Burton v. Unifirst Corp.
2013 Ohio 2330
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Burton appeals after the trial court denied his motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct.
- The jury returned a six-to-two verdict in favor of Unifirst on Burton’s age-discrimination claim.
- Burton alleged Juror No. 1 (foreman) lied during voir dire by claiming he had never been sued.
- Post-trial discovery showed Juror No. 1 had been named in four malpractice lawsuits over 19 years.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial, noting questions were asked to disclose bias and finding no apparent bias.
- The appellate court holds the denial of the motion for a new trial was an abuse of discretion and reverses and remands for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror misconduct requires a new trial when a juror lied during voir dire | Burton argues juror lied about litigation history, justifying a for-cause challenge | Unifirst contends no bias shown and no failure to disclose was material | Yes; court reverses and remands for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Grundy v. Dhillon, 120 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (misrepresentation during voir dire supports for-cause challenge when prejudicial)
- Pearson v. Gardner Cartage Co., Inc., 148 Ohio St. 425 (Ohio 1947) (prejudice via undisclosed information requires for-cause basis)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (standard for nondisclosure and prejudice in voir dire)
- Apaydin v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 105 Ohio App.3d 149 (8th Dist. 1995) (abuse-of-discretion review in new-trial motions for juror misconduct)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio Supreme Court 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial court rulings)