The Ohio Supreme Court is in the midst of debating the validity of a proposal that could lead to plaintiffs receiving verdicts in their favor in medical malpractice cases, even when the majority of a jury disagrees. The proposal in question centres around the obligations of jurors in negligence cases, more specifically, if jurors must affirmatively answer the first question on a verdict form to progress and vote on subsequent questions. According to Ohio law for a civil verdict to be valid, at least three-fourths of a jury must be in agreement.
The dispute arose from a case involving the estate of Scott Boldman, who allege that a nurse anesthetist’s negligence led to his death. In this case, the estate argued for the flexibility of ‘any combination’ of jurors to influence the verdict considerations, beyond the first question. The implications of this proposal could significantly shift how negligence is approached in court cases.
This issue brings into focus the ‘any majority’ versus ‘same juror’ rules of jury deliberations. The ‘any majority’ rule allows for any combination of jurors to agree on different verdict determinations, while the ‘same juror’ rule requires the same set of jurors to agree on all determinations that contribute to the final verdict.
Several justices of the Ohio Supreme Court have expressed concerns about the potential impacts of such changes on the functioning of negligence cases. There are lingering questions about how this might alter the responsibility burden on plaintiffs and defendants, and how it could potentially shape the dynamics of juries in negligence lawsuits.
For more details on the legal deliberations and reactions from involved parties, you can read the full story here.