So let’s begin with a 1990 opinion from Justice Doggett on the Texas Supreme Court:
“The dissenters are insistent that a jury of Texans be denied the opportunity to evaluate theconduct of a Texas corporation concerning decisions it made in Texas because the only ones allegedly hurt are foreigners. Fortunately Texans are not so provincial and narrow-minded as these dissenters presume. Our citizenry recognizes that a wrong does not fade away because its immediate consequences are first felt far away rather than close to home. Never have we been required to forfeit our membership in the human race in order to maintain our proud heritage as citizens of Texas.
The dissenters argue that it is inconvenient and unfair for farmworkers allegedly suffering permanent physical and mental injuries, including irreversible sterility, to seek redress by suing a multinational corporation in a court three blocks away from its world headquarters and another corporation, which operates in Texas this country’s largest chemical plant.Because the “doctrine” they advocate has nothing to do with fairness and convenience and everything to do with immunizing multinational corporations from accountability for their alleged torts causing injury abroad, I write separately.”
Well put, Justice Doggett – too bad there aren’t more judges who see forum non conveniensfor what it really is, too.
For those of you who care about cites, here it is: Dow Chemical Co. v. Castro Alfaro, 786 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. 1990) (concurring).