The Court ruled that in a civil lawsuit, only the jurors who find a person acted negligently can vote to determine if that person is at fault for causing the plaintiff’s injuries.

The Court ruled that in a civil lawsuit, only the jurors who find a person acted negligently can vote to determine if that person is at fault for causing the plaintiff’s injuries.

In Ohio civil lawsuits, only the agreement of three-fourths of the jury members is required to reach a verdict. For negligence cases where jurors vote step-by-step to reach a decision, only the jurors who find a person acted negligently can vote to determine if that person is at fault for causing the plaintiff’s injuries, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court stated the “same-juror rule,” not the “any-juror rule,” applies to negligence cases. The Court reversed a Second District Court of Appeals ruling, which found that the any-juror rule should have been used in a medical negligence and wrongful death lawsuit filed against Good Samaritan Hospital and other medical providers.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy explained that in negligence cases, it would be illogical if a juror who found a defendant did not act carelessly was then allowed to vote on whether the defendant’s actions were the cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

“Consequently, the same three-fourths of the jurors must concur on all elements for a verdict finding a defendant liable for negligence to be valid,” she wrote.

Today’s decision reinstated a Montgomery County Common Pleas Court jury verdict in favor of the hospital system and the providers. In that case, the same six jurors who agreed that a nurse anesthetist was negligent when caring for a patient, did not agree she caused the patient’s death.

Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly, and Joseph T. Deters joined the chief justice’s opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Jennifer Brunner wrote the same juror rule has been applied in Ohio for a narrower set of “comparative negligence” cases when jurors must first decide if both the plaintiff and defendant share some fault in causing an injury. The majority is disregarding 30 years of precedent by expanding the same juror rule to all negligence cases, she stated. She wrote in “pure negligence” cases where only the defendant is being blamed for causing the injury, all jurors should vote on all issues presented to the jury.

Justice Melody Stewart joined Justice Brunner’s dissent.

Man Dies Following Emergency Surgery
In December 2017, Scott Boldman went to Good Samaritan North Health Center in Dayton, complaining of stomach pain. Boldman suffered from several ailments, including morbid obesity, Type I diabetes, and sleep apnea. Boldman was transferred to Good Samaritan Hospital in Cincinnati for an emergency appendectomy.

Boldman’s anesthesia for the operation was administered by Sandra Ward, a nurse anesthetist, under the supervision of anesthesiologist Vincent Phillips. After surgery, Boldman awoke and became combative. Boldman’s family claimed that the anesthesia was improperly handled by Ward and made Boldman aggressive. He removed his own breathing tube, and that removal led to his death, the family asserted. The hospital claims Boldman experienced “postoperative aggression,” and after he removed his breathing tube, he was breathing on his own. The hospital maintained Boldman suffered cardiac arrest, which resulted in a complete lack of oxygen to his brain.

Family Sued Medical Providers
Janet Hild, the administrator of Boldman’s estate, filed a lawsuit against several medical providers, including the organizations that operate the Good Samaritan facilities, Ward, and Phillips.

The case was heard by an eight-member jury. During the jury instruction portion of the trial, the jury was given several written questions called interrogatories to facilitate its decision making.

The first question, Interrogatory A, asked the jurors if they found Ward was negligent in her care and treatment of Boldman. It noted at least six jurors had to agree on the answer before the jury could move on. Six jurors agreed. The next question asked the jurors who agreed Ward was negligent to describe in what way she was negligent.

The third question, Interrogatory C, instructed the jury that only those who found Ward negligent in Interrogatory A could answer the third question. Interrogatory C asked the jurors if Ward’s negligence “directly and proximately caused the injury and death of Scott Boldman.” It also required six jurors to agree on the answer to move onto any other questions regarding liability of the other parties.

As the trial judge was reading the jury instructions and interrogatories to the jurors, Hild’s attorney interrupted and told the judge he believed there was an error with the instructions. When the jury left the courtroom to deliberate, Hild’s attorney again raised concerns with the interrogatories. He stated all jurors should be able to answer every interrogatory.

The trial court disagreed, and the jury was allowed to proceed as instructed. The jury ruled in favor of the hospital. For Interrogatory A, six of the eight jurors found Ward was negligent. Those six jurors then proceeded to vote on Interrogatory C. The six voting jurors did not determine that Ward’s negligence caused Boldman’s injury and death, which precluded a finding of liability against Ward, Dr. Phillips, and the hospital.

Hild appealed the decision to the Second District. The Second District found the same-juror rule imposed by the trial court’s instructions was wrong and that all jurors should have been allowed to vote on all questions. The appeals court ordered a new trial.

The hospital appealed the Second District’s decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Supreme Court Analyzed Jury Rules
Chief Justice Kennedy explained that in 1912, voters approved an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that required a concurrence of three-fourths of a jury in a civil lawsuit to render a verdict. The chief justice wrote the same-juror rule and the any-juror rule are two competing legal theories, and that each has a different view about which jurors must agree on the elements of a claim to reach a verdict.

The principle behind the same-juror rule is that certain issues are so inseparable that it would be illogical for a juror who was not part of the three-fourths majority to vote on subsequent related questions, the opinion stated. In a 1991 decision (O’Connell v. Chesapeake & Ohio R.R. Co.), the Supreme Court adopted the same-juror rule for comparative negligence cases.

In ordinary negligence cases, the jury is asked to decide three separate but related elements -- duty, breach of duty, and proximate cause, the opinion noted. For someone to be found liable for negligence, they must owe a duty of care, they must be found to have breached that duty, and an injury must have resulted from the breach.

The Court stated it would be illogical to allow a juror who does not find a breach of duty to vote on the issue of proximate cause.

“For example, if a jury is composed of eight members,… then the same six jurors must agree on the issues of duty, breach, and proximate cause to render a logical, valid verdict in favor of the plaintiff,” the opinion stated.

The Court noted that applying the same-juror rule does not limit a juror’s ability to participate in the discussion on each element. All jurors can discuss all the issues in the case, the Court stated.

Because the six jurors who found Ward negligent were the only jurors who voted on whether her negligence caused Boldman’s death, the verdict was valid, the Court concluded.

Rule Should Be Applied to Only Comparative Negligence Cases, Dissent Maintained
Justice Brunner took issue with the majority opinion’s dependence on logic to reach its conclusion.  She wrote that logic “is not the north star for reaching conclusions of law, especially when prior precedent points the way.” She explained that, since the 1991 O’Connell decision,local courts have been applying the same juror rule only to comparative negligence cases without any suggestion they are incorrect.

The dissent continued, stating it would not be inconsistent for a juror to find a person caused an injury but was not negligent.

“Accidents happen,” she wrote.

There are scenarios where a juror might be in the minority, not voting to find the defendant was negligent, but if allowed to vote on the issue of cause, could be in the majority finding the person caused the injury. In contrast, a juror could be in the majority finding the defendant was negligent, but also find the negligence did not cause the injury, the dissent explained.

The dissent maintained that under the Ohio Constitution’s right to a jury trial, full juries should be able to vote on all the questions presented in simple negligence cases, such as Hild’s.

2023-1076. Hild v. Samaritan Health Partners, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-3338.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.