Demore v. Cuyahoga Cty.
2017 Ohio 5812
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Angelina Demore, a Cuyahoga County employee, slipped on April 27, 2011 and claimed workers’ compensation for bilateral knee injuries; initial allowances included a patellar contusion and right quadriceps strain, with later claim for right chondromalacia and medial/lateral meniscal derangements.
- BWC hearings allowed the patella injury but disallowed the meniscal injuries; Demore appealed to the common pleas court and refiled after a voluntary dismissal, demanding a jury trial.
- At trial, the parties jointly proposed interrogatories; the county requested a general verdict form but the trial court refused and instructed the jury to answer only the interrogatories, stating the court would enter judgment based on those answers.
- The jury (unanimous on diagnosis; six of eight on causation) answered the interrogatories finding derangement of both menisci and proximate causation for both; the trial court entered judgment for Demore allowing participation for the two body parts.
- The county appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not submitting a general verdict form and by entering judgment based solely on interrogatory answers (i.e., effectively a special verdict). The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether submitting only interrogatories and refusing a general verdict violated Civ.R. 49 | Interrogatories were sufficient; court could enter judgment based on answers | Refusal to submit a general verdict form and entering judgment from interrogatories created a prohibited special verdict in violation of Civ.R. 49 | Reversed: court erred by not submitting a general verdict; interrogatories must be accompanied by a general verdict under Civ.R. 49 |
| Whether entering judgment solely on interrogatory answers (no general verdict) is permissible | The court’s entry based on consistent interrogatories was acceptable and outcome-certain | Entering judgment on interrogatories alone is the practice of special verdicts, abolished by Civ.R. 49(C); compliance is mandatory and error is reversible | Reversed and remanded for new trial; formation of a special verdict is forbidden and per se reversible error (failure to comply with Civ.R. 49 is reversible) |
Key Cases Cited
- Schellhouse v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 520, 575 N.E.2d 453 (1991) (holding submission of interrogatories without directing jury to return a general verdict constituted prohibited special verdict)
- Calmes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 470, 575 N.E.2d 416 (1991) (Civ.R. 49 requires juries to return general verdicts even if interrogatories are used)
- Phillips v. Garfield Hts., 85 Ohio App.3d 413, 620 N.E.2d 86 (8th Dist. 1992) (trial court erred by rendering judgment based solely on interrogatory answers without a general verdict)
- Coleman v. Excello-Textron Corp., 60 Ohio App.3d 32, 572 N.E.2d 856 (1989) (interrogatories are typically used to test the correctness of a general verdict)
- Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 167 F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1948) (describing a special or fact verdict as setting forth jury findings of fact)