J.F., a minor, was left in a persistent vegetative state due to a defective and unsafe Aisys CS2 anesthesia system (“Anesthesia System”) used during surgery at Shands Jacksonville Medical Center (“Shands”) in Jacksonville, Florida. Datex, a subsidiary of General Electric Company (collectively referred to as “GE Defendants”), manufactured the Anesthesia System, and Crothall Healthcare, Inc. (“Crothall”), an independent entity, serviced the Anesthesia System. Plaintiff sued the Defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The GE Defendants filed preliminary objections, asserting that the trial court lacked general and specific personal jurisdiction over them.nnGE was incorporated in New York and headquartered in Massachusetts. Datex was a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Wisconsin. The Anesthesia System was designed and manufactured in Wisconsin and sold to Shands by Datex in Florida. However, the invoice that was sent by Datex to Shands indicated that payment for the Anesthesia System was to be sent to the GE Defendants’ bank, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The trial court entered an order sustaining the GE Defendants’ preliminary objections and dismissing them from the case.nnCrothall, which was headquartered in Pennsylvania, filed a motion to dismiss for
forum non conveniens. The trial court entered an order granting the motion and dismissing the complaint without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling in Florida or another appropriate jurisdiction.nn“A corporate defendant’s activities within the Commonwealth ‘may give rise to either specific or general jurisdiction.’”
Merino v. Repak, B.V., 286 A.3d 1249, 1256 (Pa. Super. 2022). General jurisdiction exists in “situations where a corporation’s connections are ‘so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum State,’ allowing for jurisdiction over causes of action unrelated to in-state activities.”
Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 240 A.3d 537, 555 (Pa. 2020). Specific jurisdiction applies where there are “more limited connections with a state which restrict jurisdiction to causes of action ‘where there is an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy.’”
Id.nnIn
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023), the Supreme Court of the United States addressed 42 Pa.C.S. § 5301(a)(2)(i), and held by registering in Pennsylvania, the foreign corporation voluntarily consents to suit in the Commonwealth in order to avail itself of the opportunity to do business in Pennsylvania. However, in this case the Superior Court determined that Plaintiff waived any argument on general jurisdiction as it was not raised in the trial court.
Trigg v. Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, 229 A.3d 260, 269 (Pa. 2020).nnPennsylvania courts have relied on the following three-part test to determine whether specific jurisdiction exists in a particular case:n
n - n
Did the plaintiff’s cause of action arise out of or relate to the out-of-state defendant’s forum-related contacts?
n n - n
Did the defendant purposely direct its activities, particularly as they relate to the plaintiff’s cause of action, toward the forum state or did the defendant purposely avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities therein?
n n - n
Would the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant in the forum state satisfy the requirement that it be reasonable and fair?
n n
n
Hammons, 240 A.3d at 556.nnHere, the only Pennsylvania related activity or occurrence averred was the existence of a bank lockbox located in Pittsburgh, PA. The Superior Court found no evidence showing that the GE Defendants purposefully sought Pennsylvania as the locale where it would receive payment on the Anesthesia System, and the payments directed to Pennsylvania had no relation to the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint; therefore, the Court concluded that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting the GE Defendants’ preliminary objections as to personal jurisdiction.nnFinally, when assessing whether to disturb the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the trial court must consider private factors, including,n
the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance for unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of the premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.
n
McConnell v. B. Braun Medical Inc., 221 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. Super. 2019).nnThe court must also consider factors affecting the public interest, including thatn
administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial . . . in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.
n
Id. at 227-28.nnUpon review, the Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s decision to dismiss Croththall from the suit on the basis of
forum non conveniens because J.F.’s injuries were sustained in Florida, all identified potential witnesses reside outside Pennsylvania, the Anesthesia System remains in Florida along with potentially other relevant evidence, and Florida law likely applies to this dispute. Moreover, the Court determined that Crothall had provided evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the key witnesses it would present at trial were based in Florida and would testify, consistent with the company’s defense asserted in its answer that Crothall had insufficient involvement with the Anesthesia System to be found liable for J.F.’s injuries.nnThe Court’s opinion in
Kennedy v. Crothall Healthcare, Inc., 2024 PA Super 177 (August 9, 2024) can be accessed
here.
