Jorge Luis Machuca Gonzalez et al. v. Chrysler Corporation et al.
Jorge Luis Machuca Gonzalez et al. v. Chrysler Corporation et al.
Issue:
Does the cap on tort recovery damages imposed by Mexican law render Mexico an inadequate forum for resolving a tort suit by a Mexican citizen against an American manufacturer and an American airbag designer?
There are four consideration for the court to take into account when determining a case of forum non conveniens. The first factor is whether an alternative forum is available. In making its determination of whether an alternative forum is available, the court will look at whether or not parties are deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly. Secondly, the court will look at whether the alternative form is adequate. Thirdly, the court will weight private interest factors. Fourthly, the court will weight public interest factors concerning the forum.
Application:
In 1995, the plaintiff, Jorge Gonzalez, saw an ad for a Chrysler LHS in Houston, Texas. Upon returning to Mexico, the plaintiff purchased the car. In 1996, the plaintiff, his wife, and his three year old son were in an accident in Mexico. During the accident the air bag deployed and killed the plaintiff’s three year old son. Gonzalez sued in a Texas court based on because Mexico has a cap on tort claims of $2,500 for the death of a child.
The pivotal case for making the determination of forum non conveniens in this case is the case of Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno. The claim that the Mexican court is inadequate because it did not provide for strict liability was answered in Piper. Furthermore, the court found that Mexican law and policy governs Mexican citizens; Therefore, it would be patronizing and imperialistic to determine that the Mexican court offered an inadequate forum in the face of a legitimate Mexican policy. With regard to the economic viability of the lawsuit in Mexico, the court reasoned that Piper Aircraft’s adequacy inquiry does not include an evaluation of whether it makes economic sense. Furthermore, the public and private interest inquiry focuses on abuse of discretion.
Conclusion:
For the court to reverse a district court’s decision of forum non conveniens, the court must find that there is no adequate alternative forum because the type of claim is not recognized in the alternate forum or the plaintiff will be treated unfairly. Furthermore, for the court to reverse the decision based on public and private policy reasons, the district court must have abused its discretion.
Works Cited
August, R., Mayer, D., Bixby, M., “International Business Law Text, Cases, and Readings 5th
Edition.”
