Background
An Ohio medical malpractice jury returned its verdict in favor of the defendants. Six of the eight jurors found that Ward was negligent in her care and treatment of Boldman. In accordance with the jury instructions, only the six jurors who found Ward negligent proceeded to vote on the issue of proximate cause. On the issue of proximate cause, the jury determined that Ward’s negligence did not directly and proximately cause Boldman’s injury and death.
Under the Ohio Constitution, “[t]he right of trial by jury shall be inviolate, except that, in civil cases, laws may be passed to authorize the rendering of a verdict by the concurrence of not less than three-fourths of the jury.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio stated in its September 5, 2024 opnion: “we consider whether the “same-juror rule” or the “any-juror rule” applies in negligence cases. Specifically, we address whether only the jurors who find negligence, i.e., the jurors who find that the defendant had a duty and that the defendant breached that duty, may vote on the issue of proximate cause. We hold that the same-juror rule applies in all negligence cases in which the jury answers sequential interrogatories that separate the elements of negligence to reach a general verdict.”
Same-Jurior Rule
The same-juror rule and the any-juror rule are competing rules of law about which jurors must agree on the elements of a claim to support a verdict. The same-juror rule requires that the same jurors agree on all of the questions comprising the verdict slip. If the same three-fourths of the jurors do not agree on all the issues, then the verdict is invalid.
A major principle behind the same-juror rule is that 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. The same-juror rule has been adopted by courts to prevent inconsistent answers that render a juror’s vote unreliable and invalid.
The most common reason that courts give for applying the any-juror rule is “judicial economy.” Under the any-juror rule, all jurors vote on every issue, regardless of their votes on other issues. Any juror’s votes need not be logically consistent from issue to issue. Jurisdictions that have adopted the any-juror rule reason that it reduces mistrials and delays in the trial process and that the rule is supported by the presumption that each juror will be conscientious and fair in deliberating.
The Supreme Court of Ohio held in the case it was deciding: “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. We hold that the same-juror rule extends beyond
comparative-negligence cases and applies in all negligence cases in which the elements of negligence are put separately to the jurors through interrogatories … Our holding does not limit a juror’s ability to participate in the discussion on each element … jurors who do not find one element of a negligence action are not barred from participating in deliberation discussions about the other elements—they are prohibited only from voting on them … We hold that when jurors are presented with interrogatories that require them to separately decide the elements of a negligence claim, the same-juror rule applies.”
The dissenting opinion stated, in part: “The same-juror rule was judicially created in the context of comparative-negligence cases to avoid obtaining potentially inconsistent answers to interrogatories from individual jurors.
Id. at 233. The rule is applied in comparative-negligence cases because “if a juror did not find that a defendant was negligent, that juror could not cogently find that, for instance, the defendant was 70 percent negligent.” Dillon at ¶ 21. Thus, the same-juror rule applies when the jury has determined that both a plaintiff and a defendant were at fault in causing the injury at issue, and it permits only the jurors who found fault to determine the comparative degree of that fault.”
“This case involves the questions whether there was negligence and whether negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries. These are separate questions of fact to be determined by a jury … The right to a jury trial under Article I, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution entitles a party to have a full jury deliberate on each of these questions. I therefore dissent.”
Source Hild v. Samaritan Health Partners, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-3338.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of medical negligence in Ohio or in another U.S. state, you should promptly seek the legal advice of an Ohio medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us on our toll-free line in the United States (800-295-3959) to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may be willing to help you with your medical malpractice claim.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
