The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently rejected the “key witness” requirement related to a trial court’s assessment of any venue challenge. In short, venue challenges are now more straightforward and – as discussed below – potentially more viable for defendants seeking to avoid what may be considered plaintiff-friendly counties.
The case relevant to this blog entry is Tranter v. ZD Tour Inc., a catastrophic multi-vehicle collisionin Westmoreland County resulted in multiple injuries and involved a passenger bus and multiple tracker-trailers. A subsequent lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, more than 200 miles from the accident scene. Sixty-six defense witnesses were identified, according to the record, including first responders and law enforcement from Westmoreland County. Eleven of those witnesses signed affidavits related to the venue challenge, seeking to demonstrate that the travel to Philadelphia would cause them significant financial burden and professional disruption. Because none of those individuals were so called – “key witnesses”, the Capital Superior Court had ruled that venue was appropriate in Philadelphia.
The Supreme Court reversed, reasoning that witness travel exceeding 100 miles was unreasonable, while the 200+ miles in Tranter was “manifestly troublesome”. While the written opinion has substantial additional detail, we can summarize the decision as a rejection of the “key witness” requirement in full, allowing for a more balanced venue analysis. Following this opinion, we believe that venue assessments will be uniquely analyzed, as they have in the past, but that the Tranter decision reflects an evolution of Pennsylvania law, allowing defendants enhanced opportunity to create a record demonstrating what may be “unreasonable” for witnesses and parties, along with what may be “manifestly troublesome”. In the context of what some of the commentators have called “jackpot justice” and/or the so-called “nuclear verdict”®, Tranter provides Pennsylvania litigants both greater guidance and an enhanced opportunity to challenge cross-county litigants.