On September 5, 2024, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a ruling addressing the application of the same-juror rule in negligence cases in Hild v. Samaritan Health Partners, deciding whether the defendant-hospital was negligent in its care of the plaintiff. The same-juror rule requires that the same jurors agree on all questions in a verdict form. In fact, the Supreme Court of Ohio noted that a verdict is invalid if the same three-fourths of jurors do not agree on all issues.
This decision contrasts with and declines to apply the any-juror rule, allowing all jurors to vote on every issue, regardless of their votes on preceding issues. Reversing in-part the Second District Court of Appeals decision to grant a new trial based on the application of the same-juror rule, the Court held that the rule applies to all negligence cases where jurors must answer separate, sequential interrogatories to arrive at its ultimate decision. This ruling will have a significant effect on jury deliberations in negligence cases, and trial attorneys should be mindful of its impact going forward.
The Jury Trial & Jury Interrogatories
The jury trial, a fundamental aspect of American jurisprudence with origins tracing back to the Magna Carta, allows litigants to request a trial by their peers to decide the outcome of a lawsuit. Except in rare instances, the final decision rests entirely with the jury, while the judge ensures adherence to procedural and evidentiary standards. Under the Ohio Constitution, a verdict must be supported by at least three-fourths of the jury.
Ohio’s Civ. R. 49 mandates juries to submit general verdict forms by which it will find in favor of the prevailing party. Civ. R. 49(B) further details the process, stating:
“[t]he court shall submit written interrogatories to the jury, together with the appropriate forms for a general verdict, upon request of any party prior to the commencement of argument.”
These interrogatories can address one or more key issues, whether factual or a mix of law and fact.
Interrogatories guide juries through the crucial issue they must decide in a claim. They can also require juries to determine the elements necessary to meet a plaintiff’s burden of proof. If a party believes a jury reached an incorrect verdict, interrogatories can be valuable for the appellate process, as they reveal whether there were errors in the jury’s findings.
Negligence Claims & The Same-Juror Rule
Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, leading to damages. To prove a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must establish the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty to them, a breach of that duty, and an injury that was a direct and proximate result. Consequently, the Hild interrogatories asked:
- Whether the defendant-hospital was negligent in their care of the plaintiff-patient
- In what ways it was negligent
- Whether the jury found by the greater weight of the evidence, that defendant’s negligence directly and proximately caused plaintiff’s injury.
Jurors were instructed that at least six of them must agree on each answer and that only those who answered “yes” to the first two questions could proceed to the following interrogatories, highlighting the “same-juror rule.”
In upholding the application of the same-juror rule, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated, “[a]lthough duty, breach, and proximate cause are separate elements, they are interdependent because they are ‘integrally related in determining ultimate liability’ for negligence.” The Court reasoned, “it would be illogical to allow a juror who does not find a duty or a breach of that duty to vote on the issue of proximate cause.”
Justices Brunner and Stewart dissented, arguing that negligence and proximate cause are distinct questions of fact and, that a party is entitled to have a full jury deliberate on each distinct issue under Ohio Const., art. I § 5. Under this application, regardless of their decision of a preceding issue, a juror would still contribute to the outcome of succeeding issues.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of Ohio’s ruling in Hild strengthens the defense of negligence claims. By requiring unanimity among jurors on each element, the decision prevents a situation where a juror does not find that a party breached their duty of care but was still the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Although all jurors can still discuss the case regardless of their answers to interrogatories, the decision effectively reduces the number of jurors who determine the outcome, hopefully simplifying the deliberation process for defendants.
For additional information regarding the content of this article, please contact KJK litigation attorneys Michael R. Cantu (mrc@KJK.com; 216-736) or Robert E. Zulandt, III (rez@kjk.com; 216-736-7259).