Ohio Supreme Court Decides Debate Between Same-Juror and Any-Juror Rules

On September 5, 2024, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision regarding the same-juror rule versus any-juror rule as applied to civil litigation. The Supreme Court held the same-juror rule applies, which means any jury interrogatories answered after the initial interrogatories deciding liability must be answered by the jurors who found in favor of or against the defendant.

In Ohio, in order to succeed in a civil case, 3/4 of the jury must render the same verdict. Typically, this means six out of eight jurors must find for either the defense or the plaintiff. The jury panel is given interrogatories, which allow the jury to decide whether the defendant was or was not negligent, whether the defendant's alleged negligence caused the plaintiff harm, and the percentage of the defendant's alleged negligence in conjunction with any other defendants. These questions are answered for all of the defendants in an action. If the jury finds that the defendant was not negligent, then they will not evaluate whether the defendant caused the plaintiff's injuries or the percentage of liability. Alternatively, if they do find that the defendant was negligent, then the jury will continue on to the remaining interrogatories.

In Hild, Administrator of the Estate of Boldman v. Samaritan Health Partners et al., during the trial of the medical malpractice action, Plaintiff's Counsel disagreed with the language in the jury interrogatory instructions, which stated: "After answering Interrogatory B, please proceed to Interrogatory C. Only those jurors who answered 'Yes' to Interrogatory A are qualified to participate in answering Interrogatory C." Specifically, Plaintiff's Counsel believed that each juror should be allowed to answer all interrogatories, and the fact they may not have found the defendant negligent does not mean they could not find the defendant caused the decedent's injuries. The Court noted the objection, but did not change the jury instructions. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, which prompted Plaintiff to file a motion for a new trial. Plaintiff's motion was denied, and she appealed the decision to the Second District Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the Second District held that the jury instructions should have allowed all jurors to evaluate negligence and causation, and the Court's failure to let them decide both issues was not harmless. The case was remanded for a new trial by the Second District. Before it could be remanded, Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

The Supreme Court outlined the thought behind both the same-juror rule and the any-juror rule. The same-juror rule should apply because "certain issues are so inseparable or interdependent that it would be illogical to allow jurors who do not agree with the majority on one issue to 'vote on subsequent [related] issues as if they agreed with the majority.'" However, the any-juror rule promotes judicial economy by reducing mistrials and delays in the trial process. However, the Supreme Court ruled the same-juror rule must apply in civil cases as the issues of duty, breach, and proximate cause, although separate, are so intertwined and directly relate to the overall issues of negligence. The Supreme Court stated it would be "illogical" to allow a juror to find there was no duty or breach of the duty, but then find the defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

The Supreme Court did state this does not limit the jurors' ability to participate in discussions about subsequent issues even if they found there was no negligence. They are only prohibited from voting on the subsequent issues.

I completely agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation and overall ruling. It would be illogical for a juror to find that a defendant was not negligent but then also find the defendant caused the plaintiff's injuries. It is well established that in order to be found liable for a tort, a judge or jury must find in favor of plaintiff on all elements of a tort claim, including duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages. Thus, if a juror believes there was no negligence, then there is no negligence to ultimately cause the plaintiff's injuries.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this decision. Do you agree that the same-juror rule should apply, or do you think the Supreme Court should have held the any-juror rule should apply?