than that of the present forum. The possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry.
Reyno candidly admits that the action against Piper and Hartzell was filed in the United States because its laws regarding liability, capacity to sue, and damages are more favorable to her position than are those of Scotland.33 Scottish law does not recognize strict liability in tort.34 Moreover, it permits wrongful-death actions only when brought by a decedent’s relatives.35 The District Court properly concluded that the possibility of an unfavorable change in law did not deserve significant weight.36 Any deficiency in the foreign law was a matter to be dealt with in the foreign forum.37 The remedies that would be provided by the Scottish courts do not fall within the category of being clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory.38
The possibility of an unfavorable change in substantive law does not bar dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens.39
Related opinions on this issue
Justice White joined Parts I and II of the Court’s opinion.40 He therefore agreed with the majority that the possibility of an unfavorable change in substantive law should not bar dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens. However, like Justice Brennan and Justice Stevens, he would not proceed to deal with the issues addressed in Part III.41
To that extent, he is in dissent.42
Justice Stevens agreed that this question should be answered in the negative.43 Having decided that question, he would simply remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration of the question whether the District Court correctly decided that Pennsylvania was not a convenient forum in which to litigate a claim against a Pennsylvania company that a plane was defectively designed and manufactured in Pennsylvania.4445 He noted that only one question was presented in each petition for certiorari.46
He would not reach any other issues.47
Whether the District Court abused its discretion in determining that the private and public interest factors favored dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds?48
The forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and may be reversed only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion.49
No. The District Court properly concluded that the private interest factors pointed in favor of dismissal.50 The decedents were all Scottish, the wreckage and witnesses were in Scotland, and the real parties in interest are Scottish or foreign.51 The District Court also properly concluded that the public interest factors favored dismissal.52
The accident occurred in Scotland, all decedents were Scottish, and the defendant aircraft companies would face significant difficulties in impleading potential third-party defendants in the United States.53 The District Court also properly determined that the incremental cost of trying the case in the United States would be significant.54 The Court of Appeals substituted its own judgment for that of the District Court.55 The District Court acknowledged that there is ordinarily a strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum.56 It held that the presumption applies with less force when the plaintiff or real parties in interest are foreign.57
The District Court did not act unreasonably in deciding that the private interests pointed towards trial in Scotland.58 Nor did it act unreasonably in deciding that the public interests favored trial in Scotland.59
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the private and public interest factors.60
Related opinions on this issue
Justice White joined Parts I and II of the Court’s opinion. However, like Justice Brennan and Justice Stevens, he would not proceed to deal with the issues addressed in Part III. To that extent, he is in dissent.
Justice Stevens agreed that the question presented should be answered in the negative.61 He would simply remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration of the question whether the District Court correctly decided that Pennsylvania was not a convenient forum in which to litigate a claim against a Pennsylvania company that a plane was defectively designed and manufactured in Pennsylvania. He emphasized that the Court should limit its review to the certified question and leave the forum non conveniens balancing for further consideration below.62