Friday

Week Fourteen, Part 3 - CivPro: Inconvenient Questions

The question-and-answer format in the law school classroom hearkens back to Socrates himself, or at least to Harvard's Dean Langdell, and on Wednesday it’s my turn to drink the hemlock.

“Mr. Telloyan,” calls Professor Joseph Bauer, “let’s start with you.” His tone has a hard edge, and I know he remembers my SpaghettiO’s cop-out during Immunity Days.

My mouth goes dry and I feel shaky at the thought of Socratic torture in front of 75 classmates. Behind me, I hear a whisper. “You’re toast, man.”

The legal doctrine to be examined is forum non conveniens. If a claim has been filed in a grossly inconvenient system, the court has the discretion to dismiss it. At Bauer’s command we turn to Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, a 1981 Supreme Court case.

Bauer sets out the facts. In July, 1976, a twin-engine Piper Aztec crashed in the Scottish highlands. The pilot and five passengers, all Scottish, died instantly. There were no eyewitnesses.

First question. “Mr. Telloyan, where was the aircraft manufactured?”

“Pennsylvania,” I say.

It’s not quite Socrates asking Euthyphro to explain the nature of holiness, but I don’t mind. Keep it simple, baby.

“By whom?”

Piper Aircraft.”

“What did the preliminary report indicate?”

“Mechanical failure.”

“And how about the review board?”

“It found no defective equipment and blamed the crash on pilot error.”

“So where did the plaintiffs sue?” Bauer asks.

“They instituted wrongful-death litigation in a California state court.” I almost sound like a lawyer, except my voice cracks halfway through.

“Why the United States?”

“Because our laws are more favorable in the areas of ‘liability, capacity to sue, and damages.’” It’s all jargon from the first graph of the Supreme Court case.

We review the procedural history. The case was removed to federal court in California, then transferred to Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Bauer asks me how Piper Aircraft responded.

“They wanted to ‘forum non it outta there.’” It’s an expression I heard Professor Arthur Miller use during the CivPro cram session. I don’t know if it’s the usual phraseology or legal slang.

“What?!” Bauer cocks his head.

Either he didn’t hear me or the phrase is unfamiliar. Regardless, I retreat. “The company moved to dismiss the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens.”

We discuss the reasoning of the trial court in granting the dismissal, and why the Third Circuit reversed. Private interest factors. Public interest factors. Whether a trial in the chosen forum would be “oppressive or vexatious.”

Bauer asks whether I agree with the majority decision.

I say I do.

He asks why.

I want to say it’s because I see Bauer’s hero and liberal lion, Justice William Brennan, in the minority. Instead I mumble, “Most of the evidence was located in Great Britain.”

Bauer nods and moves on to the next case, Gulf Oil v. Gilbert, and another victim.

Unlike a classic Socratic dialogue, Bauer’s probing questions have not forced me to realize “new truth.” Instead, I’ve disgorged what little I knew.

Still, when class ends, I feel a huge burden has been lifted.

And now I understand why Socrates could be convicted and sentenced to death for the simple act of asking questions.

* * *