Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:12:34.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens and the Bhopal Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

M.W. Janis
Get access

Extract

Following the worst industrial accident in history, the leak of poisonous methyl isocyanate gas in Bhopal, India and the deaths of more than 2,000 people with injuries to more than 200,000, suits were soon brought in the United States against Union Carbide Corporation, the owner of a little over 50 percent of the stock in Union Carbide India Limited, the owner and operator of the disastrous plant. The American suits were consolidated in one action before the United States Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Federal District Court, however, dismissed the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens, deciding that the Bhopal case would be more properly litigated in India. The District Court's opinion was endorsed by the Federal Circuit Court for the Second Circuit, also concluding that India, not the United States, was the appropriate situs for the trial.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , August 1987 , pp. 192 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. In Re: Union Carbide Corporation Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India in December, 1984, US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Opinion of 05 12, 1986Google Scholar , 25 ILM (1986) p. 771Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as ‘District Court Opinion’].

2. In Re: Union Carbide Corporation Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India in December, 984, 809 F. 2nd 195 (2d Cir. 1987) [hereinafter cited as ‘Circuit Court Opinion’].

3. Blair, P., ‘The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in Anglo-American Law’, 29 Columbia LR (1929) p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Ibid., at pp. 21–22.

5. Almost two decades after Blair wrote his article, Barrett concluded that even though the term forum non conveniens had become popular, only a half dozen states and, in 1947, the federal courts, actually incorporated the doctrine. See Barrett, E. L., ‘The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens’, 35 California LR (1947) pp. 380, 388–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Blair, , loc.cit. n. 3, at pp. 20–21Google Scholar . [1926] Sess. Cas. 13, HL.

7. [1926] Sess. Cass. 13, 20, HL.

8. Braucher, R., ‘The Inconvenient Federal Forum’, 60 Harvard LR (1947) pp. 908, 909CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Barrett, , loc.cit. n. 5, at p. 387 n. 35Google Scholar, citing Vernor v Elvies (1610) 6 Diet, of Dec. 4788.

10. Braucher, , loc.cit. n. 8, p. 909Google Scholar, citing 11 Macph. 860 (1873).

11. Ibid., at pp. 910–911, citing Logan v Bank of Scotland [1906] 1 KB 141 (CA 1905).

12. Barrett, , loc.cit. n. 5, p. 387Google Scholar, citing Robertson v Kerr (1793), reported in a note to Rea v Haydon, 3 Mass. 24, 25 (1807Google Scholar).

13. Braucher, , loc.cit. n. 8, p. 920Google Scholar, citing Mason v Ship Blaireau, 2 Cranch 240, 264 (U.S. 1804Google Scholar).

14. Blair, , loc.cit. n. 3Google Scholar. On the impact of Blair's article, see Braucher, , loc.cit. n. 8, pp. 911–912Google Scholar; Barrett, , loc.cit. n. 5, pp. 388–389Google Scholar.

15. Blair, , loc.cit. n. 3, p. 1Google Scholar.

16. Ibid., at pp. 1–2.

17. Ibid., at p. 2, citing Bagdon v Philadelphia & R.C. & I. Co., 178 App. Div. 662, 165 N.Y. Supp. 910 (2d Dept. 1917).

18. Blair, , loc.cit. n. 3, pp. 3–19Google Scholar.

19. Ibid., at pp. 20–30.

20. Dainow in 1935, argued that ‘the reception of such a doctrine [forum non conveniens] is not only possible but also very desirable in the United States’: Dainow, J., ‘The Inappropriate Forum’, 29 Illinois LR (1935) pp. 867, 870Google Scholar.

21. The Supreme Court noted Blair's article in 1932, in Canada Malting Co. Ltd. v Paterson Steamships, Ltd., 285 U.S. 413, 423n (1932).

22. 330 U.S. 501 (1947).

23. 330 U.S. 518 (1947).

24. 330 U.S. 501, 502 (1947).

25. Ibid., at pp. 502–503.

26. Ibid., at pp. 504–507.

27. Ibid., at pp. 506–507.

28. Ibid., at pp. 507–509.

29. Ibid., at p. 508.

30. Ibid., at pp. 508–509.

31. Ibid., at p. 508.

32. Ibid., at pp. 509–512.

33. 330 U.S. 518, 518–521 (1947).

34. Ibid., at p. 527

35. Ibid., at pp. 520–521, 531.

36. Ibid., at pp. 531–532.

37. 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1404 (a).

38. As a procedural matter, the doctrine of forum non conveniens may be employed by state courts pursuant to their own, not any federal, jurisprudence. In general, the doctrine has been described: ‘A state will not exercise jurisdiction if it is a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action provided that a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff’: American Law Institute, Restatement Second of the Law of Conflict of Laws, Sect. 84 (1969)Google Scholar.

39. 454 U.S. 235 (1981).

40. Ibid., at pp. 238–239.

41. Ibid., at pp. 239–240.

42. Ibid., at p. 240.

43. Ibid., pp. 240–241.

44. Ibid., at p. 247.

45. Ibid., at pp. 251–255.

46. Ibid., at pp. 255–256.

47. Ibid., at p. 261.

48. Ibid., at pp. 257–261.

49. See the four articles on the Bhopal disaster: NY Times (January 28, 1985) at Al, A6–A7; NY Times (January 30, 1985) at Al, A6; NY Times (January 31, 1985) at Al, A8; NY Times (February 3, 1985) at Al, A8.

50. NY Times (December 12, 1984) at A10.

51. Ibid., see ‘Bhopal Blowup: Are Some Lawyers Vultures?’, 71 American Bar Association Journal (March 1985) pp. 17–18; Janis, M. W., ‘Lawyers Being Judged by Bhopal Suits’, Hartford Courant (12 19, 1984) at B9Google Scholar.

52. NY Times (March 9, 1985) at Al, quoting Mr. Bharadwaj, Minister of State for Law.

53. District Court Opinion, supra n. 1, at p. 772Google Scholar.

54. Ibid.

55. Ibid.

56. Ibid., at p. 773.

57. District Court Opinion, supra n. 1.

58. Circuit Court Opinion, supra n. 2.

59. District Court Opinion, supra n. 1, at p. 773Google Scholar.

60. Ibid.; Circuit Court Opinion, supra n. 2, at p. 202.

61. District Court Opinion, supra n. 1, at p. 776Google Scholar.

62. Ibid., at pp. 776–782.

63. Circuit Court Opinion, supra n. 2, at p. 199Google Scholar.

64. District Court Opinion, supra n. 1, at p. 802Google Scholar.

65. Circuit Court Opinion, supra n 2, at pp. 203–204Google Scholar.

66. District Court Opinion, supra n. 1, at p. 802Google Scholar.

67. Circuit Court Opinion, supra n. 2, at p. 205Google Scholar.

68. District Court Opinion, supran. 1, at p. 802Google Scholar.

69. Circuit Court Opinion, supra n. 2, at p. 205Google Scholar.

70. District Court Opinion, supra n. 1, at p. 774Google Scholar; Circuit Court Opinion, supra n. 2, at p. 202Google Scholar.

71. District Court Opinion, supra n. 1, at p. 783Google Scholar.

72. Circuit Court Opinion, supra n. 2, at pp. 200–201Google Scholar.

73. District Court Opinion, supra n. 1, at pp. 793–800Google Scholar.

74. Circuit Court Opinion, supra n. 2, at p. 201Google Scholar.

75. Ibid.