'Q Does the accident report indicate whether or not any cause of the accident was commented upon?
'To rephrase it, are there any comments in the report as to the cause of the accident by those persons who may have investigated the occurrence or witnessed it?
'A There is in the report the statement of the claimant, or plaintiff, as to what occurred.
'Q But except for that, the report is barren as to how the accident occurred?
'A That is correct.
'Q When was this report sent to the company, and to what office?
'A All I can tell you is that the particular one that I have in my file was received in this office on August 30, 1961.
'Q Can you tell me whether or not, as part of your routine investigation of this case, the boatswain, Mr. Gobin, was interviewed by some member of your staff or a representative of the company?
'A No, I can't tell you.
'Q Can you tell me whether or not the ordinary seaman, Ksenzulah, was interviewed by any investigator or an agency at your request?
'Q You cannot tell me, or he was not?
'A I can't tell you.
'Q Do you have in your files any statements by these individuals?
This is enough in itself to negate the importance of this ground for transfer. But even if these witnesses should, for reasons not disclosed in the motion, turn out to be important, it must be borne in mind that they are seamen. '* * * While the defendant has stressed that the seamen witnesses all reside in or near the Southern District of Texas, the very fact that their witnesses are seamen dilutes the importance of this factor; by the nature of their employment seamen are often unavailable as witnesses and their testimony must then be submitted in deposition form. In the case at bar the fact that another district is more convenient to witnesses who may testify is not a sufficiently strong factor to overcome plaintiff's venue privilege. * * *' Medich v. American Oil Company, 177 F.Supp. 682, 683 (E.D.Pa., 1959), Biggs, C.J.
10. Finally, defendant alleges that this case will be reached for trial more quickly in the Eastern District of Louisiana than here. There is some doubt as to the validity of this claim (see McFarlin v. Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc., 210 F.Supp. 793 (E.D.Pa., 1962)), but in any event, this 'is never a factor to which great weight is assigned.' Peyser v. General Motors Corporation et al., 158 F.Supp. 526, 530 (S.D.N.Y., 1958). Since plaintiff has chosen this forum, I do not deem it of sufficient weight to overturn that choice.
It is true, as stated by Judge Freedman in McFarlin, supra, that 'in the end each case is unique and must be decided on its own circumstances.' However, it is not amiss to point out the somewhat significant number of cases that have refused transfer of a seaman's action from Philadelphia or New York to southern port cities. Biedrzycki v. Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc., supra; Medich v. American Oil Company, supra; Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. v. Sugarman, 272 F.2d 679 (C.A.2, 1959); National Tea Co. v. The Marseille, supra; McFarlin v. Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc., supra.
Defendant's motion to transfer is denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.