Baird v. Owczarek
2014 Del. LEXIS 231
| Del. | 2014Background
- Baird sued Dr. Owczarek and Eye Care of Delaware and Cataract and Laser Center after LASIK procedures caused post-LASIK ectasia requiring DALK.
- Baird alleged negligent initiation of surgery; he later withdrew an informed-consent claim.
- Trial lasted eight days; verdict favored defendants.
- Juror No. 6 reported misconduct and Juror No. 9 allegedly did internet research during deliberations.
- Trial court denied a new-trial motion without investigation, despite alleged egregious juror misconduct.
- Court reverses for new trial, holding failure to investigate internet research violated constitutional and evidentiary principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror internet research is an egregious circumstance triggering prejudice presumption | Baird -- internet research by Juror 9 created extrinsic influence | Owczarek/Defendants -- evidence insufficient to show prejudice | Yes; presumption of prejudice applies and requires investigation |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by not investigating alleged juror misconduct | Baird -- mandatory investigation under 606(b) after egregious conduct | Defendants -- no detailed showing of actual content; no investigation needed | Yes; investigation mandatory and failure reversible error |
| Whether informed-consent evidence was improperly admitted after withdrawal of that claim | Baird -- consent forms are irrelevant once claim withdrawn | Owczarek -- consent evidence relevant to pre-surgery context | Yes; inadmissible and prejudicial; should have been excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Claudio v. State, 585 A.2d 1278 (Del. 1991) (Delaware right to jury trial and trial-by-jury history)
- Storm v. NSL Rockland Place, LLC, 898 A.2d 874 (Del. Super. 2005) (juror misconduct and investigation standards in Delaware)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1934) (extrinsic prejudice and jury exposure to outside facts)
- Black v. State, 3 A.3d 218 (Del. 2010) (limitations on juror testimony and 606(b) scope)
- Waller v. Aggarwal, 116 Ohio App.3d 355 (Ohio 1996) (informed consent evidence and jury prejudice considerations)