Typically, a plaintiff chooses the most convenient place for their lawsuit and the Defendant, unless that location happens to be where they also wish, fight this choice.  Under the principle of "forum non conveniens", defendants are often successful in relocating the litigation to their home turf.  This is mainly based on the fact that the Defendant should receive whatever local benefit and efficiency because they are the ones on the hook.  In federal litigation, with diversity jurisdiction especially, early federal law sought to curb local favoritism.  In the same way, state jurisprudence has evolved to encompass a framework for evaluating where a lawsuit should be conducted.  Choice of forum is very different from choice of law, which is what law to apply. 

Here, in Taylor v. Lemans Corporation, the First Appellate District affirmed a Cook County Circuit Court decision denying Lemans' Motion to Transfer on grounds of forum non conveniens.  The facts are essential to determining the proper forum for a lawsuit.  Here, this litigation originated from a motocross accident which occurred in Bureau County, Illinois.  The plaintiff sued for product liability and chose cook county as his forum even though he did not live there.  Despite that, the Defendant's motion was denied because, as the Appellate Court reasoned, the Plaintiff's choice should be given some deference and Cook County is not inappropriately chosen despite its large caseload and distance from the accident.  Witness testimony can be obtained through depositions and computer and internet access have made the physical location of accidents less significant.

So, the intersection of technology and the law seems to shaping civil procedure and how Courts perceive the relative positions of the litigants and their ability to obtain, review, and process information. The ruling, and its supporting reasoning, indicates that Defendants need to be sharper with their forum non conveniens arguments and that they should make plans to litigate more cases in Cook County rather than collar counties (or rural western and downstate counties) because plaintiffs will undoubtedly seek to sue in Cook County because jury verdicts are viewed as more favorable to plaintiffs there than in other counties in Illinois.  

Contacting a business litigation attorney prior to litigation can help shape contracts or other materials to specify a particular favorable forum in advance of issues.  Further, once litigation is commenced, business litigation attorneys can help craft stronger, more developed arguments in favor of forum non conveniens to ensure that litigation plays out in more favorable fora to both minimize damages if there is to be an adverse ruling and to provide for better leverage in settlement negotiations after plaintiff's counsel is faced with many long commutes to litigate the case.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Walgreen Co. has been sued by a California consumer for alleged labeling violations on their Vitamin E supplements.  The consumer objects to allegedly misleading claims on Walgreen's Vitamin E 400 IU Dietary Supplement that says the product "naturally contributes to cardiovascular health by helping to protect LDL cholesterol from oxidation which may cause cellular damage."

The complaint alleges that these statements are false and misleading based on clinical data that disproves these statements and indicates that the product is ineffective as marketed.

Lawsuits against supplement manufacturers are only just the beginning of the process.  This case illustrates why both consumers and manufacturers need to be very aware of the legal terrain in supplements and why consumers often mistake natural supplements for regulated drugs.

Product liability actions are premised on three major categories:
1. Failure to Warn
2. Defective Design
3. Manufacturing Defect

The Chicago Tribune reports that the parents of a toddler have filed suit against the manufacturer of their baby dresser for a product defect and for failure to warn about the dangers of their dresser when it tipped over and killed their 2 year old son.  Their case seems to allege both a failure to warn as well as defective design of the furniture.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Pella Corp., of Iowa, manufacturer of self-branded windows, has reached a settlement with a Lake Forest doctor who sued Pella over issues with his ProLine series of windows in his home.  The doctor brought a class action against Pella Corp. in the name of all owners of ProLine series windows and Pella has agreed to pay those owners between $750 and $6,000 as well as warranty against wood rot.

The Chicago Tribune reports that a Colorado resident has won a $7.2 million judgment against a Central Illinois microwavable popcorn manufacturer and distributors of the product.  This product liability action resembles the litigation over mesothelioma due to asbestos from the 1960s and on.  In this case, the chemical in the fake butter in microwavable popcorn has led to a serious lung issue in one user who consumed massive quantities of the product.

Everyday products injure consumers in ways that could and could not have been foreseen. All of the various products we encounter in daily life usually have some kind of a warranty, either express or implied, in their use and operation. Most people are familiar with warranties when an object breaks or injures someone.