2017 Ohio 7846
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Five-year-old Seth Cromer was treated at Children’s Hospital Medical Center of Akron for an ear/viral infection, developed septic shock, suffered cardiac arrest, and died on January 14, 2007.
- The Cromers sued the hospital for medical malpractice alleging improper treatment of septic shock caused Seth’s death; defense argued a preexisting heart defect caused death.
- At trial the jury returned answers to written interrogatories: it answered “No” to negligence (Interrogatory 1), then—contrary to instructions—notwithstanding that answer also answered Interrogatory 3 that causation was not proven. The jury returned a general verdict for the hospital.
- The Cromers moved for a new trial on multiple grounds including that the jury interrogatory answers were inconsistent; the trial court denied the motion.
- This appeal reached the Ninth District after prior reversals and remands by the Ohio Supreme Court; on remand the only remaining issue was whether the interrogatory answers were inconsistent such that a new trial was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury’s written interrogatory answers were inconsistent with the general verdict, requiring a new trial | Cromer argued the jury improperly answered causation after finding no negligence, making the interrogatories internally inconsistent and irreconcilable with the verdict | Hospital argued the interrogatory answers and general verdict were consistent: jury found no negligence and no causation, so no conflict; challengers must show irreconcilable inconsistency | Court held no inconsistency: special findings of no negligence and no causation match the general verdict for defendant; Cromers forfeited anything beyond plain error and did not show plain error; new trial denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 69 Ohio St.3d 611 (1994) (purpose of interrogatories is to test jury reasoning and avoid conflict with verdict)
- Otte v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 37 Ohio St.3d 33 (1988) (court should attempt to reconcile verdict and interrogatory answers when reasonably possible)
- Becker v. BancOhio Nat. Bank, 17 Ohio St.3d 158 (1985) (party challenging a general verdict must show special findings are inconsistent and irreconcilable with the verdict)
- Prendergast v. Ginsburg, 119 Ohio St. 360 (1928) (establishes burden on party challenging verdict to prove inconsistency)