dissenting.
Today, this Court has again revised the test for change of venue petitions based on forum non conveniens. While I agree with this revised test, I believe that Appellees should have the opportunity to meet the test, and therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
In Okkerse v. Howe, 521 Pa. 509, 556 A.2d 827 (1989), this Court set forth the test to decide a change of venue petition on grounds of forum non conveniens. We stated that the trial court should not deprive a plaintiff of his or her original choice of forum
“unless the defendant clearly adduces facts that ‘either (1) establish such oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant as to be out of all proportion to plaintiffs convenience ... or (2) make trial in the chosen forum inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court’s own private and public interest factors’ [but] unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”
Reyno v. Piper Aircraft, Co., 630 F.2d 149, 159 (3d Cir. 1980), citing Koster v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947) and Gulf Oil v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947).
Id. at 518, 556 A.2d at 832. Only two years ago, we reaffirmed this standard in Scola v. AC & S, Inc., 540 Pa. 353, 657 A.2d 1234 (1995). Nonetheless, I agree with the Majority that “[u]nfortunately, our inclusion in Scola of the ‘test’ set forth in Okkerse was ill-advised. The obvious confusion created in the lower courts regarding the inquiry which a trial court must conduct in ruling on a petition to transfer venue pursuant to Rule 1006(d)(1) requires our consideration.... ” Majority op. at 161. As the Majority points out, the second prong of the test, a court’s own private and public interest factors, is not an appropriate consideration pursuant to Rule 1006(b)(1).
However, considering that the Okkerse-Scola test was “ill-advised” and created “obvious confusion”, we can hardly fault the learned trial court for its decisions. In granting Appel*216lees’ petitions to transfer venue, the trial court relied primarily on its own private and public interest factors. Because only now have we clearly decided that a court may no longer weigh these factors in its Rule 1006(d)(1) analysis, fairness dictates that we should remand these cases to the trial court so that it may determine if Appellants’ choice of forum was oppressive and vexatious, which is the only remaining prong of the newly truncated OkJcerse-Seola test. The Majority states that Appellees may meet this standard by establishing on the record that trial in the chosen forum is oppressive because “trial in another county would provide easier access to witnesses or other sources of proof----” Majority op. at 162. Appellees have a legitimate prospect of demonstrating this since in each case the parties and a majority of the witnesses and other sources of proof are located in Bucks County.1 Additionally, this result will not trigger the Majority’s concerns regarding burdensome evidentiary hearings or dilatory tactics. See Majority op. at 162 n. 8. Only those cases pending on appeal where this issue has been properly preserved would be eligible for relief, and from this date forward the members of the bar will have notice of the proper standard for a change of venue petition pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1). Because the Majority is unwilling to grant Appellees the opportunity to satisfy that standard, I must respectfully dissent.
FLAHERTY, C.J., joins the Dissenting Opinion.. The obvious question here is why have Appellants chosen to pursue their personal injury actions in Philadelphia County when Bucks County clearly appears to be the more convenient forum. Perhaps the perception that Philadelphia juries are more generous than those in Bucks County has influenced Appellants' choice of forum.