A Dayton Hospital Case Changes How Ohio Juries Decide Negligence: The Same-Juror Rule

Published September 24, 2024 · Ohio Supreme Court

Most people picture a jury verdict as a single vote: the jurors go back, talk it over, and come out with a decision. In a real Ohio injury or malpractice trial, the jury usually answers a series of written questions, one element at a time. On September 5, 2024, the Supreme Court of Ohio changed the rules for how those questions are answered, in a case that began at Good Samaritan Hospital in Dayton.

The decision is Hild v. Samaritan Health Partners, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-3338. It makes plaintiffs' verdicts harder to assemble, and anyone heading toward trial in a negligence case needs to understand it.

What happened at Good Samaritan

On Christmas Eve 2017, Scott Boldman went to Good Samaritan North Health Center with stomach pain and was transferred to Good Samaritan Hospital for an emergency appendectomy. According to the Court's opinion, after surgery he emerged from anesthesia combative and removed his own breathing tube, and he later died. His estate claimed the nurse anesthetist mishandled the anesthesia. The hospital and providers disputed what caused his death.

The case was tried to an eight-person jury in Montgomery County. The jury received written questions called interrogatories. The first asked whether the nurse anesthetist was negligent. Six of the eight jurors said yes. The instructions then told the jury that only those six jurors could vote on the next question: whether her negligence caused Mr. Boldman's injury and death. Those six found that it did not, and the verdict went to the defense.

The estate argued that all eight jurors should have been allowed to vote on causation. The Second District Court of Appeals in Dayton agreed and ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court reversed that order and reinstated the defense verdict.

Three-fourths, but which three-fourths?

Ohio does not require unanimous verdicts in civil cases. Article I, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution allows a civil verdict on the agreement of at least three-fourths of the jury, which is six of eight jurors. The question in Hild was whether it has to be the same six jurors on every element of the claim.

There are two approaches:

• The "any-juror" rule: every juror votes on every question, and any six can make up the majority on each one.
• The "same-juror" rule: the same six (or more) jurors must agree on every element. A juror who votes "no" on one element may still take part in discussing the next one but cannot vote on it.

In 1991, in O'Connell v. Chesapeake & Ohio RR. Co., 58 Ohio St.3d 226, the Supreme Court adopted the same-juror rule for one specific task: apportioning fault between a plaintiff and a defendant in a comparative-negligence case. For more than 30 years after that, as the Second District explained, Ohio's appellate courts generally limited the rule to that apportionment step.

What the Court decided

Writing for a 5-2 majority, Chief Justice Kennedy held that the same-juror rule applies "in all negligence cases in which the jury answers sequential interrogatories that separate the elements of negligence." The Court reasoned that duty, breach and proximate cause are interdependent, and that it would be illogical for a juror who found no negligence to vote on whether that negligence caused the harm. On an eight-person jury, the same six jurors must agree on duty, breach and proximate cause for a plaintiff's verdict to be valid.

The Court added one clarification: jurors who vote "no" on an earlier element are not shut out of the deliberations. They may participate in the discussion of later elements. They just cannot vote on them.

The dissent

Justice Brunner, joined by Justice Stewart, dissented. She wrote that the majority "upends more than 30 years of precedent" and erodes the right to a trial by a full jury. In her view, negligence and proximate cause are separate questions, and it is entirely reasonable for a juror to find that a defendant was not careless but still consider what caused an injury, or to find carelessness that did not cause the harm. She would have affirmed the new trial.

Why this makes plaintiffs' verdicts harder

The math is the problem. Under the any-juror rule, a plaintiff needed six votes on each question, and the six could differ. Under the same-juror rule, every "no" vote on negligence permanently removes that juror from the causation vote. If two jurors find no negligence, the plaintiff then needs all six remaining jurors to find causation. One more holdout, and the case is lost.

The burden falls hardest on injured people, because the plaintiff carries the burden of proof on every element.

The rule is not always one-sided. In O'Connell, the Court gave an example of how letting jurors who found no fault on the plaintiff's part still vote on the plaintiff's percentage of fault could wrongly push a plaintiff over 50 percent and wipe out recovery. The same logic now applies across the whole negligence verdict. But in a typical malpractice or crash trial, where the plaintiff must win every question, the new rule raises the bar.

What this means for trial strategy

This is the kind of decision that does not make headlines but changes outcomes. It affects:

• How verdict forms and interrogatories are drafted. The order and wording of the questions, and whether the elements are separated at all, now matter even more.
• Jury selection. With less room for disagreement, identifying jurors who will not give a fair hearing to an injury claim becomes more critical.
• Settlement value. Insurers and hospital defense lawyers know the same-juror rule makes plaintiffs' verdicts harder to reach, and they will price that into their offers. The answer is a case prepared so thoroughly on negligence and causation that it holds together across the whole jury.
• Comparative-fault questions. Juries still assign percentages of fault under Ohio's apportionment statute, as our post on how Ohio's fault-apportionment rules work explains.

What this means for you

If you have a serious personal injury or wrongful-death claim, the Hild decision is one more reason to choose a lawyer who actually tries cases and knows how verdict forms are built, not one who only settles. Our guide chapter on what your case is worth explains how fault and damages are decided, and our wrongful death page explains how families pursue claims after a loss. You can read about my background, including 19 years with the Dayton Police Department before practicing law, on our about page.