## Facts

- A Japan Air Lines Boeing 747 crashed in Japan on August 12, 1985, killing 520 people, mostly Japanese nationals.
- Personal representatives for multiple estates filed eight wrongful-death actions in Washington against Boeing and Japan Air Lines on behalf of estates of 71 Japanese nationals and 8 non-Japanese nationals.
- The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes and assigned to one superior court judge.
- Boeing moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds and offered that, if refiled abroad, it would not contest liability.
- The trial court bifurcated liability and damages, ordered liability to be resolved in Washington, and deferred the forum non conveniens decision on damages.
- Based on Boeing’s admissions, the court entered judgment on liability against Boeing.
- Boeing then sought dismissal on forum non conveniens as to damages claims for Japanese plaintiffs only; the trial court granted dismissal conditioned on Boeing’s consent to Japanese jurisdiction, waiver of limitations defenses, and admission of liability for compensatory damages in Japan, with a return-to-Washington provision if Japan could not handle the cases expeditiously.
- Non-Japanese plaintiffs’ claims remained in Washington; Japanese plaintiffs appealed, including on treaty grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by bifurcating liability and damages and dismissing only the Japanese plaintiffs’ damages claims on forum non conveniens grounds after liability was adjudicated in Washington.
2. Whether the conditional forum non conveniens dismissal violated Japanese plaintiffs’ rights under the U.S.–Japan Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held the trial court acted within its discretion in bifurcating the cases and dismissing only the Japanese plaintiffs’ damages claims on forum non conveniens grounds.
- The court held the conditional dismissal did not violate the treaty because it guarantees national treatment (equal access), not immunity from forum non conveniens.

## Legal Principles

- Forum non conveniens dismissal is permitted when an adequate alternative forum exists and private and public interest factors strongly favor the alternative; review is for abuse of discretion (manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or reasons).
- Trial courts have broad authority to manage complex litigation, including bifurcating liability and damages and sequencing rulings to serve efficiency and fairness.
- An alternative forum may be deemed adequate where foreign courts are available and protective conditions (consent to jurisdiction, limitations waiver, liability admissions) mitigate prejudice.
- Treaty-based national-treatment provisions require equal access to courts, not preferential entitlement to a particular forum, and do not displace neutral application of forum non conveniens.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a case-management approach that fixed liability in Washington while conditionally sending primarily Japan-centered damages disputes to Japan, concluding the trial court’s forum non conveniens ruling was not an abuse of discretion and that equal-access treaty protections were satisfied.


Myers v. Boeing Co., 115 Wn.2d 123, 794 P.2d 1272 (Wash. 1990)